LED and BUD QUALITY

[weedemart]

Actually he tested both uvb and uva at four different rate, the highest rate was 200% of peak outdoor uv radiation. 50/50 uva/uvb.It did increase cannabinoids but not by a large margin.and at the highest rate it was damaging plants,reducing yield and cannabinoids. So there's an effect but nothing significant and it is not worth your time and your money.same for far red,except if you clone at large scale there's very limited use of far red for average grower.like I said you better invest on a new light.

How I know his research are legit?Because I knew pretty much everything he said in his Athena series and recent research way before he released his work. He didn't invent anything everything was already there but there were no real backed research. he just prove it

We carried mass agriculture for over 50 years you think they didn't think about uv and far red before? If they thought it was value they would be using it. But they are not. Cannabis is no different than other plants.sorry

Edit; in fact it's different on one point, it's fun to grow

 

[Crooked8]

Actually he tested both uvb and uva at four different rate, the highest rate was 200% of peak outdoor uv radiation. 50/50 uva/uvb.It did increase cannabinoids but not by a large margin.and at the highest rate it was damaging plants,reducing yield and cannabinoids. So there's an effect but nothing significant and it is not worth your time and your money.same for far red,except if you clone at large scale there's very limited use of far red for average grower.like I said you better invest on a new light.

How I know his research are legit?Because I knew pretty much everything he said in his Athena series and recent research way before he released his work. He didn't invent anything everything was already there but there were no real backed research. he just prove it

We carried mass agriculture for over 50 years you think they didn't think about uv and far red before? If they thought it was value they would be using it. But they are not. Cannabis is no different than other plants.sorry

Edit; in fact it's different on one point, it's fun to grow

Cannabis requires more oxygen in its root zone than most plants.

 

[Prawn Connery]

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?

Look the leaves and look the stalk. Do you think yield correlated with leaf surface area?

The light used was a generic sylvana hps.

There's probably an ounce of dried, trimmed bud on that plant, so the answer would be yes. Small plant, small yield.

If that's the best you've got to show us, then more's the pity.

 

[Prawn Connery]

We carried mass agriculture for over 50 years you think they didn't think about uv and far red before? If they thought it was value they would be using it. But they are not. Cannabis is no different than other plants.sorry

You carried mass agriculture for 50 years? Again, I call bullshit until we see more than one spindly plant and a failed rockwool grow.

Oh, and indoor growers did think about UV and Far Red back in the days of HIDs – that was the reason they mixed MH with HPS, usually at a ratio of 1:2. You would know that if what you say about your vast experience is true, but I still see nothing from you that proves you're any more than a closet grower.

 

[Rocket Soul]

Actually he tested both uvb and uva at four different rate, the highest rate was 200% of peak outdoor uv radiation. 50/50 uva/uvb.It did increase cannabinoids but not by a large margin.and at the highest rate it was damaging plants,reducing yield and cannabinoids. So there's an effect but nothing significant and it is not worth your time and your money.same for far red,except if you clone at large scale there's very limited use of far red for average grower.like I said you better invest on a new light.

How I know his research are legit?Because I knew pretty much everything he said in his Athena series and recent research way before he released his work. He didn't invent anything everything was already there but there were no real backed research. he just prove it

We carried mass agriculture for over 50 years you think they didn't think about uv and far red before? If they thought it was value they would be using it. But they are not. Cannabis is no different than other plants.sorry

Edit; in fact it's different on one point, it's fun to grow

Do you have a link to that study? Its just not the same as the study i read. Did they study cbd or thc?

 

[dogzter]

There's probably an ounce of dried, trimmed bud on that plant, so the answer would be yes. Small plant, small yield.

If that's the best you've got to show us, then more's the pity.

That was a hilarious pic possibly one of the best yet.

 

[Ca++]

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.

 

[Prawn Connery]

This one. Notice anything wrong with it? Rocket and I did – as did probably everyone else who has seen these types of graphs. Everyone except weedemart who posted it. This is where he gets the idea that Chlorophyll A absorption peaks at 725nm . . . and then proceeds to tell us Far Red is useless.

Disclaimer: Chl A does not peak at 725nm and Far Red is useful. The graph below is 50nm out of scale.

 

[shiva82]

what are the retail prices of your units prawn ? how long is the warranty you offer?

 

[weedemart]

I'll end this ego war with this.

''Experts likely all have caveats.''

 

[Rocket Soul]

I'll end this ego war with this.

''Experts likely all have caveats.''

Fair dues, but you come across like someone more interested in making noise than talking science. But i do see the sense in not pushing this any further, its easy to feel triggered online.

 

[weedemart]

You carried mass agriculture for 50 years? Again, I call bullshit until we see more than one spindly plant and a failed rockwool grow.

Oh, and indoor growers did think about UV and Far Red back in the days of HIDs – that was the reason they mixed MH with HPS, usually at a ratio of 1:2. You would know that if what you say about your vast experience is true, but I still see nothing from you that proves you're any more than a closet grower.

Yeah the bulb were mixed in large setups ''back in the days''.

It was not for UV or far red.

It was for blue photon.


I live in the best place to grow cannabis in the world. Buisness pay like 3cents usd per kwh. We are the place where all the cryptominer want to go lol. We pay almost nothing for water. And producer fail to make a profit! They are far above you in term of finance and they hire multiple PhD just to figure how to make things for efficient.

Once again. Efficiency above everything. Otherwise you fail.

In Canada , especially Quebec, we have the best conditions to make cannabis profitable and with all the tax , theres only a small margin left for producer.1.51$/gram on average is their margin to cover all the process from a clone to packaging , including all the labor and the cost. It's pretty expensive to grow cannabis even at scale.Even with cheap labor.

So after all the cost you can understand they are under water. If you are able to make a profit in this market , you succeded. It could be only a fraction of a cent of profit, you succeded. Not a lot of producer can argue they had success , most of them never turned a profit, they are just scaling the deficit.

And why you think this happen? I'll let you figure why. There's only one or two things that matter in this market to be succesful.

If you take a different path thinking you will create somehow the new standard you better know what you are doing.

 

[Crooked8]

Your ignorance can't be hide.

Yeah the bulb were mixed in large setups ''back in the days''.

It was not for UV or far red.

It was for blue photon.

DUH.

110% if you start a cultivation buisness , in the real market, you fail. DM me , when you do.

Why the hell are you so rude all the time? Calling this guy ignorant and saying they will fail? If the plant you just posted recently showed up anywhere in my garden id call MYSELF a failure. That leggy scraggly incredibly poor example of anything is what you chose to post. You cant show us dogshit and then trash talk someone who has been literally running circles around you. @Prawn Connery i really think you should considering just dropping it with this one. To each their own. You made a valiant effort which i commend you for, but you are talking to a wall. @weedemart humbleness goes a long way, i see you dont care one bit about that, name calling and whatnot, grow the fuck up man.

 

[weedemart]

Why the hell are you so rude all the time? Calling this guy ignorant and saying they will fail? If the plant you just posted recently showed up anywhere in my garden id call MYSELF a failure. That leggy scraggly incredibly poor example of anything is what you chose to post. You cant show us dogshit and then trash talk someone who has been literally running circles around you. @Prawn Connery i really think you should considering just dropping it with this one. To each their own. You made a valiant effort which i commend you for, but you are talking to a wall. @weedemart humbleness goes a long way, i see you dont care one bit about that, name calling and whatnot, grow the fuck up man.

If you cant stand the heat, dont play in the kitchen. I'm not rude. It's not personal. You guys take it personal and that just a sign that you are not confident in your science.

 

[Cvh]

And I want to add to that @weedemart that everyone should treat here eachother with proper respect. I have zero tolerance for rude behaviour especially from people with a month old account. Take my post as a warning. I don't want to see any reports coming in as you have been warned now....

To all, please use the report button if there's anything. The moderating team, super mods and admins can't read all the messages posted on the forum.

 

[Rocket Soul]

If you cant stand the heat, dont play in the kitchen. I'm not rude. It's not personal. You guys take it personal and that just a sign that you are not confident in your science.

Being confident in your science would normally mean that you respond, with actual materia/quotes/studies to what others adress you with. I havent seen that, just arguments that "Im know everything cause my experience, Bugbee research is solid cause his phd, bla bla" but once challenged regarding why you think its so great you youve provided crickets. There may be more papers than one, this is why i asked you above, but the one we went thru, looking at the numbers and statistics of the whole deal looked like he was basing his "uva is no use" on what happens to cbd plants when you go from 0% uva to 0.3% something of uva. Not double the uva dose as you quote, and only using cbd as a corollary for cannabinoides when its clear from other science that this wouldnt be correct. Its based on assumptions, and unfortunately they arent that well thought out; there are situations where cbd and thc works opposite, one goes up while the other goes down as response to the same stimulus. If you have other papers please enlightenment us. If not, then maybe the kitchen is too hot for you.
Read the whole thread, weve been thru the Bugsbee uv research already here.

 

[CharlesU Farley]

If you cant stand the heat, dont play in the kitchen. I'm not rude. It's not personal. You guys take it personal and that just a sign that you are not confident in your science.

Please stop. You're not accomplishing anything. Most of us are here to learn from people who know more than us and no one is learning _anything_ from your posts in this thread.

 

[Crooked8]

If you cant stand the heat, dont play in the kitchen. I'm not rude. It's not personal. You guys take it personal and that just a sign that you are not confident in your science.

You are rude, you define it. But like a child when told something by an adult, your reply is “no im not”. Ive already told you to grow up so ill just say you will get a lot better feedback and substance from this forum if you come from a place of kindness. This is not meant to be a hot “kitchen” man. We dont need back of house toxicity bullshit. Im all too familiar. This is a place for likeminded people to discuss the intricacies of Leds and how to produce the best quality outcome. You're abrasive in most of your replies. Its gotten you nowhere. When you make a point, back it up with more than just your word. Like where did all of those above figures come from? Can you produce anything to show those figures? If not, just keep it to yourself, because it all sounds like BS.

 

[weedemart]

''Ultraviolet photons (UV) can damage critical biochemical processes. Plants synthesize photo-protective pigments that absorb UV to minimize damage. Cannabinoids absorb UV, so increased UV has the potential to increase cannabinoid synthesis. Studies in the 1980’s provided some evidence for this hypothesis in low-cannabinoid cultivars, but recent studies did not find an increase in cannabinoid synthesis with increasing UV in high-cannabinoid cultivars. These studies used low UV photon fluxes, so we examined the effect of higher UV photon fluxes. We used fluorescent UV lights with 55% UV-B (280 to 314 nm) and 45% UV-A (315 to 399 nm). Treatments began three weeks after the start of short days and continued for five weeks until harvest. Established weighting factors were used to calculate the daily biologically effective UV photon flux (UV-PFDBE; 280 to 399 nm). Daily UV-PFDBE levels were 0, 0.02, 0.05, and 0.11 mol m-2 d-1 with a background daily light integral (DLI) of 30 mol m-2 d-1. This provided a ratio of daily UV-PFDBE to DLI of 41 to 218% of summer sunlight in the field. Cannabinoid concentration was 3 to 13% higher than the control in UV treated plants, but the effect was not statistically significant. Fv/Fm and flower yield were reduced only in the highest UV treatment. These data support recent literature and lead us to conclude that an elevated flux of UV photons is not an effective approach to increase cannabinoid concentration in high-cannabinoid cultivars.''

Frontiers | Elevated UV photon fluxes minimally affected cannabinoid concentration in a high-CBD cultivar

Ultraviolet photons (UV) can damage critical biochemical processes. Plants synthesize photo-protective pigments that absorb UV to minimize damage. Cannabinoi...

www.frontiersin.org

Keyword; effective



the interesting part. at the lowest rate of UVB ,cannabinoids concentration jumped 30%. But yield was lower on every UV treatment vs control. Thats in line with the yield dillution theory. You gain nothing from UV in term of productivity , you sacrifice productivity in order to get more ''quality''. That's why it's not efficient. You pay higher price to yield lower. Quality is not only about thc potency.

 

[Crooked8]

''Ultraviolet photons (UV) can damage critical biochemical processes. Plants synthesize photo-protective pigments that absorb UV to minimize damage. Cannabinoids absorb UV, so increased UV has the potential to increase cannabinoid synthesis. Studies in the 1980’s provided some evidence for this hypothesis in low-cannabinoid cultivars, but recent studies did not find an increase in cannabinoid synthesis with increasing UV in high-cannabinoid cultivars. These studies used low UV photon fluxes, so we examined the effect of higher UV photon fluxes. We used fluorescent UV lights with 55% UV-B (280 to 314 nm) and 45% UV-A (315 to 399 nm). Treatments began three weeks after the start of short days and continued for five weeks until harvest. Established weighting factors were used to calculate the daily biologically effective UV photon flux (UV-PFDBE; 280 to 399 nm). Daily UV-PFDBE levels were 0, 0.02, 0.05, and 0.11 mol m-2 d-1 with a background daily light integral (DLI) of 30 mol m-2 d-1. This provided a ratio of daily UV-PFDBE to DLI of 41 to 218% of summer sunlight in the field. Cannabinoid concentration was 3 to 13% higher than the control in UV treated plants, but the effect was not statistically significant. Fv/Fm and flower yield were reduced only in the highest UV treatment. These data support recent literature and lead us to conclude that an elevated flux of UV photons is not an effective approach to increase cannabinoid concentration in high-cannabinoid cultivars.''

Frontiers | Elevated UV photon fluxes minimally affected cannabinoid concentration in a high-CBD cultivar

Ultraviolet photons (UV) can damage critical biochemical processes. Plants synthesize photo-protective pigments that absorb UV to minimize damage. Cannabinoi...

www.frontiersin.org

Keyword; effective



the interesting part. at the lowest rate of UVB ,cannabinoids concentration jumped 30%. But yield was lower on every UV treatment vs control. Thats in line with the yield dillution theory. You gain nothing from UV in term of productivity , you sacrifice productivity in order to get more ''quality''. That's why it's not efficient. You pay higher price to yield lower. Quality is not only about thc potency.

View attachment 18965354

Im a big fan of bugbee, but, again, this is not drug type cannabis. Until the same study is performed on high thc varieties its just interesting. Its not at all worth concluding that UV isnt worth using.