Actinic 03, 420nm Actinic and Flavonoids production

[Hydro-Soil]

Now that I'm working with Remote Ballast CFL lamps I'm running into a huge variety of spectrum listings for replacement lamps.

I've read that Flavonoid production is enhanced by lighting in the 390nm to 410nm (possibly even 440nm) range and was curious whether anyone has any experience using these as supplemental lighting?

I'm GUESSING that a majority of the medicinal benefit I attain from Cannabis is directly from the flavonoids and not primarily from the THC.

Under that assumption, the addition of lighting in the flavonoid production range should increase the medicinal potency of the buds. No?

So many different lamps to try, so few plant numbers allowed!

 

[magiccannabus]

I would not bet on the idea that it's not the THC doing the medicinal part. Well, it might not be THC exactly, but there's lots of cannabinoids in marijuana. Probably 100+ Focus on cannabinoids!

The main spectrums you want are 420-460nm, 660-680nm, and some people claim that the UV-B range of 270-320nm enhances cannabinoid production. Flavonoids are lovely and all, but they're not psychoactive.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

I would not bet on the idea that it's not the THC doing the medicinal part. Well, it might not be THC exactly, but there's lots of cannabinoids in marijuana. Probably 100+ Focus on cannabinoids!

The main spectrums you want are 420-460nm, 660-680nm, and some people claim that the UV-B range of 270-320nm enhances cannabinoid production. Flavonoids are lovely and all, but they're not psychoactive.

Umm... flavanoids are where most of the pharmaceuticals in the world come from.

And yes, I've run across meds that didn't seem to be very psychoactive but were excellent for my medical purposes. It's NOT the THC that's the primary ingredient for _Me_. Other people will obviously have different results.

I'd really like to run across some side by side grows with a 420-460 dual actinic bulb in the mix.

Sucks that it'll take me another year or so to complete my own research but at least it will finally get done.

 

[bakelite]

Umm... flavanoids are where most of the pharmaceuticals in the world come from.

And yes, I've run across meds that didn't seem to be very psychoactive but were excellent for my medical purposes. It's NOT the THC that's the primary ingredient for _Me_. Other people will obviously have different results.

I'd really like to run across some side by side grows with a 420-460 dual actinic bulb in the mix.

Sucks that it'll take me another year or so to complete my own research but at least it will finally get done.

Hey Hydro, it's me again I don't mean to keep crashing your threads :smile:

I've heard references to people using Ceramic Metal Halides that it can it enhance the flavor etc. They have a nice full spectrum that covers the blue area well. I've also heard discussions about UVB and its ability to increase potency. I know there are people here who supplement using a Reptisun fluorescent or something similar as a source of UVB.

I have been toying with using an actinic or similar (i.e. 7500k, 10000k etc.) purely as a source of blue to somewhat balance the rich red thrown out by HPS bulbs. They produce a very specific narrow range of light that is missing when using just an HPS HID as a light source. Those fluoros seem pretty efficient at producing blue light and it wouldn't take that much (wattage wise) to accentuate it an produce a nice balanced PAR spectrum that the plants should love.

-bakelite

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Hey Hydro, it's me again I don't mean to keep crashing your threads :smile:

I've heard references to people using Ceramic Metal Halides that it can it enhance the flavor etc. They have a nice full spectrum that covers the blue area well. I've also heard discussions about UVB and its ability to increase potency. I know there are people here who supplement using a Reptisun fluorescent or something similar as a source of UVB.

I have been toying with using an actinic or similar (i.e. 7500k, 10000k etc.) purely as a source of blue to somewhat balance the rich red thrown out by HPS bulbs. They produce a very specific narrow range of light that is missing when using just an HPS HID as a light source. Those fluoros seem pretty efficient at producing blue light and it wouldn't take that much (wattage wise) to accentuate it an produce a nice balanced PAR spectrum that the plants should love.

-bakelite

Hey Bakey,

Your comments are always welcome in my threads.

You make a good point there about the fluoros being already a pretty wide spectrum.

I'm curious if the 420nm Actinic bulbs actually stop at 420nm or, seeing as they usually just name it according to it's 'peak' spectrum, if it actually goes a bit lower than that. If so, how far.

Anyone know a place that has completely measured the output of these types of bulbs on all spectrums? (that would be some kick ass info to have around)

 

[magiccannabus]

All light sources that are not monochromatic are rated by what they call "correlated color temperature". This is just a marketing thing. Two tubes could be rated at 6500K, but one could barely be usable for growing and the other could be built just for growing. Most modern fluorescent tubes have 3 phosphors, sometimes 4. Each of these emits a limited spectrum. They aren't quite monochromatic, but they don't cover much spectrum individually.

So color temperature, just like lumens, just like MCD, just like PAR, is alone not necessarily accurate or representative. Nor is some of it even standardized. It's supposed to be, but so many manufacturers just pick and choose what standards they want to use to make their light look good.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

All light sources that are not monochromatic are rated by what they call "correlated color temperature". This is just a marketing thing. Two tubes could be rated at 6500K, but one could barely be usable for growing and the other could be built just for growing. Most modern fluorescent tubes have 3 phosphors, sometimes 4. Each of these emits a limited spectrum. They aren't quite monochromatic, but they don't cover much spectrum individually.

So color temperature, just like lumens, just like MCD, just like PAR, is alone not necessarily accurate or representative. Nor is some of it even standardized. It's supposed to be, but so many manufacturers just pick and choose what standards they want to use to make their light look good.

Interesting. Jives completely with my experience in manufacturing, advertising and R&D. LOL

Nice that you put it so succinctly Thank you.

So..... what type of equipment is necessary to test lights for that "Optimum Growing" range? I'm surprised that nobody has broken out the equipment already and listed all the current bulbs and their stats. Hrmmmmm.

 

[magiccannabus]

Unfortunately due to medical issues and lack of money I don't have all the equipment to test things that I would like. Optimum growing ranges are pretty defined though, even for cannabis. Back before it was illegal, the gov did a lot of studies on it, and there's a huge wealth of information as a result.

These days most of the truly useful medical info about pot comes from Spain for some reason. Not sure why. Canada is also one of the more innovative countries out there pot-wise. I would not be surprised at all if you can dredge up some actual lab data from at least one of those sources...

Just bear in mind it's a plant, with the same basic chlorophyll in it as say.. a tomato or something. In fact, whatever lighting conditions work best for a tomato will pretty much work wonderfully with cannabis. Since in so many ways cannabis and tomato plants are similar(their vegetative growth structure for example). So the tomato fanatics out there probably have some great data too.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Just bear in mind it's a plant, with the same basic chlorophyll in it as say.. a tomato or something. In fact, whatever lighting conditions work best for a tomato will pretty much work wonderfully with cannabis. Since in so many ways cannabis and tomato plants are similar(their vegetative growth structure for example). So the tomato fanatics out there probably have some great data too.

For some strange reason I don't think there are too many folks growing tomatoes under CFL lighting. LOL

I'll look for the older data and appreciate the reference but I'm looking for data on the CFL lamps that are available now. (None of those were around back then.)

I guess I'll just have to finish my double E&F cab with twin flowering chambers running off the same res and start doing my own testing. LOL

I'll be sure to post the results in about 4 years when I'm finished.

 

[magiccannabus]

Google dude, I think you'll be stunned how many indoor growers there are that don't even grow pot. Some of those orchid and tomato growers are really hardcore. You'd be surprised!