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

[RequiredUsername]

Here we can agree. Everything that's commercial is corrupted and money driven. No different in the "canna scene".

That's why I don't need all those overpriced flashy supernutes and ferts with colourfull labels. I re-use my soil and only amment it with homemade wormcompost, cheap NPK meals and some molasses based liquid ferts if needed. Works like a charm, costs next to nothing.

But its not "they" who convinced me, its my own experiences with 12/1.

These lightschemes are used by cash croppers stashing the coffeeshops for decades now. If they run huge growing operations - illegal or legal like Bedrocan - they probably found out by now which lightschemes are the most efficient. Simple matter of profit maximalisation for those guys.

So I don't need to re-invent the wheel. As far as I know 12/1 is the exception rather then the rule, so I believe there is some reasoning and logic behind that.

This linked to my own personal experience - and those of some others in this thread - with slower growth in veg when running 12/1, is why I don't use it anymore. That's just my personal conclusion for my set up, after running several grows 12/1. I'm no scientist,so don't know the exact reasons behind it - I can just guess (temps, light intensity, energy input, reduced light hours, etc.).

So for me there is no "right way". Nothing to do with "greed" or me being a "victim of marketing". I just don't see why I should implement it, if in the end the same light hour input leads to a longer grow for the same yield. I can also just skip the veg all together by taking a sativa-dominant strain going straight 12/12. More then one road leads to Rome...

As I say: to each his own. Just don't act like you are the only one with the holy grail knowledge of growing and the whole world is behind on you. Each grower does what works best for his settings and needs. I'll be the last to be the judge of that.

Your just writing to react, it's not a response. I've never claimed photoperiodism or photoperiodic control. I gave the names credited for the discovery in 1920. The horticultural practices for long night plants I am speaking of began there.

The grow disinformation that cannabis hobbyists get is a totally new creation. It was invented recently, and only for cannabis. That right there should be the first tip off that something is wrong.

None of what you are saying is proving photoprotection in plants to be false.

Your arguement is your grows, at your conditions, at your ability level of that time. I value direct experience highly myself! But we must not fail to apply doubt to our own experiences, thoughts, and even memories. Perhaps it doesnt make a difference in all situations. For example, let's say you dont have enough light. Or you have enough light, but you only give 50%. It may take 14 hours for the plant to reach its saturation point. And hundreds of other variables. But we cant speak in a way that covers all variables. We can say, that in good conditions... generally, often, blah blah.

I'm not asking anyone to defend their beliefs. If you are able, try it. If you have good to adequate light and conditions then you could save money. Be more environmentally friendly. Maybe even have some extra resinous thicker buds. You stand to gain more than you would lose especially long term. And you wont be so gullible next time when it comes to something else. Maybe buying your next lamp. You got to watch for the bullshit. Because you now know it's coming. You know it's coming.

You have done it your way. Try this way.

 

[RequiredUsername]

Hey bud, tbh idk im a basic grower keeping it simple, I did google the subject though to check it out.

It makes sense that plants could protect themselves?
I only read the short google version and I was thinking why does bleaching occur if plants have the ability to switch off?

Your interest or search for knowledge is good. Good luck to you in your horticultural studies!

Light stress? Study chlorosis. But to attempt to answer your question briefly, hold a bottle of water at arms length. For as long as you can. How long can you do it? Feels like 50 pounds after a while. Eventually something will give out. That's one possibility.

Then other variables come into play. What type of light frequency, what light pressure, nutrients blah blah. It may be interesting to you that a protective measure the plant has is to move the cells in the leaf. But of course this movement is limited to the space available in the leaf.

You get an B+ in research 101.
A for listening skills.

You can know write this into the margins of your cannabis grow guide. They left this part out.

 

[Cannabis Critic]

scholar.google.com
Search for:
S. Chandra cannabis

Please forgive the spoon feeding…

Peace…Jeff

 

[Asentrouw]

The grow disinformation that cannabis hobbyists get is a totally new creation. It was invented recently, and only for cannabis. That right there should be the first tip off that something is wrong.

Cash croppers here running big operations use the same 18/6 schedules before there was internet.

I doubt it all was a big growshop conspiracy to provide desinformation for profits. They make more money on the weed, then on the bulbs.

I'm pretty sure the pioneers who started indoors with it, took their inspiration from horticulture to begin with. That's all I'm saying.

None of what you are saying is proving photoprotection in plants to be false.

Your arguement is your grows, at your conditions, at your ability level of that time. I value direct experience highly myself! But we must not fail to apply doubt to our own experiences, thoughts, and even memories.

You come with some abstract texts about these issues, but no context. That's hardly a discussion.

Nobody here suggested photoprotection and photoperiodism was false to begin with.

Perhaps it doesnt make a difference in all situations. For example, let's say you dont have enough light. Or you have enough light, but you only give 50%. It may take 14 hours for the plant to reach its saturation point. And hundreds of other variables. But we cant speak in a way that covers all variables. We can say, that in good conditions... generally, often, blah blah.

That's why there can't be a "right way" as you seem to suggest. The light schedule depends on all those variables - what works for you, doesn't need to work for me.

What's the ecological and economic difference if I achief the same results with more hours of less intense light = less energy input?

For instance how you determine 12/1 is a good schedule if you don't take into account the before mentioned DLI range (light spectrum, wattage, lumen, whatever)?

So unless you know the exact viables and what they mean for these processes, it's a non-discussion. That's pretty much the whole point I try to make.

I tried it, did not like the result and changed to something else that works better for me (for instance 16/8 and veg under less wattage). I can only talk from personal experience here.

 

[RequiredUsername]

I love that there are people here friendly, aggressive, doubtful, towards me here. Once we get past the conflict reaction and we start ourselves being connected to one another, the discussion begins. I am glad that things flared up and cooled down. This allows space, a darkness for the light to come into.

We have already arrived because questions are arising. Then we can turn that energy we gave nurturing conflict, defensiveness, friendliness, to a different cause.

So we have the phenomenon of photoprotection. That is a fact.

Lets begin with fact, and go forward with facts. Can we go from there? Are we all in this together?