12/1 lighting--Any truth or banana in the tail pipe?

[Asentrouw]

As I probably don't get a coherent answer anyway;

I have my reservations by how "saturated" a plant can be from 20.000 lumens light in a limited light spectrum, while in its natural habitat its subjected to over 127.000 lumens solarspectrum.

I'm all in favor for a dark period. But as far as I know the "dark cycle" is light-independent. These plant processes find place wether the lights are off or on.

 

[RequiredUsername]

That's why I say if 12-1 gives you great results stick with it. I like 16 on 8 off better in veg [say "an optimal grow day in Kabul"]

You think there is 16 hours of intense light there for cannabis.

 

[RequiredUsername]

Something I watch out for after flipping under led is foliage looking limp before the light goes off, @usernamerequired has that got anything to do with what you're talking about?

Yes. When your plant goes limp, it's in photoprotection. It's doing nothing. Pounding with more light is useless waste and stressful for the plant.

Watch for when it goes limp, note how many hours it took. Then you can set your timer for this amount of time. That's all the light it will need.

You'll notice that the limp plants are holding their branches and leaves up high after resting in the dark when the light comes back on.

Good direct observation.

This is the way a craft or hobbyist grower can determine when photoprotection happens. Congratulations!

Now you can start saving money by what you just learned, and have healthier plants!

It doesnt take a scientific instrument to monitor the cells in the leaf. Inspecting your plants a d developing a relationship with them, you can "read" what the plant is telling you. It's how we look for nutrition deficiencies too, right? I notice chlorosis, or brown tips. That's visual clues just like drooping branches and leaves.

And by the way... keep experimenting with your dark period in your , like you noticed a one hour difference can be noticeable. When you are ready, try 8 on 16 off with sativas or hybrids. 6 on 18 off with indicas.

 

[Ca++]

Yes. When your plant goes limp, it's in photoprotection. It's doing nothing. Pounding with more light is useless waste and stressful for the plant.

Watch for when it goes limp, note how many hours it took. Then you can set your timer for this amount of time. That's all the light it will need.

You'll notice that the limp plants are holding their branches and leaves up high after resting in the dark when the light comes back on.

Good direct observation.

People are looking up 'photoprotection' as you requested, but you really need to yourself. Dropping plants isn't a visual marker of photoprotection. Photoprotection is like sunglasses. It's the colours that come out in response to the cold or UV.
You are closer to photoinhibition. A regulatory process that should still have no observable signs.
If these fail, you have damage. Limp leaves are damage. Likely from oxidization, as the act of photosynthesis creates oxygen species that must be removed. It's the main problem associated with excess photosynthesis. Though 'limp' might mean different things.



Night break lighting isn't new. It's very useful to get a decent veg time, in equatorial areas, that don't have long enough days to veg properly. Sometimes greenhouse growers start plants earlier than outdoor growers, when the days may be too short. So again, night break is a useful tool. I started this paragraph with " isn't new " as we should consider adoption rates. Those adopting this, tend to want to slow veg, but not get the spindly growth of low light. There are actually many schedules that will stop the reproductive cycle, keeping us in veg. It's interesting to hear of these, and how they suit certain growers needs. For me though, it's a bit like a visit to the curiosity shop.

I liked how an earlier poster gained from a strong preflower response. They were acting like on a 15h day. Not fully in veg, but mostly in veg, with reproductive traits showing strongly. Then at flowering time, they turned very quickly, as they had a headstart. Overall they flowered as long, but that early start was helpful.
I don't know if the hour at night wasn't bright enough, or used defeating far red, but the balance of veg:bloom traits, was what it was. The bloom cycle was 11/13 but really looks like 13/11. Perhaps some confusion there. Or flowering indica like sativa didn't display the usual consequences. Due to the headstart.
It's interesting, but I'm not seeing any magic. DLI and plant growth are linked, in a fundamental way. Though I'm constantly draw to the transition aspect of growing indoor. Straight from grow to bloom, with no middle ground. The plants must sit a week under 12/12 thinking they are still in veg, but not getting the light they need. Then realise they must bolt for supremacy, under days that again, are shorter on DLI than if they did this outdoors. This is a time for building strong supportive frames, and we rush them through it. As my mind hoovers up snippets from all corners, I just feel stronger about this.

Back to topic.

 

[RequiredUsername]

People are looking up 'photoprotection' as you requested, but you really need to yourself. Dropping plants isn't a visual marker of photoprotection. Photoprotection is like sunglasses. It's the colours that come out in response to the cold or UV.
You are closer to photoinhibition. A regulatory process that should still have no observable signs.
If these fail, you have damage. Limp leaves are damage. Likely from oxidization, as the act of photosynthesis creates oxygen species that must be removed. It's the main problem associated with excess photosynthesis. Though 'limp' might mean different things.



Night break lighting isn't new. It's very useful to get a decent veg time, in equatorial areas, that don't have long enough days to veg properly. Sometimes greenhouse growers start plants earlier than outdoor growers, when the days may be too short. So again, night break is a useful tool. I started this paragraph with " isn't new " as we should consider adoption rates. Those adopting this, tend to want to slow veg, but not get the spindly growth of low light. There are actually many schedules that will stop the reproductive cycle, keeping us in veg. It's interesting to hear of these, and how they suit certain growers needs. For me though, it's a bit like a visit to the curiosity shop.

I liked how an earlier poster gained from a strong preflower response. They were acting like on a 15h day. Not fully in veg, but mostly in veg, with reproductive traits showing strongly. Then at flowering time, they turned very quickly, as they had a headstart. Overall they flowered as long, but that early start was helpful.
I don't know if the hour at night wasn't bright enough, or used defeating far red, but the balance of veg:bloom traits, was what it was. The bloom cycle was 11/13 but really looks like 13/11. Perhaps some confusion there. Or flowering indica like sativa didn't display the usual consequences. Due to the headstart.
It's interesting, but I'm not seeing any magic. DLI and plant growth are linked, in a fundamental way. Though I'm constantly draw to the transition aspect of growing indoor. Straight from grow to bloom, with no middle ground. The plants must sit a week under 12/12 thinking they are still in veg, but not getting the light they need. Then realise they must bolt for supremacy, under days that again, are shorter on DLI than if they did this outdoors. This is a time for building strong supportive frames, and we rush them through it. As my mind hoovers up snippets from all corners, I just feel stronger about this.

Back to the topic.

Well, there you have it folks. More theories and beliefs on the "special" cannabis only light schedules.

Since we cant move from fact to fact, there is no point in continuing. There are plenty of experts here to speculate about plant biology and make their solid conclusions.

I have no place in this discussion anymore. Nor the desire. Take care folks.

 

[Asentrouw]

You think there is 16 hours of intense light there for cannabis.

Compared to artificial lighting, yes indeed.

Even on a cloudy morning the sun provides a wider spectrum and more lumens - so more light intensity - then any indoor set up can provide by a long haul.

Unlike lamps the sun offers the full spectrum and roughly over 6 times more lumens intensity then any artificial lighting is capable off.

In that regard its like comparing apples with oranges. You cannot compare natural solarpower with artificial lightning one on one.

So the ineffeciency of indoor lighting compared to the sun probably also has consequences for all the plant processes you name like saturation, photoprotection and so on.

So I'm pretty sure a plant in the longest days in Kabul are subjected to much more lumens and radiation then it typically does in a indoors grow.

That's why this is a non-discussion as long as you fail to back up your statements with some hard numbers and data as why 12/1 is the only way to go for the "true grower".

Just tossing some terms around and acting like the self-rightious "great marihuana guru" doesn't change any of that.

 

[little-soldier]

Yes, I know why.

First, because you will blindly follow anyones instructions because you lack the understanding to discern good information from bad information.

Second, 12-1 because it's a normal horticultural technique for growing short day plants. It's simply the right way. You've been brainwashed into thinking cannabis is different than any other long night, short day plant.

More light = more bud? Wrong. More light leads to light stressed plants, more wear on equipment, hotter rooms, more bugs, more water evaporating, more nutrients, weaker unhappy plants, more cost. You dont have to be a zombie grower. Study horticulture. And for gods sake stop "believing" whoever you got your bad information from.

Look at this picture. It represents what happens outside, on the earth. How much intense light does a plant get in a day?

You have to use your brain now. The days of unconscious following are over. Welcome to the aware group.

normal horticultural way doesnt make it the right way. MOTHER NATURE is the right way. plants never get 12/1 outside, its a bs way to save on money which reflects on the plants structure unless your going to run heaters at night so your temps are the same as day time, your plants will just stretch when the lights are off.
everyone is just trying to make a name and a buck in the game.

 

[little-soldier]

Compared to artificial lighting, yes indeed.

Even on a cloudy morning the sun provides a wider spectrum and more lumens - so more light intensity - then any indoor set up can provide by a long haul.

Unlike lamps the sun offers the full spectrum and roughly over 6 times more lumens intensity then any artificial lighting is capable off.

In that regard its like comparing apples with oranges. You cannot compare natural solarpower with artificial lightning one on one.

So the ineffeciency of indoor lighting compared to the sun probably also has consequences for all the plant processes you name like saturation, photoprotection and so on.

So I'm pretty sure a plant in the longest days in Kabul are subjected to much more lumens and radiation then it typically does in a indoors grow.

That's why this is a non-discussion as long as you fail to back up your statements with some hard numbers and data as why 12/1 is the only way to go for the "true grower".

Just tossing some terms around and acting like the self-rightious "great marihuana guru" doesn't change any of that.

unlike outside, indoor lighting are always at their full potential. Outdoors on the other hand we have bad weather sometimes, clouds, etc. maybe we should make indoor lighting that could simulate those environments by dimming the light every now and then. Maybe plants are not made to have 100% lighting shining on them all the time

 

[RequiredUsername]

 

[Asentrouw]

unlike outside, indoor lighting are always at their full potential. Outdoors on the other hand we have bad weather sometimes, clouds, etc. maybe we should make indoor lighting that could simulate those environments by dimming the light every now and then. Maybe plants are not made to have 100% lighting shining on them all the time

Ofcourse, but with an average of 127.000 lumen a square meter from the sun, as opposed to the 20.000 lumen of an average indoor grow, it means most indoor plants will never receive as intense light and radiation as they would outdoors.

So regardless of cloudy weather, morning- and evening sun it still produces many time more lumen then any artificial light.

Again I'm no expert, but I find it hard to believe this has no impact on the overall plant processes like photoprotection. You cannot simply compare sun with artificial light one on one in terms of spectrum and light intensity.