LED and BUD QUALITY

[greyfader]

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..

yes, i re-read it and he uses tomato plants as an example. but elsewhere in his work, he does use the cannabis plant when talking about far-red.

in this video, he does say that far-red may not be the best thing for shade-avoiding plants.

the point i'm trying to make about far-red and cannabis is that, after the stretch phase, the cannabis plant doesn't produce much stem and doesn't stretch anymore.

the study you linked to uses far-red throughout the grow. and so he got the results that he showed. which is taller plants. this statement shows that he used lights with significant far-red from the beginning.

quote;
"Once transplanted plants were illuminated with 18 hours of light and 6 hours of darkness (18/6) at ~400 µmol/m2 /s photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) during the vegetative stage of growth. Two, 135 watt 3500k white (420nm-780nm) “Roleadro” end quote.

white 420nm-780nm was used in veg and for the control plants throughout the entire grow. he then used various intensities of supplemental far-red from the beginning of 12-12 which encompassed the stretch phase.

this is why he got the results he shows.

he may have gotten less flower weight just because of the increased height and therefore distance from the lower foliage.

what i'm doing is almost eliminating far-red and limiting dark red through the vegetative period and into flower for the first 3 weeks or near the end of the stretch phase.

i've been growing potent, dank flowers with white leds alone but they do not get as large as my hps flowers did.

so, the question is what does hps have that white leds don't.

the answer is much less blue and a lot more dark red and far-red.

back in the early days of indoor cannabis growing it was common to use metal halide for veg and stretch and then switch to hps.

then along came agricultural hps bulbs that contained some blue fraction and this helped the plant morphologically and maybe increased cannabinoids somewhat. but still caused more stretch than metal halides alone.

hps grown plants have greater internodal spacing than the same strain under leds.

by using a high blue ratio during veg and stretch and then applying a low blue ratio and much greater dark red and far-red after the plant finishes stretch i'm still getting tight nodal spacing and larger flowers at the same time.

there are led light manufacturers who make dedicated lights with different spectral distribution for vegetative and flowering cannabis plants. Valoya is one.

this chart shows the different spectra they offer. as you can see some are more suited for the vegetative phase and some are more suited for the flowering phase.

then the spectral distribution of a philips green power 1k watt de bulb.

which i used to grow the plant in the picture.

i couldn't copy the valoya spectrum chart but here is the page. on this page they show various led products designed for different phases of growth.

Spectra

Home → Spectra Spectra LED Lighting Spectra Valoya is a spectrum company. All of our research is directed towards understanding what kind of light is optimal for plant growth and …

www.valoya.com

 

[Ca++]

I need to address something again, that is going unheard. It's how our willingness to believe, can often stop us seeing the facts.
All we can find is measured and explained, visible proof, that 730 in the main lights, is no good for cannabis.

Can anybody offer anything different, that's not just wishful thinking.







This could be the UV debate. The Blue debate. Green, or religion. It just happens to be FR this time.

Perhaps we can't explain how it happens, on a biological level. That shouldn't push us to either side of the fence though. It's not any sort of evidence. There are papers talking about the chemical processes though, that are what I aired. I'm not making anything up myself. Though sometimes we really do just have to open our eyes and look. Growing frames is a vegative responce, and we have known it directs power from flower since we lived in caves. Who is actually saying any different. I know people desire it to be different (UV Blue Green NIR & Gods) but the only scientific value to that, is that it's a good reason for some papers on the topic. We now have papers. Quite a few.

That one paper was at 500umol. They are all looking at the P total, as it changes ratio. As this is ratios, the total hasn't the greatest significance. It's good to see the paper being picked at, but I don't see this putting a great dent in it. I'm not sure that 500 is all that inaccurate for the basic light in a tent home grower either. The sort of person blindly buying into the idea, that the one light should have FR. Though I don't hear anybody today, that thinks it should be there.

I think I might be a little older than you Grey. For me, veg was under Mercury. I remember the early philips hps with the extra blue. They were the agro, and not for us. Though perhaps I should add that to my belief system comments, as we adopted them as ours anyway. The hps with more blue, was greenhouse supplemental lighting, where normal hps at low illumination levels, didn't provide the token amount of blue that plants require. This was a while ago, and so such rough ideas were accurate. Plants could be lit less, with that blue fraction included. Though not our plants, which just saw it as less light. Which we know now wasn't just lost efficiency, but also adding blue lowers yield. I happily admit, I browsed the Philips catalogue and bought them. It's as I type today, that the need to add another light is finally making full sense. Back then, having the Philips lighting catalogue was like having the knowledge. I had never heard of a grow book. As I sat in the big city library, reading books that needed dusting. Though I know MH existed, it was old Hg installations that were providing us with parts. So maybe you are older? I have an idea for a useless thread now. You will never guess...



So, are we all settled with the idea that a single light grow, shouldn't have FR, unless it's switchable?
We seem to have some agreement.

 

[greyfader]

.i'm saying that you should not have much far-red in veg and up to the end or near the end of stretch. but that it helps build mass for the remainder of the flowering phase.

below are the ratios of light that valoya recommends for cannabis as a general purpose veg and flower light. the solray series.

i had to photograph it as they won't let you copy the image.

it was taken from this pdf; page 5 entitled spectrum data

https://www.valoya.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/NEW_Medicinal-Cannabis-2023.1.pdf

also, i'm saying that a heavily blue weighted spectrum, such as cool white, during the vegetative and stretch phase helps you keep the plants compact and produces greater ramification with more nodes and more shoots.

the second document is from valoya and it shows the various lights they offer as specialty lights. some are better for veg and some are better for flower. it shows that the NS series are dedicated veg lights and the AP series are dedicated flowering lights.

by the way, i'm 73 years old.

the pdf is full of valuable info.

 

[Ca++]

That's a well balanced reply greyfader. I don't think there is a totally bad light, out of all the one's we are looking at. It's just a matter of when to use them. We could see blue as an irritant, or as a useful tool to keep them down. But in bloom, I see only harm from it. FR is another for specific times. Which for me, actually serves during stretch, as I am more likely to need extra stretch, than to keep plants down in veg. Though I don't use FR often. It's to save me, when I leave a big whole in my crop
The Bugbee tomato's thing is close to my use. I have no need for compact veg. I need to get to the net and spread. Expansive growth. Not compact growth I will chop off. Though who could say no to a big fat trunk, you could cut a pipe from.

In regards to what HPS has, that LED lacks, I'm going to suggest it's heat. We have all looked at the stratospheric effect of cannabinoid distribution. I want to look at the stratospheric measurement of water loss. I don't think we need any help, to recognise the very different water movement we see, using each type of light. That HID is hot, and for the canopy to remain just a degree warmer, the extra water loss requirement is calculable. Though it's not maths I fancy doing.
What I have seen, is that LED plants drink about the same. So if the HID is loosing so much more out the top, the sides must be loosing less. In this undone study of stratospheric water use, we are going to see an interesting picture appear.

I'm going to stop here, and see if anyone wants to get a word in

 

[Rocket Soul]

I need to address something again, that is going unheard. It's how our willingness to believe, can often stop us seeing the facts.
All we can find is measured and explained, visible proof, that 730 in the main lights, is no good for cannabis.

Can anybody offer anything different, that's not just wishful thinking.







This could be the UV debate. The Blue debate. Green, or religion. It just happens to be FR this time.

Perhaps we can't explain how it happens, on a biological level. That shouldn't push us to either side of the fence though. It's not any sort of evidence. There are papers talking about the chemical processes though, that are what I aired. I'm not making anything up myself. Though sometimes we really do just have to open our eyes and look. Growing frames is a vegative responce, and we have known it directs power from flower since we lived in caves. Who is actually saying any different. I know people desire it to be different (UV Blue Green NIR & Gods) but the only scientific value to that, is that it's a good reason for some papers on the topic. We now have papers. Quite a few.

That one paper was at 500umol. They are all looking at the P total, as it changes ratio. As this is ratios, the total hasn't the greatest significance. It's good to see the paper being picked at, but I don't see this putting a great dent in it. I'm not sure that 500 is all that inaccurate for the basic light in a tent home grower either. The sort of person blindly buying into the idea, that the one light should have FR. Though I don't hear anybody today, that thinks it should be there.

I think I might be a little older than you Grey. For me, veg was under Mercury. I remember the early philips hps with the extra blue. They were the agro, and not for us. Though perhaps I should add that to my belief system comments, as we adopted them as ours anyway. The hps with more blue, was greenhouse supplemental lighting, where normal hps at low illumination levels, didn't provide the token amount of blue that plants require. This was a while ago, and so such rough ideas were accurate. Plants could be lit less, with that blue fraction included. Though not our plants, which just saw it as less light. Which we know now wasn't just lost efficiency, but also adding blue lowers yield. I happily admit, I browsed the Philips catalogue and bought them. It's as I type today, that the need to add another light is finally making full sense. Back then, having the Philips lighting catalogue was like having the knowledge. I had never heard of a grow book. As I sat in the big city library, reading books that needed dusting. Though I know MH existed, it was old Hg installations that were providing us with parts. So maybe you are older? I have an idea for a useless thread now. You will never guess...



So, are we all settled with the idea that a single light grow, shouldn't have FR, unless it's switchable?
We seem to have some agreement.

Id agree that it would always be preferable to have far red on a separate channel but i dont think the paper shows that far red lowers yield as a general statement. What it shows is that additional far red lowers yield on a warm white 90cri spectrum, which is what was used in the experiment. Important to remember that 90cri spectrum already has a fair bit of far red so it would be easier to overdo it and get the plant into shade avoidance and lower yield. Also no added 660, which by now is standard in literally any led growlight. This missing 660 would balance the pf / pfr balance back towards Pf.

I think the paper simply shows that if you push the spectrum too far towards Pfr then you will have shade avoidance syndrome and missing yield. Far red on top of far red is not ideal, but i cant think of any led light which only adds far red and not a combo.
HLG, which makes tests in their own facilities, seems to mention in one of their youtube vids that adding far red on one of their aisles led to an increase in yield. The increase was larger, in % than the added wattage in %. Not sure if my writing is clear but in the lines of 3% increase in far red by wattage led to a 5% increase in yield by weight; but they were using a 660 supplemented spectrum (just like pretty much every led growlight today) which the paper didnt.

I think youre taking your conclusions too far re far red based on one paper with somewhat flawed methodology; they arent actually testing what would be the situation in an actual grow.

But i do sympathize very much in the sense of how hard it is to nail down these spectrum studies, when to far red when not to etc.

Far red and transition stretch: ive actually seen side by sides where the 90cri side (with more far red) stretched less than the 80cri side (less far red): both sides stretched similar but the 90cri side the stretch finished faster; it stretched for less time. But its forum stuff so i dont think you can take it as evidence. I personally believe that the effects of spectrum is so fickle, in strain dependency and in just what state the plants went into flower that the best way is to have UV and Far red on separate channels, and add according to the situation.

In the end i think its very hard to do research about this in a way that actually is similar to the grower situation:

In a research paper you set all conditions a priori and follow them to the dot. If you see something going towards an unfavorable situation for yield you cannot change it, you see everything thru in order to get data.
This is not the standard grow situation where the grower is a free agent who works for best yield/potency/any other required characteristics (such as low height if needed). One situation is set, the other is not set and has someone trying to make the best of it.

This is not to say that the science has no value only that you need to contextualize it as a grower and especially if youre making growlights.

Does anyone have anything on the Mammoth lighting emerald green spectrum? Its a green supplemented spectrum, based on that one paper re green light being the most photosyntheticly active at high light intensity.

EDIT: im happy you brought this paper though cause ive got some straight 2700k 90cri (no 660) lights that i meant to add far red to, id have to reevaluate now or at least keep them on low on a separate channel.

 

[Ca++]

I'm not using just one paper though. I'm trawling the internet, using data from people such as Bugbees team, and not forum users, who you may consider the actual growers. To me, the actual growers to follow, are doing well funded operations, and research within these real grows with the likes of Philips, who want to sell them anything that has a need. Have a look what Philips and Osram are selling to the big opps, following trials. White+660 with everything else cast out. If I'm saying more than that single paper, it's because I read it in another paper. I'm not adding anything myself or from a pot forum. As you say, studies are usually strict, and some geezers side by side can go wrong for so many reasons.

If you feel a 90cri white makes some amount of FR, then you must feel it makes a greater amount of 660. It is biased towards 660, rather than missing 660. Then they start introducing the 730 slowly. Eventually they get silly, with 10% of the lighting load, but they need to see data points, to see that linear response. As we did using a silly amount of white light, then realised our monsters actually took it. If it was just one paper, my skepticism wouldn't of let me post it. It's a volume of evidence points this way though. At some point I expect to see something meaningful point the other way, but actually, to date, FR is just suited to supplemental tasks.

Anyone reading should realise, this is not my work I'm presenting. It's the work of the top tier. I have no money in the game, I'm just chatting about it, because it is what it is. Perhaps someone can produce a counter claim, that carries a similar weight, or have a better hack at the science.



I'm not sure what green paper you read. Certainly, plants getting saturated with red and blue, yet have little green, can make better use of more green than red or blue. Especially if that red and blue were a purple light.
They are saying that green is 5% less effective than red, in general.
In cannabis, it seems fine for growing bud mass, but decreases THC.

Realistically, to judge one, you need to put it where the same wattage and size light used to be, in a grow that was consistent. With lab help, to really know.
With that in mind, most buyers will find it grows plants, and that was the expectation. Every light gets good reviews.

 

[greyfader]

here is an interesting page from philips;

GreenPower LED flowering lamp | Philips lighting

The GreenPower LED flowering lamp is the effective, energy-efficient way to extend daylight in greenhouses that cultivate.

www.lighting.philips.com

they sell screw-in bulbs for professional use both with and without far-red depending on the crop

 

[Rocket Soul]

I'm not using just one paper though. I'm trawling the internet, using data from people such as Bugbees team, and not forum users, who you may consider the actual growers. To me, the actual growers to follow, are doing well funded operations, and research within these real grows with the likes of Philips, who want to sell them anything that has a need. Have a look what Philips and Osram are selling to the big opps, following trials. White+660 with everything else cast out. If I'm saying more than that single paper, it's because I read it in another paper. I'm not adding anything myself or from a pot forum. As you say, studies are usually strict, and some geezers side by side can go wrong for so many reasons.

If you feel a 90cri white makes some amount of FR, then you must feel it makes a greater amount of 660. It is biased towards 660, rather than missing 660. Then they start introducing the 730 slowly. Eventually they get silly, with 10% of the lighting load, but they need to see data points, to see that linear response. As we did using a silly amount of white light, then realised our monsters actually took it. If it was just one paper, my skepticism wouldn't of let me post it. It's a volume of evidence points this way though. At some point I expect to see something meaningful point the other way, but actually, to date, FR is just suited to supplemental tasks.

Anyone reading should realise, this is not my work I'm presenting. It's the work of the top tier. I have no money in the game, I'm just chatting about it, because it is what it is. Perhaps someone can produce a counter claim, that carries a similar weight, or have a better hack at the science.



I'm not sure what green paper you read. Certainly, plants getting saturated with red and blue, yet have little green, can make better use of more green than red or blue. Especially if that red and blue were a purple light.
They are saying that green is 5% less effective than red, in general.
In cannabis, it seems fine for growing bud mass, but decreases THC.

Realistically, to judge one, you need to put it where the same wattage and size light used to be, in a grow that was consistent. With lab help, to really know.
With that in mind, most buyers will find it grows plants, and that was the expectation. Every light gets good reviews.

What do you mean top tier? What about this paper do you feel make it top tier?

And just to make sure: you are arguing that far red is only and always a detriment to yield in cannabis?

 

[exoticrobotic]

You guys saying HPS for the win?

 

[JKD]

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.

 

[JKD]

 

[Rocket Soul]

Whats the source of this? Hps seems low, and the cmh numbers seems a bit off; more far red in a higher cct.

 

[JKD]

Whats the source of this? Hps seems low, and the cmh numbers seems a bit off; more far red in a higher cct.

Is Far Red good for plant growth

Is far red beneficial to plant growth and should far red LEDs be added to grow light fixtures. We look at the most recent studies and analysis to see if far red is useful for indoor growers.

migrolight.com

 

[JKD]

From Bugbee & Nelsons 2013 "Spectral characteristics of lamp types for plant biology" there is included a %Near IR (701-850) comparison also:

https://extension.usu.edu/apec/files/publications/poster/pub__6740181.pdf

The numbers appear quite different, but I don't fully understand their radiation distribution percentages as they add to >100% in the same section. I haven't found what range or reference Shane Torpey used for his 'Migro' chart.

 

[greyfader]

You guys saying HPS for the win?

No! Because of efficiency and spectrum leds are superior. but the argument or debate is about what ratios to use.

i've been using 2700k and 5000k white leds for about 5 years now in the two fixtures i've shown.

grow after grow, experimenting with every ratio you can name. 10%, 20%, 33%, 40%. 50% 5000k to 2700k and 2700k to 5000k. i have grown potent, dank flowers with all of them.

but i did not get the size flowers that i got with hps. i used philips greenpower agricultural double-ended bulbs in the best fixtures money could buy at the time, sunlight supply AC/DE's. you have seen some of my plants and they were heavy, potent plants.

Most LED manufacturers use a combination of warm white and cool white leds and then use a few 660's for some more dark red and a couple of 730-750's for a little more far-red.

i think these are compromised one size fits all lights. most of the market is home growers and hobbyists.

these folks are not going to buy a dedicated light for each phase of growth.

some of the manufacturers are making tunable or switchable lights but they are very expensive.

some manufacturers who are building lights for large commercial operations are building dedicated lights for each phase of growth.

Ca++ is looking for a one-lamp solution that may or may not include far-red, and i'm looking at a two-lamp solution. one of which will contain supplemental far-red. but that's not all it will contain.

but, i'm a famous cheap bastard and i'm not going to pay what are still exorbitant prices for specialized or tunable lamps.

right now i've got a grow going on in which i'm seeing the results i want. i used 5000k only during veg and stretch and then switched out all of them for 2700k plus incandescent.

it is the poor man's solution. a low-tech way to get high-tech results without paying high-tech prices.

neither of my two experimental lights is ideal as far as bulb spacing is concerned but because of the experimenting i now know what is the right spacing. i'm still looking at the ideal ratio of incandescent to use but an incandescent lamp produces a lot more than just a little far-red from a one nm 730 chip.

the incandescent is a continuous unbroken line of energy like an HPS, Metal halide, or a Cmh.

looking at this excellent pdf JKD just posted you can see that hid lighting produces huge amounts of infrared. incandescents also produce a lot of infrared. but not the huge spikes that you can see in the 825-850 nm range that hid's put out.

but looking at the pdf again check the incandescent curve as it transits the dark red range. it has more dark red as a portion of par than the sun or any other lamp that i know of.

https://extension.usu.edu/apec/files/publications/poster/pub__6740181.pdf

When LED manufacturers supplement dark red it is always just a single nm chip at 660.

an incandescent transits the entire range emitting all along the curve.

we see folks using hps and led lights together but i think an incandescent is not only a cheaper way of doing it but also offers a more complete slice of the pie.and is more controllable as far as power ratios are concerned.

they also have some significant UVA.

so, i don't think it is just the presence or not of far-red alone that causes the difference in size of led and hps flowers but more likely a combination of more dark red, far-red, and some infrared that is causing it.

infrared heats not only the surface but also penetrates. i don't know anything for sure but it looks like i'm getting somewhere whether i can explain it adequately or not.

this grow is the first one where i've run one pheno of one strain under these conditions and these flowers are bulking up for the first time since i began experimenting with leds.

i just went and took a few pics for you guys, i hope you fucking appreciate it!

this plant will be in flower 6 weeks tomorrow. forgot to mention that this is a 10-week strain.

 

[Ca++]

here is an interesting page from philips;

GreenPower LED flowering lamp | Philips lighting

The GreenPower LED flowering lamp is the effective, energy-efficient way to extend daylight in greenhouses that cultivate.

www.lighting.philips.com

they sell screw-in bulbs for professional use both with and without far-red depending on the crop

Yes, night break is seen quicker, if you hit the right wavelength.

To be clear, these are not grow lights.

 

[Ca++]

What do you mean top tier? What about this paper do you feel make it top tier?

And just to make sure: you are arguing that far red is only and always a detriment to yield in cannabis?

Are you reading my posts?

Top tier sources, are professors and research teams with international acclaim.
Bottom tier sources, are anecdotal thoughts of people growing in their bedroom.

I'm not using just one paper

I'm not saying all FR is bad for cannabis.

 

[Ca++]

Did anyone understand the incoherent mumbling at the end?
All I got, was using the FR for 10 minutes, saw no usable gain.

Nobody ever suggested a cannabis plant needed more than 12 hours sleep. So no gain is expected. Though some wishful thinking has seen people trying. I'm happy to see Bruce address this same point, that people hear what they want to.

I think the mumbling, is because the video only approaches half of what I'm quoted as saying. Bugbee may of also wanted to say the rest of what I did. Though like me, knows it's just anecdotal, and needs a study.

 

[JKD]

Did anyone understand the incoherent mumbling at the end?
All I got, was using the FR for 10 minutes, saw no usable gain.

There’s a subtitle option in the settings for the clip.

 

[JKD]

but looking at the pdf again check the incandescent curve as it transits the dark red range. it has more dark red as a portion of par than the sun or any other lamp that i know of.

The ratio of YPF to PPF considering the explainer on the right hand side of the PDF is also interesting.