LED and BUD QUALITY

[Rocket Soul]

i ran 8 hours of intense light for maybe 6-7 grows and got good results. but were they the best results? i don't really know yet but this round i'm running one of the same strains for 12 hours at high intensity. 50-60 mols per period.

i have photos of the previous run with this strain to compare so in about 4-5 weeks i'll have a visual comparison at least.

An 8 hour intense light grow would make sense if youre up against a amp limit in your installation but have decent space: you could run 3 cycles per day. But taking care of that garden is a shift job, it would be hard to keep up with it, every day all day.

 

[greyfader]

An 8 hour intense light grow would make sense if youre up against a amp limit in your installation but have decent space: you could run 3 cycles per day. But taking care of that garden is a shift job, it would be hard to keep up with it, every day all day.

i've run two adjacent rooms like that just to get the most from limited amps. it really screws with a human schedule and to try to run 3 rooms working alone like that would be a nightmare.

the human factor has to be figured into every grow room design. when i've designed large facilities in the past, in addition to keeping the number of people required to a minimum, i also had to make enough room for them to work comfortably.

aisles have to be wide enough to roll a cart and Osha regulations say that no one should have to reach more than 30" to work so you have to limit areas under light to 60" wide with an aisle on each side.

or have movable benches.

i'm about to move for the last time and i am designing a room for electrical efficiency and minimum labor because i have to take care of everything alone.

this means a perpetual schedule of taking down a plant a week. so every week i have to clone 3-4 so i can pick one really nice one. move one clone that has been rooted 2 weeks into the final container. move one from veg that has been vegged 3 weeks to flower.

at the end of stretch, i have to do some training and thinning to a scrog screen, but not very much. a little training after that at the end of the 4th week.

cut down and dry one plant a week. trim one plant a week. clean one site every week.

everything is done in short sessions that don't wear you out. a few hours at a time.

 

[Vanilla Phoenix]

i've run two adjacent rooms like that just to get the most from limited amps. it really screws with a human schedule and to try to run 3 rooms working alone like that would be a nightmare.

the human factor has to be figured into every grow room design. when i've designed large facilities in the past, in addition to keeping the number of people required to a minimum, i also had to make enough room for them to work comfortably.

aisles have to be wide enough to roll a cart and Osha regulations say that no one should have to reach more than 30" to work so you have to limit areas under light to 60" wide with an aisle on each side.

or have movable benches.

i'm about to move for the last time and i am designing a room for electrical efficiency and minimum labor because i have to take care of everything alone.

this means a perpetual schedule of taking down a plant a week. so every week i have to clone 3-4 so i can pick one really nice one. move one clone that has been rooted 2 weeks into the final container. move one from veg that has been vegged 3 weeks to flower.

at the end of stretch, i have to do some training and thinning to a scrog screen, but not very much. a little training after that at the end of the 4th week.

cut down and dry one plant a week. trim one plant a week. clean one site every week.

everything is done in short sessions that don't wear you out. a few hours at a time.

This is exactly how I’ve been running my perpetual for well over two decades. Works great for selling retail and/or just growing personal smoke.

 

[Hiddenjems]

Dude, you gotta stop your idiotic trolling ASAP. You have zero clue about what you are talking about. You realize it cannot even be done to measure the LCP of a total plant because irradiance diminishes with distance. The PPFD you got at the tops is not the same than say 10, 20 or 30cm in the depth of the canopy. Thus, you are having leaves with a different saturation. And this ratio would change drastically with plant height or age. So even if we measure O2 evolution of a whole plant at any given PPFD the result would be meaningless as it would only hold true for that specific plant structure. I told you already you are confusing the LCP with the DLI.

That is the most unnatural part of growing indoors, having the bottom of the plant 2x as far from the light source as the top.

 

[greyfader]

That is the most unnatural part of growing indoors, having the bottom of the plant 2x as far from the light source as the top.

one of the research papers i have read recently shows the cannabinoids and terpenes stratifying on a plant grown upright without training indoors with top lighting only.

the strongest concentrations are at the top of the plant and diminish in layers as you go further down the plant.

this is a strong argument for sea of green and screen of green techniques to produce uniformity of product.

or completely encompassing the plant in a light field that illuminates the entire plant equally.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092666901831015X

 

[exoticrobotic]

the strongest concentrations are at the top of the plant and diminish in layers as you go further down the plant.

" Interestingly, this gradient was present both in the flowers"

Bro science alert...

This was written about in Howard Marks' Mr Nice.

He visited hash makers and saw them putting special attention to one batch of hash.

He asked about it and as told it was a special hash made using only the top cm of each flower and even he Mr Howard Marks could not afford it.

 

[greyfader]

" Interestingly, this gradient was present both in the flowers"

Bro science alert...

This was written about in Howard Marks' Mr Nice.

He visited hash makers and saw them putting special attention to one batch of hash.

He asked about it and as told it was a special hash made using only the top cm of each flower and even he Mr Howard Marks could not afford it.

can you explain what you mean by "bro science alert"?

i didn't see anything in the research paper recommending taking only the top cm of the plant.

the paper simply outlines how cannabinoids and terpenes are stratified by proximity to the light.

please explain!

 

[exoticrobotic]

The paper you quoted mentioned that the difference in cannabinoid content and ratios changed the further you moved down the plant from the top.

It also mentioned this was observed within individual buds too.

I was saying that this has been known for ages... It is mentioned in the HM book but would no doubt be dismissed as 'bro science' by some.

Capeesh?

 

[exoticrobotic]

I didn't read the full paper.. but read "Interestingly, this gradient was present in the flowers"

 

[exoticrobotic]

can you explain what you mean by "bro science alert"?

It was a tongue in cheek before coffee comment meant for all the bro science naysayers.

I'm a great proponent of experience (bro-science) fuelling hypotheses fuelling scientific research rather than negating people's experience which can often be the case.

A good example comes to mind with terpenes.

Decades ago nobody believed terpenes played any role in the Cannabis experience. It was not until people started making water hash that they noticed some of the terpenes were missing along with the high.

People mentioned this and that some terpenes were lost and some of the high was lost but they were almost ridiculed online for putting such an idea forward.

Fast forward 20 years science catches up with bro-science and we have

Selected cannabis terpenes synergize with THC to produce increased CB1 receptor activation​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295223001399

"The results demonstrate that all terpenes, when tested individually, activate CB1 receptors, at about 10–50% of the activation by THC alone. The combination of some of these terpenes with THC significantly increases the activity of the CB1 receptor, compared to THC alone. In some cases, several fold. Importantly, this amplification is evident at terpene to THC ratios similar to those in the cannabis plant, which reflect very low terpene concentrations. For some terpenes, the activation obtained by THC- terpene mixtures is notably greater than the sum of the activations by the individual components, suggesting a synergistic effect."

 

[exoticrobotic]

I wonder whether some of those terpenes are not present in led bud...

 

[exoticrobotic]

I mean there's no doubt about it. From my experience...

Different lights grow different plants producing different expressions.

Different feeds grow different plants producing different expressions.

but that's bro-science until science catches up

 

[exoticrobotic]

I wonder whether some of those terpenes are not present in led bud...

I don't mean the bud from lights Crooked8 is using

The led light i used - old maxibright one didnt produce the sulfur/onion tones previously seen with Capt. Krypt Bubba x Abusive when used alone.

I'm sure leds have progressed a lot since then though but still too expensive for me vs the cheap tried and tested mh/hps except like Ca2 has mentioned as a minor supplemental side/under canopy lighting.

 

[goingrey]

I mean there's no doubt about it. From my experience...

Different lights grow different plants producing different expressions.

Different feeds grow different plants producing different expressions.

but that's bro-science until science catches up

Real science..

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669023005642

But yes, that is how the scientific method works. Even if right, bro science until, hopefully after rigorous research, published to the community that can verify or dismiss the results.

 

[greyfader]

It was a tongue in cheek before coffee comment meant for all the bro science naysayers.

I'm a great proponent of experience (bro-science) fuelling hypotheses fuelling scientific research rather than negating people's experience which can often be the case.

A good example comes to mind with terpenes.

Decades ago nobody believed terpenes played any role in the Cannabis experience. It was not until people started making water hash that they noticed some of the terpenes were missing along with the high.

People mentioned this and that some terpenes were lost and some of the high was lost but they were almost ridiculed online for putting such an idea forward.

Fast forward 20 years science catches up with bro-science and we have

Selected cannabis terpenes synergize with THC to produce increased CB1 receptor activation​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295223001399

"The results demonstrate that all terpenes, when tested individually, activate CB1 receptors, at about 10–50% of the activation by THC alone. The combination of some of these terpenes with THC significantly increases the activity of the CB1 receptor, compared to THC alone. In some cases, several fold. Importantly, this amplification is evident at terpene to THC ratios similar to those in the cannabis plant, which reflect very low terpene concentrations. For some terpenes, the activation obtained by THC- terpene mixtures is notably greater than the sum of the activations by the individual components, suggesting a synergistic effect."

thank you for explaining! i call "bro science" the empirical method. this was all we had until peer-reviewed research began. and it's still a valid tool for individuals who don't have the funding necessary to do peer-reviewed research.

i think thc cannabis growers have had to rely on the empirical method for many years because of the illegality of the plant.

we are now getting to the point where, because of increasing legality, we are seeing more actual research. some of it may appear obvious to old black market growers who may have known some of these things intuitively for quite some time.

but it is nice the see formal research backing some of this up or disproving old myths.

 

[greyfader]

I wonder whether some of those terpenes are not present in led bud...

the simple presence of terpenes seems to be genetically imprinted but their expression can be altered by light quality and quantity, and nutrient ratios. also the use of microbes and chelators like fulvic acid can have an effect.

 

[maryjaneismyfre]

Another issue with sellers is if they are legit genetics, some seed of that variety, or just a seed from something they grew. Especially with the sellers sending clones on verge of death from mold. Will never get to flower to see if real genetics or if it duds from HLVD.

Only way to know if genetics are real is to get from originator, and many do not sell their clones. Have tried finding Capulator, Seed Junky, Canarado, Phinest and others, and they seem to only sell seeds.

Sorry for taking thread off topic, but biggest issue is dishonest people, and testing can be faked, unless outside firm collects them. Was thinking you are better off with cuts, since if mother was infected, it would die or have severe problems. Sounds like dirty practices. One recent seller said they dunk trays to feed them. If one has mold everything they are exposed to does.

View attachment 18903870

I didn't read the full paper.. but read "Interestingly, this gradient was present in the flowers"

The root rots go hand and hand with Hlvd. Fusarium spore, in addition to pollen can carry the viroid particles. Once a plant is infected, mold resistances go right down, immune system slowly shuts down over time as viral load builds, but as one makes cuts away from the roots, one is chasing a lower load all the time. We all been doing it for years as far as I can tell. Seed junky, Cap, Compound, even Arjan and others, are all using the same single source for breeding plants, that are free of disease. There exists markets yes where you can get any elite your heart desires, cleaned up of viroid and other pathogens, tested, certified and in tissue culture. There are also many flybynights and labs that do not have the protocols down and stuff grows out dirty down the line, and also one or two other legit commercial labs supplying licenced places who want a figurative pint of blood along with the pricey sale, royalties, sale %'s etc.
If you want to get your stock from a lab that has everything, and has everything clean and be royalty free..you are going to pay. It is not cheap, but you can. Is it worth it, 100%...I see that now clear as day contract growing clean material supplied by our partners, side by side with various degrees of infection, of the same plants, in flowering areas that are still dirty as we work the shit out the system..

When viroid load is low, you can't see it in the flower...but side by side you will in yield, and days to root for cuts, but at low load in the quality of lower you could grow the plant for years unaware, if one kept moms fresh the whole time. I've spent the last 3 years exploring this well, growing at mega scale...once you scale up past a point this shit quickly becomes apparent, and in hindsight I think almost all genetics I have grown, from seed, clone or tissue in last almost 20 yrs prior, was infected...or at least each batch of seed. Every heirloom cut passed around. This is what our PCR testing till we gave up testing showed us. It is not called latent for no reason but very few have clean material to run to compare low load with no load and so its effects which are not overt unless at high to extreme load, have been largely missed and its flown under the radar for years and years. It is extremely easy to spread, the traditional sanitizing protocols we have all used forever, just spread it..The way we grow on draintables, or in beds or soil, just spreads it. Root rots/fusarium just spreads it and from what I've seen root aphid also spreads it no problem, if you've ever had fusarium or root aphid breakout in your stock accept most likely everything actually is still infected with viroid, and if not, you are still most likely all infected unless you been running the same handful of cuts for 2 decades and never germed a seed, or got in any new material from outside, and your bud still makes the quality and yield every single run like it did 20 years ago, and still roots in 6-8 days flat and wants to be transplanted with 12 days of being cut, with nothing fancy being done to root it, then only are you probably not infected from what I seen. Everyone else unless they have sourced only clean stuff and culled and cleaned and gone through subsequent rounds of cleaning the facility, testing and it takes a while to get the shit out the system fully...then you can be clean..else I'd assume all else is dirty from our limited testing.

What else can I tell you...The big players are only running clean stock, those that aren't will probably get left in the dust as the viroid from what I can see, even when you can't see its influence, is hitting 30-40% of yield already by my guesses. It is their competitive advantage in the market right now and they are not advertising it. For exampe Glasshouse first quietly figured this out in 2017 or 2018 or something and theres noise made but still way to quiet, based on how prevalent we have seen this is. The past research %'s of infected facilities you see on the internet, in Canada and States etc. used leaf and petiole samples and now we know thats a hit and miss for sampling, doing root samples, it was in everything pretty much where we looked, all sources in europe or states or locally etc.I can see it in dutch seed now going back to after the hey day, mid 2000's I can see in cali seed now in hindsight also going back as long..Every heirloom cut still passed around, we tested was sky high load, but those that are still around seem to have a degree of tolerance, negative leaf samples often but roots positive, so thats why they were kept in the first place, good smoke/genetics and tolerance to viroid, others would have been dropped as mids, or duds, or weak ass plants, or mold susceptable, or bad rooters, or not yielding etc, or moms would have eventually succumbed in peoples mom libraries viroid load too high and mom just falling over to a fusarium or related. I know of a few of my old stellar moms that went that route, in hindsight the pattern is so obvious but unless you factoring in the viroid you'd probably miss it on the homegrower scale. Always having new beans to germinate and restart at a low infection load, each run of seeds restart the clock of latent downhill slide. Almost all seed we tested had viroid, even an uninfected seed would most likely be infected by time it had germinated and root touched the soil that touched its seed coating. I cannot stress enough how prevalent I think this has been for almost 2 decades or more...

Anyway...this thing of moldy cuts...modern stuff not being pungent or potent, or THC varying from top to bottom of the plant etc....its all viroid..sorry to be the bearer of bad news. All of us, most of our shit is infected, has been for a loooooooong time. Its a major factor screwing with us trying to understand grow dialing in, nutrition, LED, "genetics", everything, acting as a filter messing with our results the whole time but hard to see as its like a slow sliding scale backwards, can be messing with this grow and not the next, or this plant and not the rest, or this branch and not the rest, but all would be infected, it would just be relative viroid load that one is seeing.. All this chlorosis, sensitivity to change of environment, pathogen resistances, even colour of the plant, are all various symptoms to different degrees of how this shit is affecting our plants all the time. If I didnt have the opportunity to run clean material of stuff I know well and have grown a million plants of, and then be growing side by side thousands in a greenhouse, to see the various degrees of infection..and if I wasnt at a scale where you see the outlyers easily with the numbers game, and also run in and run out having the metrics to assess, thc, yield etc..yeah i could have carried on unaware of this for decade more...

Diffferent tricks and tweaks in diet...immune reaction triggers, hormones applications like IBA and IAA, watering, medium compostition, and all the things which helped my plants always have an edge over the last decade, I now realise was just things that helped the plants overcome the symptoms of viroid infection to some degree and that was mainly responsible for the great positive changes I'd see..PCR testing in hindsight has shown me this clearly. With clean material its like it was 20 years back when i didnt know too much, and you could put a cut in a glass of water on windowsill facing away from the sun, and come back a week later and pull it out and replant it..It was not a distant faded imagination memory, the plants back then were uninfected I now see, and weed grows like that when it has nothing inhibiting its hormones..Weed used to be like a weed, and it is. has been my recent education. Look in afghanistan at those huge hash plants in the fields, growing in calcium laden high carbonates high PH, 8-9 etc. dirt. gets watered maybe a few times a season if its lucky with a flood from canals, never sprayed and yet you see them 8ft tall buds as fat as your legs....what gives...why has growing become a struggle over the last 20 years to consistently put out weight of dank..always 2 steps forward and one step back...

 

[Charles Dankens]

the simple presence of terpenes seems to be genetically imprinted but their expression can be altered by light quality and quantity, and nutrient ratios. also the use of microbes and chelators like fulvic acid can have an effect.

Interesting about the effect of fulvic acid. I have read the paper that shows humates depressed THC content. However that researcher applied humates every watering.

Is there paper showing a correlation between terpenes and fulvic?

Ive got these three in my 2x 4 under Chill led 500

 

[Hiddenjems]

one of the research papers i have read recently shows the cannabinoids and terpenes stratifying on a plant grown upright without training indoors with top lighting only.

the strongest concentrations are at the top of the plant and diminish in layers as you go further down the plant.

this is a strong argument for sea of green and screen of green techniques to produce uniformity of product.

or completely encompassing the plant in a light field that illuminates the entire plant equally.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092666901831015X

I’ve never grown outdoors. When I started doing some work in warehouse grows I started to notice that the higher your ceilings/lights are, the taller the plant you can grow effectively.

A 600 or even 1000w light a couple feet from the canopy supports different growth patterns than a room with 50 1000w lights 30 feet above the plants.

 

[Crooked8]

Interesting about the effect of fulvic acid. I have read the paper that shows humates depressed THC content. However that researcher applied humates every watering.

Is there paper showing a correlation between terpenes and fulvic?

Ive got these three in my 2x 4 under Chill led 500 View attachment 18905861 View attachment 18905860 View attachment 18905859

Golden goat looks amazing