So you're telling me I can use co2 in a room with intake and exhaust and bring it up to elevated levels? I would love to try this but I've never heard of anyone doing it other than in a sealed room
-
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
So you're telling me I can use co2 in a room with intake and exhaust and bring it up to elevated levels? I would love to try this but I've never heard of anyone doing it other than in a sealed room
Ca++
Well-known member
The grow doesn't look bad by any measure.
It's interesting to see it's a certain group of plants. Those more capable of colour. Perhaps looking at the plants as the problem, is better than looking at the room.
My breeding knowledge is basic. Didn't colour come from cold zone plants? Ruderalis used for colour and hardiness. If we look to these areas, the colour is developing about now, as the season ends. These are signs not seen n veg, but late bloom. Putting them very much in the genetic pool of these plants.
As Friar Grey said, with great wisdom "There are plenty more fish to make bread with"
It's interesting to see it's a certain group of plants. Those more capable of colour. Perhaps looking at the plants as the problem, is better than looking at the room.
My breeding knowledge is basic. Didn't colour come from cold zone plants? Ruderalis used for colour and hardiness. If we look to these areas, the colour is developing about now, as the season ends. These are signs not seen n veg, but late bloom. Putting them very much in the genetic pool of these plants.
As Friar Grey said, with great wisdom "There are plenty more fish to make bread with"
Ca++
Well-known member
It's a maths thing. Look at the volume of air coming in, and you can see how much co2 is needed to enrich it to whatever. Many people growing in a tent, exhausting outside, will have elevated co2, because of people in the house. Many homes are 600ppm, without being very well sealed.
I ran a tent in a room, that didn't vent out, but did have the door open, and the window cracked open. The co2 would drop towards 300 in a few hours, until I got home. Then it would be back to 500 quite quickly. A candle would rocket that room past 1000ppm, for quite a few hours.
There is another maths equation I'm more interested in.
greyfader
Well-known member
another way is to have the fans thermostat controlled. they cycle on and off instead of running continuously. this way you inject co2 when the fans go off and stop the co2 while the fans are running.
not all that related to the co2 conversation but if you have two fans you are better off running them both on exhaust and have a large enough passive intake to handle the volume. when you use fans on both intake and exhaust one fan baffles the other fan. even identical fans will have slight differences in volume per time unit.
Ca++
Well-known member
What's the room temperature?
That sounds really cold.
Room ambient temps swing between 76-78, leaf surface temps are typically 2-4 degrees cooler than ambient due to transpiration. Ive run warmer and cooler. For flavor and quality with solid yield this is the way. You could make it a tad warmer and have a slightly bigger yield of less quality. Some monoterps volatilize at pretty low temps i believe.
Ca++
Well-known member
That's interesting. I find nothing much happens at these temperatures. Perhaps you can run cooler, as you use the co2 in the balance. Though trading temperature for co2 would be far from ideal.
I can't remember the details, as I don't concentrate on co2 use. This is the first graph I found though
I don't think either curve is correct. As seen clearly in the non co2 optimum mark being over the curve. Though at the right temperature. Showing they are mashing up data sets, with no idea what they are saying. As with most rubbish we are presented with though, it's the thought that counts
What I recall, but can't find, relates to a 20% drop in output running 25 not 30 with co2. Not just weight, as quality remained the same. Though as with most things, your own testing of your own room is more important than guides.
Your water use is interesting. The gap between leaf and air being just a touch more than I expected, at that temperature. While co2 usually reduces it further. Perhaps its the cooler temps actually keeping the stomata plumped open
I should go and get on with my own grow, but it's much easier to sit here looking at the PC. I must get some cameras
I can't remember the details, as I don't concentrate on co2 use. This is the first graph I found though
I don't think either curve is correct. As seen clearly in the non co2 optimum mark being over the curve. Though at the right temperature. Showing they are mashing up data sets, with no idea what they are saying. As with most rubbish we are presented with though, it's the thought that counts
What I recall, but can't find, relates to a 20% drop in output running 25 not 30 with co2. Not just weight, as quality remained the same. Though as with most things, your own testing of your own room is more important than guides.
Your water use is interesting. The gap between leaf and air being just a touch more than I expected, at that temperature. While co2 usually reduces it further. Perhaps its the cooler temps actually keeping the stomata plumped open
I should go and get on with my own grow, but it's much easier to sit here looking at the PC. I must get some cameras
Last edited:
Ive tested this thoroughly. I run those temps end of flower. Early flower im closer to veg temps like 79-82f. But steadily decreasing as we go. Finally last week of flower ill go down as low as 75f. Ive run warmer and cooler. At warmer temps throughout the cycle at a steady 1200ppm you might see an increase in yield by 5-10% but the quality is really reduced. At slightly cooler temps throughout the cycle you might see a slight bump in quality but yield is sacrificed too much. This obviously depends on a multitude of factors, mainly strain selection but for our og and truffle dominated room they like it a touch cooler. If i ran solely sativas id probably bump temps up a touch but 12 week strains just are literally unaffordable to run in my market. The chart is alright but i dont think people need to run at 85 degrees with co2 enrichment, as a matter of fact i think it makes for lankier plants with thinner stems and “puffier” buds rather than hard density to them. Just my experience though.That's interesting. I find nothing much happens at these temperatures. Perhaps you can run cooler, as you use the co2 in the balance. Though trading temperature for co2 would be far from ideal.
I can't remember the details, as I don't concentrate on co2 use. This is the first graph I found though
I don't think either curve is correct. As seen clearly in the non co2 optimum mark being over the curve. Though at the right temperature. Showing they are mashing up data sets, with no idea what they are saying. As with most rubbish we are presented with though, it's the thought that counts
What I recall, but can't find, relates to a 20% drop in output running 25 not 30 with co2. Not just weight, as quality remained the same. Though as with most things, your own testing of your own room is more important than guides.
Your water use is interesting. The gap between leaf and air being just a touch more than I expected, at that temperature. While co2 usually reduces it further. Perhaps its the cooler temps actually keeping the stomata plumped open
I should go and get on with my own grow, but it's much easier to sit here looking at the PC. I must get some cameras
Ca++
Well-known member
Earlier in this thread (and in others) people were speaking of headless glands. There was a suggestion of poorly applied circumcision, but I just found out the hops virus causes the heads to look like someone caved them in with a big hammer. It was on a list of other signs, but it seems a 25% drop in yield, with a 50% drop in potency, was often the outcome of the hops virus, with no other signs. Unless you get your scope out, and look at the heads. Which don't form, or they look caved in.
Last edited:
Back when this issue first appeared it was called “dudding”. Because you would have plants that appeared to dud out or have dudded single lower branches. They would display a stouter structure, no vertical growth, stubby smaller leaves and finally, trichome reduction and hairy terpless product. Now were seeing so many varying degrees of this its scary. Im glad weve realized the severity of the situation and can test well for it now. Im glad im not experiencing any hplv issues.
Ca++
Well-known member
Yes, as we know, bugbee uses infected plants, and see's no problem, as long as the grow goes well. I wish he would burn them myself, but it's a latent viroid. I think that means it hides under the bridge like a troll, waiting for a moment of weakness to run riot. So a good run, keeps it suppressed. While a good grower having some time out, might not see anything until the glands fail, and the weigh-in is complete. That 50% drop in potency, was actually on the good end of the scale suggested. This description of latent needs speaking of again. It means inactive. So a latent viroid isn't a problem, until it's no longer latent. Why it becomes active, seems to be anybodies guess. After which, gauging the result, is equally as difficult. I think it's about crop health, or peeps like bugbee wouldn't be running with it in such a fearless manner.
PHRosin
Active member
FletchF, your ideas are on par with the bud we see nowadays, im used to killer sticky bud, with funky smell that poison the whole room, the kind of bud that make your paranoia go through the roof, anxiety is running down your neck, your heart is pounding, your mind is buzzin... and all of this happens while your on the couch haha.. im used to go to the post office to get my mail and always someone around the corner is waiting to ask me what is that funky smell that surround me everywhere i go
Something has changed, in the side of growers i only know that LED is now the king of the entire cycle in at least 90% of growers ops
At the consumer side, quality has gone down to a no selling point like Canary has mentioned
The market has blown, not just in my country, but worldwide, demand is way up there, money is up for grabs, people are going to cut corners, we feel it in the final product.
Early harvest eliminate any ripe features, trim machines destroy the structure and sift a lot of the glue, and like Canary has said, LED is the strew that broke the camels back
Each lowering the quality in its own proportions, with LED changing the process of the plants defensive reactions (glue forming) by manipulating light output and materials that create that light.
Maybe the answer really is that 95% of people just dont know how to grow with LEDs ?
I can say with a whole heart that my HPS flowers are 2 weeks old right now and look, smell, stick better then most of the finished bud around my country, which baffle me to be honest because 1 year ago everyone here had killer sticky funky bud.
Hogwash
greyfader
Well-known member
yes, he washed many hogs while he was here!
Yup that hog got washed down the drain thankfully. Just babbling bullshit 24/7.
Ca++
Well-known member
Holy repost batman. That Robin Hood geezers stuck in a time loop
Using this pic again, I'm going to look at ambient co2 level results.
600ppfd is a common target, and runs some plant around 30%, according to the graph.
If you take 200 away, leaving 400 on the top, we still get a 25% growth potential.
If we then use that 200 to light up one side, that side may grow at 15%.
The net effect, is loosing 5% on the top, to gain 15% on a side.
The more mathy among us will see the top loose a 6th, but the side then produce half of what the top would of under the full 600. Net gain, a third more growth potential.
Even it my maths sucked hard, there must be some gain.
In the real world, my auxiliary lighting produces more grams per watt than my main lighting. My yields are impossibly repetitive, and so adding the auxiliary lighting had a very defined gain. The first paragraph says it all. My canopy was already performing well, and so lighting up any other part of the plant at levels below 600, was more efficient light use the the canopy which had over 600. I actually took some shaded shaded space to around 250umol in the weigh-in tests. Making scrap into bud. In a sea of green or scrog, most people are only lighting one side of the canopy. Hobby or Pro, it's odd that we are not interlighting our crops somehow. Instead, many just let the bottom die away.
A research team are running a few tests now. Moving light from the top, to the sides, and through the middle. From where the light was okay up top, to where the light was lacking. Where the lower illumination zones see greater return per unit of extra power. As we see on the graph.
In real terms, adding 200umol when you already have 600, is just a 10-15% gain in production, for 33% more power input.
If we instead add 200umol to an area that only had 300umol, We might see 30% more there, for 66% more light. At first glance, this isn't a great leap. The real gain though, is that bud grown under 300umol, was going in the rubbish pile. While bud grown at 500umol, is a fair commercial standard. That's not a gain that percentage can even quantify.
Interlighting is certainly not new. Side-lighting is in the early books, where people used boards that looked like ghetto made sunbeds. It's 30 years ago I first run a trial myself. Commercially it seems like Philips championed there commercial use, with linear LED fittings, through high wire tomato crops. Now it's back to us again. Frankly I'm surprised it's taken so long. I/we already know it's a goal. I think the sheeple just need to see a proper team report on this, and @Mars Hydro Led will be giving us some choices.
I have used 50w cobs looking up. It seems the sweet spot. 100w was a bit much heat unless carefully placed. While watering them by accident needs thinking about to. Any form of interlighting really hits a wall with mounting them. A decent net is a lot to ask. Lights? I think this might be too much for some.
Edit: I lost the article, but just found another with pics. I'm afraid the results will be tainted, as they were sidetracked by some bedroom furnishings, on their way around Ikea
Last edited:
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
As for CO2, temps and stomatas:
High CO2 levels will tend to close the stomata and reduce transpiration and may mess up standard vpd calculations. The drop in transpiration can be remedied by adding heat or reducing rh, or you can try fiddling with spectrum: a high blue (or added uv) spectrum will tend to be more transpiring, especially if combined with low green, as green tends to negate or inhibit the plants blue response.
How much? No idea, one would have to dial in and try and get it to work as above. The important idea is that adding CO2 means you will have to tweak environment, spectrum or both.
High CO2 levels will tend to close the stomata and reduce transpiration and may mess up standard vpd calculations. The drop in transpiration can be remedied by adding heat or reducing rh, or you can try fiddling with spectrum: a high blue (or added uv) spectrum will tend to be more transpiring, especially if combined with low green, as green tends to negate or inhibit the plants blue response.
How much? No idea, one would have to dial in and try and get it to work as above. The important idea is that adding CO2 means you will have to tweak environment, spectrum or both.
Ca++
Well-known member
Yeah, satisfying a plants co2 needs, allows it to close the stomata. Saving water.
Lowering water use, is why co2 users need a higher EC.
The topic of water use efficiency (wue) keeps creeping into the papers we read. A co2 grow can grow 25% more bud, using 25% less water. All things being well, this can be exceeded.
The home growers understand electricity costs and availability can limit production. The commercial grower, or perhaps guy using a well, can be limited by water availability. So the use of co2 can lead to a bigger yield, without increased water use. It's a force driving co2 use, that isn't immediately obvious when look at someone's grow.
The grow pictured above is down now. However a few were done, an you just know somebody will be keeping us waiting. The results can't be far away though.
Lowering water use, is why co2 users need a higher EC.
The topic of water use efficiency (wue) keeps creeping into the papers we read. A co2 grow can grow 25% more bud, using 25% less water. All things being well, this can be exceeded.
The home growers understand electricity costs and availability can limit production. The commercial grower, or perhaps guy using a well, can be limited by water availability. So the use of co2 can lead to a bigger yield, without increased water use. It's a force driving co2 use, that isn't immediately obvious when look at someone's grow.
The grow pictured above is down now. However a few were done, an you just know somebody will be keeping us waiting. The results can't be far away though.
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on choices?A research team are running a few tests now. Moving light from the top, to the sides, and through the middle. From where the light was okay up top, to where the light was lacking. Where the lower illumination zones see greater return per unit of extra power. As we see on the graph.
In real terms, adding 200umol when you already have 600, is just a 10-15% gain in production, for 33% more power input.
If we instead add 200umol to an area that only had 300umol, We might see 30% more there, for 66% more light. At first glance, this isn't a great leap. The real gain though, is that bud grown under 300umol, was going in the rubbish pile. While bud grown at 500umol, is a fair commercial standard. That's not a gain that percentage can even quantify.
Interlighting is certainly not new. Side-lighting is in the early books, where people used boards that looked like ghetto made sunbeds. It's 30 years ago I first run a trial myself. Commercially it seems like Philips championed there commercial use, with linear LED fittings, through high wire tomato crops. Now it's back to us again. Frankly I'm surprised it's taken so long. I/we already know it's a goal. I think the sheeple just need to see a proper team report on this, and @Mars Hydro Led will be giving us some choices.
I have used 50w cobs looking up. It seems the sweet spot. 100w was a bit much heat unless carefully placed. While watering them by accident needs thinking about to. Any form of interlighting really hits a wall with mounting them. A decent net is a lot to ask. Lights? I think this might be too much for some.
Edit: I lost the article, but just found another with pics. I'm afraid the results will be tainted, as they were sidetracked by some bedroom furnishings, on their way around Ikea
Ca++
Well-known member
In packaging terms, these could work
Anything in the plants, must be easy to clean.
Stood on pots, must be waterproof.
Covered in fallen leaves, must not get too hot.
Stuck in the canopy, must not get to hot.
Used very close, must not be too bright. So lots of low power LEDs, not a few high power one's
These are all good qualities, and people can deploy this kind of packaging. Which can be quickly bought to market.
Such lights have use with cuttings and seedlings, and micro-grows. I have seen similar sold with clips for tent poles, but they were 100lm/w so not a serious proposition.
The smart cobs have an interesting driver. A power regulator chip that handles 240v mains, and has internal current limiting based on case temperature. Placed beside an LED, they offer thermal protection.
Many linear lamps are made for fluorescent replacements, so this tube design is common.
It's not what I have done, but would be quick to market.
Edit: With 5 bars over a crop, you want at least one under it. I think the above grow won't give results, as it's a small amount of light, deployed to illuminate the pots in places. It's a poor effort.
Anything in the plants, must be easy to clean.
Stood on pots, must be waterproof.
Covered in fallen leaves, must not get too hot.
Stuck in the canopy, must not get to hot.
Used very close, must not be too bright. So lots of low power LEDs, not a few high power one's
These are all good qualities, and people can deploy this kind of packaging. Which can be quickly bought to market.
Such lights have use with cuttings and seedlings, and micro-grows. I have seen similar sold with clips for tent poles, but they were 100lm/w so not a serious proposition.
The smart cobs have an interesting driver. A power regulator chip that handles 240v mains, and has internal current limiting based on case temperature. Placed beside an LED, they offer thermal protection.
Many linear lamps are made for fluorescent replacements, so this tube design is common.
It's not what I have done, but would be quick to market.
Edit: With 5 bars over a crop, you want at least one under it. I think the above grow won't give results, as it's a small amount of light, deployed to illuminate the pots in places. It's a poor effort.
Last edited:
