phunkeeboodah
Active member
anybody want an unopened bag of gypsum
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
LED and BUD QUALITY
- Thread starter Tropical Sun
- Start date
weedemart
Well-known member
WRKY transcription factors and ethylene signaling modify root growth during the shade-avoidance response
Low red:far-red shade induces genes in roots regulated by WRKY transcription factors and ethylene, restricting primary and lateral root growth.
academic.oup.com
If you want a real headache , read this article.
Hint: ''Shade-intolerant plants rapidly elongate their stems, branches, and leaf stalks to compete with neighboring vegetation, maximizing sunlight capture for photosynthesis. This rapid growth adaptation, known as the shade-avoidance response (SAR), comes at a cost: reduced biomass, crop yield, and root growth.''
Keep your far red level to minimum
Best supplemental light is either blue or red.
And forget UV
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
None of this seems to have happened when using a spectrum supplemented by near UVA and Far red, no extra stretch. Did you read the article poperly where it says that shade avoidance is mediated thru sensing red/far red ratios AND blue/uva thru the cannopy? Or see any of the study a bit back where they found increase flower yield in cannabis when adding high levels of blue and far red at the same time? Of course far red may look like a dud if you dont look at its interaction with all other parts of the spectrum.WRKY transcription factors and ethylene signaling modify root growth during the shade-avoidance response
Low red:far-red shade induces genes in roots regulated by WRKY transcription factors and ethylene, restricting primary and lateral root growth.
If you want a real headache , read this article.
Hint: ''Shade-intolerant plants rapidly elongate their stems, branches, and leaf stalks to compete with neighboring vegetation, maximizing sunlight capture for photosynthesis. This rapid growth adaptation, known as the shade-avoidance response (SAR), comes at a cost: reduced biomass, crop yield, and root growth.''
Keep your far red level to minimum
Best supplemental light is either blue or red.
And forget UV
If your "no uv" stance come from Bugbee, please realize how flawed his research is; its based on what happens to CBD rich strains when adding a small fraction of uv light and not compensating it with reds/far reds. Cbd and thc are both cannabinoides but they dont react the same on uv and many other factors; you cant use cbd as an analogue for thc. Please provide some source which hasnt already been debunked (weve had a look at most papers though).
Ca++
Well-known member
Was that ethylene being produced, I wonder. Such a thing could help our flowering plant.
I long since read that shade avoidance was a vegetative trait, and that flowering efforts were less important than making it to the light. I had presumed the root system would grow though, not also pause, to prioritise stretching.
It's an interesting balance, where flowering efforts are lessened, yet ethylene might be produced. A kick-starter to flower production.
You do sometimes find that lost little plant in the canopy, that somehow got ahead. I think I'm probably just clutching at straws though.
I long since read that shade avoidance was a vegetative trait, and that flowering efforts were less important than making it to the light. I had presumed the root system would grow though, not also pause, to prioritise stretching.
It's an interesting balance, where flowering efforts are lessened, yet ethylene might be produced. A kick-starter to flower production.
You do sometimes find that lost little plant in the canopy, that somehow got ahead. I think I'm probably just clutching at straws though.
weedemart
Well-known member
UV is the least efficient led wavelenght. Actually blue is way more efficient at keeping the plant tight and it offer over 3umols/J
But the real deal is deep red.
All the source I provided was totally legit.
Where is your source?
I'll try to simply explain you,in my word , why far red is inferior to deep red and why you want to keep it to minimum.
In nature,sunlight spectrum have high red:far red.Plant in shade receive higher ratio of far red than red , because of the shade and the fact that far red penetrate more easily foliage and the red is blocked by foliage.
So in nature, a plant directly under the sunlight receive high red:far red ratio and the opposite happen in shade; it receive low red:far red ratio.
Low ratio of red:far red will trigger the shade avoidance response forcing plant to stretch and expand to reach light. The effort to produce this response is not desirable. Because plant spend energy at creating unmarketable mass.
And now you'll keep arguig with '' yes but if you have blue/uv it will counter the far red effect'' thats true to a certain extend but as you increase blue photon you reduce yield as well and more... you will reduce overall efficiency of your grow light.
Last edited:
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
"And now you'll keep arguig with '' yes but if you have blue/uv it will counter the far red effect'' thats true to a certain extend but as you increase blue photon you reduce yield as well and more... "
Check the sources already stated:
- increased flower yield for increased blue and far red together. Please if you ask for sources at least check the ones given, its not a good look to not even read properly what youre arguing against. Also near UV around 400 has comparable efficiency to blue, those nichia chips are 72 percent efficient, thats on the same level as your beloved deep reds.
Im not even sure what you are arguing anymore, seems like now your talking for far red due to high ppf/w efficiency. Please come back with a clear mind and clarify; are you speaking for or against adding far red? What are you actually arguing. Me im arguing for supplementing uv and red660/730 in good proportions, what are you arguing?
And also note that ppf/w its not exactly the same thing as efficiency, a 3 umol/w UV can be more efficient than a 4/w far red in actual physical and electrical terms.
"So keep think you are smarter than a PhD who work in the industry and has clearly my approval. Been growing for almost 20 years and over 6 years at a high level of knowledge. Bugbee know his shit."
Smart enough to read and understand his UV paper, did you? Did you understand what they tested? If so maybe you can state what it was?
This is pure argument from authority: listen to this dude hes a phd and youre not. If you understood the paper you wouldnt be making this argument, and in any case such arguments are always duff, its not the scientist that matters, its the science in itself and yes this paper is problematic. See if you can find what parts, and if not youre welcome to read a few pages back. Plus the tendency of Bugbee to only generate science with positive results regarding the parts of the spectrum that his newest light meter just included.
Last edited:
weedemart
Well-known member
you tryin to compare him with Bugbee. Do you homework and make some research on Bugbee , just for fun.Please.
Im not speaking for or againts adding far red. I said it, it has his role to play in the par range but it doesnt deserve all the attention it receive. Your plant will perform better with far red for sure but it doesnt mean you need a lot.More than that and it will perform worst . Just the minimum will do the job. Dont spend on supplemental light with far red or UV, just buy a good complete spectrum light with far red. If you want supplemental light , buy another one. That simple and effective, guarenteed.
The best spectrum is withing the epar range, has low amount of far red5%, about triple amount of red45% to blue(15%) photon and just enought green(35%) to see the plant. No UV. You can spend more time on the subject. The guy spent his life. Good luck.
Blue promote photosynthesis, it's proven and it's effective. UV is not. Actually UV is know to do quite the opposite. And you will gain the same effect from blue; it inhibit plant elongation and promote root devellopement
Last edited:
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
"The best spectrum is withing the epar range, has low amount of far red, about triple amount of red to blue photon and just enought green to see the plant.
Blue promote photosynthesis, it's proven and it's effective."
I actually agree about that pretty completely. Id add: leave no plant specific wavelength completely uncovered. Either thru evo 437nm or near uv; you wanna have at least some coverage of the sub 440nm chloropeaks. Maybe some lower UV 365 or UVB on a separate channel and not part of your main spectrum. Weve not seen yield lowered adding up to 10% 400nm.
Youve not adressed Bugbee: what did he test for, with what uv levels and why do you think its so convincing?
Blue promote photosynthesis, it's proven and it's effective."
I actually agree about that pretty completely. Id add: leave no plant specific wavelength completely uncovered. Either thru evo 437nm or near uv; you wanna have at least some coverage of the sub 440nm chloropeaks. Maybe some lower UV 365 or UVB on a separate channel and not part of your main spectrum. Weve not seen yield lowered adding up to 10% 400nm.
Youve not adressed Bugbee: what did he test for, with what uv levels and why do you think its so convincing?
weedemart
Well-known member
400nm is in the par range , you could consider it as late range UVA , but you cant argue it's not closer to blue than UVA?
the real UVA range and UVB , are out of par range which mean no positive effect on photosynthesis. You could argue theres is morphologic adaptation but they are not desirable... And it doesnt contribute to photosynthesis, it act pretty much against it because plant has to spend energy on adaptation instead of thriving.
The only spot that not quite clear to me, thats why I want to experiment it myself.
UVB. Plant cant adapt to UVB. It's a major source of stress for the plant when they receive those wavelenght.I'm an adept of controlled stress to manipulate plant potency. Bugbee thinks it could have effect on biological compound like terpene and cannabinoids. I think it make sense but as he said, it's very hard to dose those photon. You need very little uvb otherwise the negative effect outperform the positive one.
Once again , is UVB is a game changer ? No https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1220585/full
The game changer in EVERYTHING is efficiency.
the real UVA range and UVB , are out of par range which mean no positive effect on photosynthesis. You could argue theres is morphologic adaptation but they are not desirable... And it doesnt contribute to photosynthesis, it act pretty much against it because plant has to spend energy on adaptation instead of thriving.
The only spot that not quite clear to me, thats why I want to experiment it myself.
UVB. Plant cant adapt to UVB. It's a major source of stress for the plant when they receive those wavelenght.I'm an adept of controlled stress to manipulate plant potency. Bugbee thinks it could have effect on biological compound like terpene and cannabinoids. I think it make sense but as he said, it's very hard to dose those photon. You need very little uvb otherwise the negative effect outperform the positive one.
Once again , is UVB is a game changer ? No https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1220585/full
The game changer in EVERYTHING is efficiency.
Last edited:
weedemart
Well-known member
I'll add this.
company is develloping a technique to manipulate plant shape and growth using blue photon and far red, which I was aware of , but they got the project to a new level
Basically. They use far red photon to simulate shade avoidance response which trigger hormonal response in the shoot.Then they shut down the far red photon and turn on the blue photon which translocate all the hormone in the shoot into the rootzone which create natural pathway for root boosting. Ideal for clone. And the results are pretty impressive.
Thats some advanced light manipulation but this is timed and not used at all time.
In those scenario, far red have great value.
company is develloping a technique to manipulate plant shape and growth using blue photon and far red, which I was aware of , but they got the project to a new level
Basically. They use far red photon to simulate shade avoidance response which trigger hormonal response in the shoot.Then they shut down the far red photon and turn on the blue photon which translocate all the hormone in the shoot into the rootzone which create natural pathway for root boosting. Ideal for clone. And the results are pretty impressive.
Thats some advanced light manipulation but this is timed and not used at all time.
In those scenario, far red have great value.
Last edited:
Experts likely all have caveats.
Bugbee does not study high THC cannabis, and he founded a company that sells test equipment such as ePAR meters.
David Hawley studies high THC cannabis, but works for a LED manufacturer.
Gianmaria Magagnini & Stiina M Kotiranta the same.
etc etc
Did not see if this one had been posted earlier, but is on the topic at at hand, the caveat being FINOLA CBD strain:
Bugbee does not study high THC cannabis, and he founded a company that sells test equipment such as ePAR meters.
David Hawley studies high THC cannabis, but works for a LED manufacturer.
Gianmaria Magagnini & Stiina M Kotiranta the same.
etc etc
Did not see if this one had been posted earlier, but is on the topic at at hand, the caveat being FINOLA CBD strain:
Last edited:
weedemart
Well-known member
Bugbee doesnt sell anything except apogee instruments. He doesnt sell grow light or nutrients. But he does offer his recommandation on those subject because thats what he studied for 40 years.
But yeah he finances his research with the money he have and he did accept money from Athena.
So he's promoting a bad nutrients company in exchange he receive money to continue his research
That's legit.
People try to remove merit from other more successfull than them but those people who achieve success elevate everyone else in the first place. Give them at least the credit and if they are wrong , then look for your next guru.
Don't take my post as a criticism of their expertise, just as an observation of the reality of science/research/funding etc.
Even completely self funded research cannot be truly impartial as it will still contain the bias of the independent researcher(s), even if only in the choice of topic they devote their time to.
Science can & should be judged on its merits, these are just things we should be aware of.
72% efficient, and the action spectrum goes well into the UVA range. Remember, @weedemart insisted the flawed Spider Farmer absorption graph above was correct because he didn't notice the 50nm discrepancy. That tells me he doesn't actually know what he's looking at.
Take your pick of absorption graphs to really see what's going on around and below 400nm. Look at that rate photosynthesis at 400nm
^ And this is the problem with a lot of Bugbee fanboi arguments – they don't actually understand the science, so they just parrot everything he writes without question.
That's why he can't answer your question about UV, or explain what the Emerson Effect is.
It's also why he keep contradicting himself about Far Red – he's confused.
@weedemart, what is the second effect of shade avoidance and why does it drive photosynthesis more efficiently?
Hint: You either answer this correctly, which proves all your theories wrong, or you answer it incorrectly, which proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Not much of a choice, is it?
Hint: You either answer this correctly, which proves all your theories wrong, or you answer it incorrectly, which proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Not much of a choice, is it?
weedemart
Well-known member
What I win If I answer correctly?
I dont remember the exact term but It increase the red phytochrome absorption so it make red wavelenght absorption more efficient.
You will notice three things with those strips I sent you with 10% Far Red and 1% UVA:
1. Bigger leaves
2. Faster flowering times (by around 10%)
3. No additional stretch
Once you've finished your first grow with them and can compare them to your usual LED lights, let me know if I'm right or not.
Edit: @Ca++ faster rate of ethylene production = faster flowering (ripening) times.
You get nothing because you have no idea. I've already given you the answer in this thread multiple times, but you still don't know.
weedemart
Well-known member
So considering your observation we should pump far red to 10% and dump blue or red photon to get bigger leaves?
How much a pound of leaves in your area?
Do you think yield correlated with leaf surface area?
Last edited:
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
The exact conditions in the source i linked which you dingied... High blue and far red. Again, did you read or go thru the video or just find reasons why it doesn't matter? Its not a good look to argue for and against the same thing.
I actually agree with you on most youve said about spectrum. But youve not been able to specify why you think Bugbees paper on uv is such a slam dunk. What did he measure? Why do you think it really says no good can come out of uv? Its all about cbd and uv in such small measure im not surprised we dont see effect. It looks like what youd do when you dont want results. Can you speak about the science rather than the scientist and tell us why you find so convincing?
