Cannabis, the effect from increasing photo-period by only 15 or 30 min.

[Beta Test Team]

LSWM and others interested in the thread topic, here's a study from Potter and Duncombe that looks at PAR watts (irradiance) as well as power consumption (lamp watts, as Cannabis growers use it), as effecting Cannabis growth and yields. This, like the other study I posted, is helpful when we consider how photoperiod effects DLI, and how DLI (total radiation per day) effects plant growth and yields.

This is pretty interesting, and provides insight to some of the results from the thesis of Potter's I posted originally.

Though Potter really bothers me when he makes unsubstantiated claims that most Cannabis growers steal electricity, so that's why Cannabis growers use the irradiance we do. He likes to paint all Cannabis growers as criminals, except for himself, of course (the same holds true with many of our peers in academia that work with Cannabis).

 

[stihgnobevoli]

I think it's pretty clear there is going to be no agreement on what he wrote unless he comes in and explains what he means (he's far too ambiguous), but even then, there will likely not be agreement on his claims (which are pretty bold, and the whole "angles" thing is has little to no basis in science).

Regardless, his claims have been all this thread has been about for many pages, which is a shame...

i believe his angles suggestion is in relation to how the position of the sun in the sky changes during the day and time of year. vs how indoors the light is always in one position. either horizontal over head (12 noon) or in a vert position (early morning or late after noon)/

 

[bombadil.360]

i believe his angles suggestion is in relation to how the position of the sun in the sky changes during the day and time of year. vs how indoors the light is always in one position. either horizontal over head (12 noon) or in a vert position (early morning or late after noon)/

the angle of the light not only relates to that, but actually more importantly in relation to Latitude.

An Afghan Broad Leaf will behave a lot differently in Ecuador than in Colorado outdoors. Both will express seriously different phenotypes, not only because of the different photoperiod but also due to the angle in which the sun hits the plants.

In Ecuador, the sun will hit the plant at 90 degrees angles, at a constant 12/12 all year round. In Colorado, the angles will be lower.

this is all scientifically proven, and actually must be truly understood and applied to 'harvesting' the light of the sun with solar-panels to generate electricity.

this is also proven in terms of quality and yield... there are sweet-spots on earth for growing the best herb outdoors, where photoperiod for veg and flower are optimal for plant development alongside a good overhead angle of sun-light.

peace

 

[bombadil.360]

and forgot to add: you can acclimatize plants to different latitudes, provided the plant's genes allow it.

after many generations, these acclimatized plants do indeed become unique cultivars in their own right. these facts we can see specially in Colombian and Mexican cultivars, as they have become so unique not only in phenotype but as well as chemotype, even though neither Colombia or Mexico are places where Cannabis is indigenous to.

peace

 

[blastfrompast]

I run all my plants 11/13 (11 light, 13 dark).

I have run my old shotgun skunk sativa leaning girl right next to a Black domina, NL, etc. etc. GrapeApe next to a Kush and the leaves look the same as my buddy who runs the same strains... Mine seem to finish a touch sooner and have tested higher, but I think the tested higher part is just me having them dialed in, and him being a non smoking goof who sticks to his calender regardless of trich matureness

 

[Beta Test Team]

i believe his angles suggestion is in relation to how the position of the sun in the sky changes during the day and time of year. vs how indoors the light is always in one position. either horizontal over head (12 noon) or in a vert position (early morning or late after noon)

the angle of the light not only relates to that, but actually more importantly in relation to Latitude.

An Afghan Broad Leaf will behave a lot differently in Ecuador than in Colorado outdoors. Both will express seriously different phenotypes, not only because of the different photoperiod but also due to the angle in which the sun hits the plants.

In Ecuador, the sun will hit the plant at 90 degrees angles, at a constant 12/12 all year round. In Colorado, the angles will be lower.

this is all scientifically proven, and actually must be truly understood and applied to 'harvesting' the light of the sun with solar-panels to generate electricity.

Could you please cite the science that proves your claim that the angle of photon incidence has such effects on plants in relation to this thread about changing the photoperiod (which has nothing to do with angle of incidence)?

On a side note, if you have such research on angle of incidence and effects on plants (regardless of photoperiod) I would really like to read it, but maybe start a new thread on the topic?

And like I pointed out, the radiation from the sun is comprised of direct and diffuse photons, just like in most grow rooms, and then there's also reflected radiation, so it's always coming from all kinds of angles when hitting the leaves, inside or out.

Your point about solar panels doesn't make sense to me because the only reason they move is to track the sun, so, if the sun stated in one place (like a lamp) the panel wouldn't move and would work better than when they move. Solar panels are a poor imitation of leaves, which use "diaphototropism" action to follow the sun (or any light source).

Leaves track the sun, so the angle of leaf surface relative to the position of the sun isn't like leaves are parallel to the ground.

this is also proven in terms of quality and yield... there are sweet-spots on earth for growing the best herb outdoors, where photoperiod for veg and flower are optimal for plant development alongside a good overhead angle of sun-light.

peace

Can you please cite the science that proves your claim that the angle of photon incidence has such effects on a plants in relation to this thread about changing the photoperiod (which has nothing to do with angle of incidence)?

For what it's worth, I have read at least one study that found light movers do not benefit plant growth, and in fact may hinder growth. I'll see if I can dig it up again, so if someone starts a thread about angles I can post it

P.S. I am only asking about the science you mentioned in relation to this thread, not in relation to what DJ is claiming. DJ's claims should have their own thread...

 

[bombadil.360]

Could you please cite the science that proves your claim that the angle of photon incidence has such effects on plants in relation to this thread about changing the photoperiod (which has nothing to do with angle of incidence)?

On a side note, if you have such research on angle of incidence and effects on plants (regardless of photoperiod) I would really like to read it, but maybe start a new thread on the topic?

And like I pointed out, the radiation from the sun is comprised of direct and diffuse photons, just like in most grow rooms, and then there's also reflected radiation, so it's always coming from all kinds of angles when hitting the leaves, inside or out.

Your point about solar panels doesn't make sense to me because the only reason they move is to track the sun, so, if the sun stated in one place (like a lamp) the panel wouldn't move and would work better than when they move. Solar panels are a poor imitation of leaves, which use "diaphototropism" action to follow the sun (or any light source).

Leaves track the sun, so the angle of leaf surface relative to the position of the sun isn't like leaves are parallel to the ground.


Can you please cite the science that proves your claim that the angle of photon incidence has such effects on a plants in relation to this thread about changing the photoperiod (which has nothing to do with angle of incidence)?

For what it's worth, I have read at least one study that found light movers do not benefit plant growth, and in fact may hinder growth. I'll see if I can dig it up again, so if someone starts a thread about angles I can post it

P.S. I am only asking about the science you mentioned in relation to this thread, not in relation to what DJ is claiming. DJ's claims should have their own thread...

if you need to ask for citations about these things, which are common knowledge, it is obvious you have tons to learn yet.

I have no time to give you a class, much less for free.

if you are truly interested, you can use good old google, where you will find tons of data on the subjects you ignore, where you will even find various calculators for the sun angles' according to latitude, etc... etc... etc...

also, your limited parameters on what is the thread about do not apply, as you do not even understand the inter-relations between environment, phenotype and chemotype very well, which is obvious from your "refutations".

photoperiod is part of environment, as well as light angle, and thus influence phenotype as well as chemotype. environment is king, genes cannot express without it, period. go study now.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Asking for you to back up your claims is far asking you to teach me anything. I am honestly asking for your citations because I'm honestly interested and would like to know more, like I give mine when they're requested with honest intentions.

I and my peers all are biologists, most of us are plant scientists, so I think maybe you're barking up the wrong tree.

What you claim is not common knowledge of plant scientists, which by definition would mean asking for references isn't rude.

My whole point is sun radiation is not direct only, in the ballpark of 1/3 to 1/4 is normally diffuse. So the whole angles of incidence thing kind of is moot point. I thought your references may have shed light (no pun intended) on the matter. My bad for asking.

 

[bombadil.360]

Asking for you to back up your claims is far asking you to teach me anything. I am honestly asking for your citations because I'm honestly interested and would like to know more, like I give mine when they're requested with honest intentions.

I and my peers all are biologists, most of us are plant scientists, so I think maybe you're barking up the wrong tree.

What you claim is not common knowledge of plant scientists, which by definition would mean asking for references isn't rude.

My whole point is sun radiation is not direct only, in the ballpark of 1/3 to 1/4 is normally diffuse. So the whole angles of incidence thing kind of is moot point. I thought your references may have shed light (no pun intended) on the matter. My bad for asking.

nonsense, you are not a biologist and much less a plant scientist, as it is obvious from your lack of education on the subject.

I even gave you a real world example, clear as day, proving why these things are facts and not just theories, i.e: Colombian and Mexican heirloom cultivars.

you are funny as it is you who is barking at the wrong tree... you even do not comprehend that environment rules all, and genes will express themselves in various ways according to specific environments, and guess what? phenotype and chemotype are ruled by genes, and genes ruled by environment, and that is common knowledge to any first year biology student.

you are not asking for citations to learn, you are asking them to challenge facts that you simply ignore.

later kid, go play "biologist and plant scientist" somewhere else.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Sorry, but when you misuse the term "theory" so badly you have zero credibility (it doesn't mean what you think it means). Not to mention you misrepresented pretty much everything I've written. Feel free to mud-sling me like the others, I won't respond to you again.

Hopefully this thread can get back on topic, I thought you were really here to discuss the thread topic, guess not.

 

[browntrout]

Sooooo, How bout them yankees?'

The close up photos of the 2700 year old bud was quite interesting....

BT

 

[Beta Test Team]

And Russia recently discovered 2,500 year old bud with the Siberian Ice Maiden (Princess of Ukok). I want some of that long cured bud, too. (If only it was smokable ).

 

[Dropped Cat]

Photo period and angle of incidence are relational.

Separating the two prevents great indoor NLD results.

Light intensity varies greatly with season and time of day because
of changes in the angle of incidence of the sun’s rays and the distance
light travels through the atmosphere.

As the earth goes around the big yellow thing, both change. Mimicking
this in a warehouse setting is desirable, but hardly economical.

NLD types respond very well to angled light, but no one wants to hang
lights that high overhead.

Citation? Basic science class, middle school.

 

[Beta Test Team]

That is not basic science. Irradiance (what you call "light intensity") is not greatly effected by angle of incidence on the leaf, look up "angle of incidence." The location of the sun is not the same thing as angle of photon incidence (striking leaves).

I have been the only one writing about irradiance (per second and per day) this whole time (except for LSWM)...

Photoperiod is not "relational" to angle of incidence (photons striking leaves).

Please provide one single reference to this claim so many of you are citing, in a new thread, that "angle of light" (angle of incidence photon hitting the leaves) does what you say it does.

Also, I have posted science disproving many claims posted here, yet that claims persist. It's hard to prove something when the person you're trying to prove it to doesn't have a basic grasp of the matters (physics) at hand.

You may want to read my posts in this thread, your suggestion to mimic natural radiation levels throughout the day and season is very likely flawed and likely only serves to reduce yields of bud and cannabinoids: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=293094

 

[bombadil.360]

Sorry, but when you misuse the term "theory" so badly you have zero credibility (it doesn't mean what you think it means). Not to mention you misrepresented pretty much everything I've written. Feel free to mud-sling me like the others, I won't respond to you again.

Hopefully this thread can get back on topic, I thought you were really here to discuss the thread topic, guess not.

yeah, ok Mr. Biologist / Plant Scientist

lets get back on topic.... wait, we cannot discuss phenotype and chemotype changes due to specific photoperiods since you think it is not part of the subject of a thread that wants to discuss said changes due to photoperiod changes...



what can we discuss then?

how to pretend to be a big-shot on-line?

 

[sourpuss]

Where is dj? Guy ever come here? Never seen the man. Anyone ever talk to the man here?

 

[Miraculous Meds]

That is not basic science. Irradiance (what you call "light intensity") is not greatly effected by angle of incidence on the leaf, look up "angle of incidence." The location of the sun is not the same thing as angle of photon incidence (striking leaves).

I have been the only one writing about irradiance (per second and per day) this whole time (except for LSWM)...

Photoperiod is not "relational" to angle of incidence (photons striking leaves).

Please provide one single reference to this claim so many of you are citing, in a new thread, that "angle of light" (angle of incidence photon hitting the leaves) does what you say it does.

Also, I have posted science disproving many claims posted here, yet that claims persist. It's hard to prove something when the person you're trying to prove it to doesn't have a basic grasp of the matters (physics) at hand.

You may want to read my posts in this thread, your suggestion to mimic natural radiation levels throughout the day and season is very likely flawed and likely only serves to reduce yields of bud and cannabinoids: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=293094

Do u realize ur being kind of a dick?

Quit trying to run this thread like u started it. Let people have their opinions without shitting on them like ur the source of correct knowledge. We are here to learn not to be directed by u.

Im about done reading ur posts. lol Just another guy who has a chance to help and share, but is to worried about protecting his ego instead. lol oh well...

 

[Miraculous Meds]

Where is dj? Guy ever come here? Never seen the man. Anyone ever talk to the man here?

about 1 time every 6 months he shows up. Hes on top of a mountain doing some testing and breeding. lol true though!!

 

[xxPeacePipexx]

Interesting thread and study - I have played with non traditional photoperiod and if not for my perpetual I would probably be more inclined to experiment more with my favorite cuts

 

[Miraculous Meds]

Interesting thread and study - I have played with non traditional photoperiod and if not for my perpetual I would probably be more inclined to experiment more with my favorite cuts

don't let perpetual stop u, just track the ones that u put in at the start of the test, that's what I do.