greyfader
Well-known member
thank you, citizen! i will have to stop using meth immediately!
can you provide a link to these studies?
-
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
can you provide a link to these studies?
Frankenbeanie
Member
I've been taking personality evaluations of Cannabis users long enough to know GF-Z doesn't have data. In fact it's clear the cannabis personality develops from an utter lack of data in general combined with paranoia.
Half the community smokes olivetolic cbn weed because getting high off weed instead of faded off of muck would gateway them right back to dipping into their fentanyl supply.
If you want to see what Cannabis use does to people who aren't actually sick (and use sick people as pawns in their dope scheme) just read any online cannabis community comments. Horrible people!
greyfader
Well-known member
well, Sigmund, perhaps i could get you to enlighten us further by explaining what possessed you to pick a thread about led lighting on a cannabis forum to drop your little pseudo-psychology knowledge bomb?
Ca++
Well-known member
These papers are why we now demand 730 in our lights, and the cannabis brands are giving it to us.
It is worth stepping back and looking at this again. These papers are generally not on cannabis. I have not seen Bruce do one on cannabis either. What I have seen, is vegetation crops like lettuce, benefit from growing more vegetation. In cannabis papers, the cannabis plant also makes more vegetative effort. At a time we are trying to flower.
Adding 730 to our lights, has growth effects we can see. They physically get taller. Growing stick. The science is telling us that 730 makes pfr, and pfr suppresses. In turn, pf should be suppressing veg, but can't do so well, with pfr being created at higher levels. In a nutshell, 730 takes our plants from flower, to veg. An unwanted diversion of the plants efforts.
This has been quantified in cannabis studies. For every 1% more 730, yield dropped 3%
If you need some reassurance, look at professional lights. Things from Osram and Philips, which are made using data from cannabis grows. Then look at lights from cannabis brands. Brands that come on forums asking what we would buy from them. That is not how to collect data for plants, it's how to collect data from buyers. Both these different approaches to lighting manufacture are very real.
Blue light isn't as bad as FR, but still has a negative effect. Like the 730, it is good for leafy greens, but not us. Every 1% more blue, is a 0.77% loss in yield, for cannabis.
If you are growing cbd strains, then blue lowering flower yield and THC levels, is balanced out with a higher production of the cbd precursor. We muxt really look at what we are growing, and what is being studied, when we rush to demand cannabis lighting brands make things for us.
If I say your lm301H isn't as good as mine, because I have the EVO version, it sounds believable. If I tell you I have full spectrum, using UV, Blue, Green, a mix of 5000K and 3000K, then 660, 730 and 840, my light sounds amazing. However.. it would make your plants unhappy. What is next, gamma rays?
Do remember I'm just a voice on a forum, but also, when was I ever wrong.
I wish I had coughed for a hot mirror in the HPS days. They were thousands, but it would of been banging.
Would be by eye, frost..and also gemmacert type machine. When infected the difference between tops and mids becomes a lot more noticeable.
exoticrobotic
Well-known member
The difference between tops and mids has always been noticeable to me indoors.
The resin density and growth is a lot different at different canopy levels.
The resin density and growth is a lot different at different canopy levels.
greyfader
Well-known member
Ca++, in the Bugbee video "Far-red, the forgotten photon" he states that far-red may not be the best idea for vegetative cannabis. his discussion is mostly about vegetative crops like lettuce.
i think people often forget that he is a general-purpose crop physiologist and he may not be talking about cannabis every time.
but, i think that far-red is important for flowering as the red/far-red ratio that causes unwanted stretching in veg also causes flower elongation and mass building in the flowering phase.
along with more dark red and some infrared.
i've been experimenting with homemade led fixtures for several years and have tried all sorts of ratios of 2700k and 5000k.
it is well known that blue light causes compact growth in veg with greater ramification so i have recently started using 5000k only in veg. and up to the end of week 3 of flower.
then i remove all of the 5000k bulbs and replace them with all 2700k plus some incandescents.
here is the approx spectral distribution of a 5000k and then a warm white probably 3000k (but i'm using 2700k) overlaid with tungsten incandescent.
then a pic of what the color temp difference looks like after i changed out one of the fixtures.
then the most recent pic of the 2 plants at the end of week 5 of flower.
minimizing the blue fraction during flower while enhancing dark red and far-red.
Attachments
Ca++
Well-known member
I also use far red from incandescent lamps, when I want some stretch. They may also have use in putting a plant to sleep faster, so it seems that 10 hours kip, is like 12 hours. The advantage being 14 hour days, grow normal looking buds. Presumably, with normal, rather than reduced potency. I have seen the pics, and it seemed real.
That's still good reason not to put them in the main lighting. If you have separate lights for veg and bloom, then I disagree with the notion they don't help veg, and wound instead use them in veg. It seems like good science to me, and more importantly, it's real. Cannabis papers are where I got that 1:3 from, rather than presumption that goes against the science.
It is the same for blue. CBG do they call it? I'm not following compound names, but the stuff many cannabinoids are made from. One test found a 400% increase in it. That is an earth shaking statistic. 4 times more. But CBD was was just a bit higher, and thc took a hit. As it does under green light.
I can pull papers out if needed, but it may take me a day or two (to write them lol)
That's still good reason not to put them in the main lighting. If you have separate lights for veg and bloom, then I disagree with the notion they don't help veg, and wound instead use them in veg. It seems like good science to me, and more importantly, it's real. Cannabis papers are where I got that 1:3 from, rather than presumption that goes against the science.
It is the same for blue. CBG do they call it? I'm not following compound names, but the stuff many cannabinoids are made from. One test found a 400% increase in it. That is an earth shaking statistic. 4 times more. But CBD was was just a bit higher, and thc took a hit. As it does under green light.
I can pull papers out if needed, but it may take me a day or two (to write them lol)
Ca++
Well-known member
I just did two runs without interlighting (uplighting) and the disappointment was real. Nice full colour tops. Nice lighter green buds as it entered the canopy. Kinda salad fresh colours, not spinich. Then just below the net, the light green buds, that didn't really get any light, but were fed from the plant anyway. Before I descended into shitsville. Like green full sized nugs, that the light could get through. Things that formed early on, but then were shaded over. Stuff that was trash, yet bigger than lit bits I liked the look of. I know myself that it doesn't need to be that way. While lab testing confirms the stratospheric nature of the hit, need not exist. In fact, lighting the bottom, stops it sapping the top. So where once the top had to support the bottom, the top and bottom can work for themselves.
I'm disapointed with myself for not getting my build finished, and also for failing to get the fact across. Even with 20% promises from people you could take to court, if it were not so. Then 50% promises from cannabis lighting companies.
shishkaboy
>>>>Beanie Man<<<<
Just flipped my first full led tent. Subbed...
Ca++
Well-known member
I didn't hear anything about cannabis. He echo's my thoughts (and probably helped form them) that FR is for leafy greens. There were some plants looked at that are often seen as analogues of cannabis. Here he found FR undesirable. Where he says in could be useful, isn't bloom, it's veg. He is pointing at a tomato plants, which bloom as they grow up, then fruit. He speaks of early growth, when they are blooming, to get them up to fruiting size sooner. In tomato's it's normal to remove flowers which the plant grows big enough. You need a big plant, with few blooms, as soon as possible. So the FR could be useful. As he says, in early growth.
I will find you that link, as you may be having mixed feelings, when a forum nobody, seems to initially disagree with the ace of spades. Though actually, I agree, and won't be moved
Please talk amongst yourselves.. I may be some time..
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
"The science is telling us that 730 makes pfr, and pfr suppresses" this is a bit hard to understand; what does it suppress and what science? It isnt really clear what you mean or refer to.
Ca++
Well-known member
Wow. I almost forgot what I was looking for.
They used a few amounts of FR. Initially the damage curve is quite steep, then becomes a straight line affair, where more FR=consistantly less yield. That 1% added = 3% lost, I spoke of. They used a base line 500umol white, with 60umol FR, and lost 33% of the yield. So 10% more light on the FR range, 30% less budly. A slope that starts off even worse for very low levels, so there is no escaping this disaster we have bought upon ourselves, asking for lights that contain it.
They used a few amounts of FR. Initially the damage curve is quite steep, then becomes a straight line affair, where more FR=consistantly less yield. That 1% added = 3% lost, I spoke of. They used a base line 500umol white, with 60umol FR, and lost 33% of the yield. So 10% more light on the FR range, 30% less budly. A slope that starts off even worse for very low levels, so there is no escaping this disaster we have bought upon ourselves, asking for lights that contain it.
Ca++
Well-known member
Sorry bud, botany is not my thing, unless it's the bikini thread. I aired this for these here that know a bit more than me, in the hope they might latch onto what I'm saying, and help me myself, confirm or blow up my meanderings.
But I can have a stab at it.
You have this thing called P. Light makes it change. 660 changes it to Pf and 730 changes it to Pfr. You want more Pf to be in flower. There is usually a ratio between them, but you want as little Pfr as possible. 'They' do not really know as much as we wish, but pfr reduces the effect we want from pf. Think of it as antagonism if you like. Though it might not be.
The Pf we want in abundance (when in bloom) is blocking veg processes. We know 730 makes pfr and leads to stretch, but it's not acting directly upon the stretch mechanism. The pfr is reducing the pf's ability to stop the stretch.
It's all very academic, and of little use to a grower. Here though, I'm playing a research role. Trying to back up test results with observation and bottom. So I can be sure I have a firm grip on it.
Sorry.. I'm feeling distracted. I have to go and look at something.
Cerathule
Well-known member
That's not correct.
It really shows how you have zero clue about plant physiology and constantly fill in any missing pieces by your own inventions/phantasy and then even jump to further conclusions from that.
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
I see a few problems with the study:
- Low light intensity: nobody grows weed at 500ppfd all the way thru flower. At least that i know of.
- 3500k 90cri spectrum: this is a white spectrum that already has a fair bit of far red in it and no 660 supplemented; its not really representative for most growlight at the moment since most are just straight HE spectrum: some version of 4000k +660nm (sometimes thru adding equal parts of 3000k and 5000k). The thing is, as you say, the 660 would work against the 730 when it comes to shade avoidance. But the light they use already has a fair bit of far red, and no 660 added: this will lead to shade avoidance (which means lower yield) even if almost no far red is added.
There was also some other thing that i cant quite remember. Id also look into the light meter they use to see if has a response curve for far red: they might be giving a lot more than they think if the response to far red is lower than other parts of the spectrum.
Pf - Pfr: they are not directly responsible for flower response; they help the plant know when its dark or light. Long dark period (Pfr activation > Pf activation for a long time) means that the plant builds up a flower response but its all a bit theoretical since they havent actually found the theorised Floragen hormon. But Pf or Pfr is not responsible themselves of flowering response, Pfr doesnt suppress flowering or enable veg.
