LED and BUD QUALITY

[Rocket Soul]

That paper was an opening to the topic. Without a reasonable opening, the conversation couldn't of moved on. Bugbee has been added as a source twice, and indicates where the topic would go without any proof. He was even added to prove it's good, when he wasn't saying that. The outcome people want, can be a stronger part of decision making, than the truth.

All the evidence from outside sources, is telling us that sticking 730 in our main lights, is bad. We have the numbers behind how bad, and explanations of why it is that way.

To counter this, the FR is good team, have expressed their desires.

Isn't that about right?



There are a couple of side topics. These revolve around FR for the uses it does have. I myself use FR. However the problem remains, that while people desire it in the main lights, cannabis brands will keep putting it in there. They don't make lights for plants, they make lights growers buy. The vast majority of which, want everything they can get. It's psychology shaping our lighting choices, not plant physiology.
Obviously, most readers want to push back at 730 not being what they want it to be. They want their one light to have everything possible in it, because that must be best. That is a different type of science topic though.

What HID has, that LED doesn't. The UK police, with no growing background, call HIDs something quite different. The press releases here, call them heat lamps. So technical correctness aside, what is the outstanding difference between HID and LED
840nm NIR which causes stretch like 730 just dreams about. It is not an inactive wavelength.

Im not on the far red good team, im on the team of addition of far red will have consequences depending on what spectrum (and intensity) it is added to. The "its complicated" team.
Im ready to drop arguing this on this thread, but if you have more relevant papers, especially the bugbee ones, then please dm it to me so i can have a look at it. Youtube videos may be helpfull but it is not a substitute for a proper paper.
However, lets keep it straight: the only other evidence or source thats been supplied here is one paper with some problems: low light intensity (which goes hand in hand with shade avoidance: a low light phenomenon that causes yield loss), adding far red on top of far red; yes, 90 cri has more far red than standard 80 cri, if you believe this is my feelings you can check the spectrum in the same paper to compare and no indication of how far red ppfd was measured: since its beyond the range of a standard par meter it would be nice to know how they measured it; par meters have a response curve which is usually biased against red and far red which would introduce the possibility that theyre actually adding a lot more.
In that context im sure you can imagine that someone would challenge statements about the "volume" or "all the evidence" or even "im not using one paper" when infact youve only supplied one, which was middling at best. Looking thru the paper i see missed opportunity : to make a case relevant to growers: noone is arguing red sup of 100% far red, but some add 660+730 in ratios; why not test this which is where things seem to be moving? Another missed opportunity would be to to correlate stretch to loss of yield. Also this is a paper where each condition is represented by only 5 plants.
Other arguments seems just based on authority: osram and phillips is doing this so this must be good and right, while HLG, the premier light maker of cannabis cultivation, is infact going the other way, adding far red to their R-spec boards after doing their own tests. How can either of these sides action be seen as proof of anything?

Im not saying youre wrong but i am saying that you havent really brought very much to say youre right, especially in the general terms you use. Please send som papers over dm though, ill be happy to engage over them

 

[Rocket Soul]

I am open to new inventions but i am more open to results.

Pics are not results, yield (per area preferably but also per watts) and cannabinoid tests are results.
It is a very good looking bud btw, and it allways feels better if you have a few like that in your grow, but its the actual yield that matters, do t you think?

 

[Rgd]

Pics are not results,

imho a /b pics [for me] mean a lot though..visual

 

[ZK7]

blurple results were imo better than current mainstream led lights.

I can't grow decent looking buds with current leds lights.

Sorry my guy but to say LED's are no good because you've never had a good result from them suggest to me you have a low IQ.

Have you considered the fact that maybe you done something wrong?

 

[exoticrobotic]

I'm not growing commercially so exact yeild doesnt matter.

Lab test results mean nothing to me either. They measure a mere fraction of existing cannabinoids and dont correlate with effect much anyway.

 

[exoticrobotic]

Sorry my guy but to say LED's are no good because you've never had a good result from them suggest to me you have a low IQ.

Have you considered the fact that maybe you done something wrong?

I consider there are many more things that can go wrong and do go wrong while growing with leds.

I don't think they're no good, just not as good as hids

 

[Rocket Soul]

I'm not growing commercially so exact yeild doesnt matter.

Lab test results mean nothing to me either. They measure a mere fraction of existing cannabinoids and dont correlate with effect much anyway.

I agree and disagree: for own stash i prefer grown in direct sunlight, preferably with elevation, over cmh/hps or led. The smell is so much better and the high seems "fuller" and richer.

If i were growing for myself only id probably mix led with some kinda HID; maybe even halogen spots for deeper reds and infra red.

 

[greyfader]

Not a single brown led 'calmag' spot in sight.

Show me more healthy led grown plant please? crooked8 need not apply with his NA$A budget

Not another troll pic

my plants are almost visually perfect. no spots or yellowing. i'm sure you saw the pics i posted. if you blow them up you can see there are no disorders being displayed other than a little tip burn. and that's because i push them hard.

but my HPS plants were the same way. no visual disorders or displays. so it's not the LED's causing the displays you are seeing with some folks LED grows. it's the way they are culturing the plants.

i think you'll agree that the flowers i just posted are bulking nicely for being at 6 weeks of a 10-week strain.

this is occurring with a mixture of 2700k white leds and tungsten incandescent.

the problem is that i can't tell you exactly what's causing this response. is it the blue/red ratio? is it the additional dark red or the additional far-red? is the infrared partly responsible? is it a combination of all these things and dependent on the ratio i may have accidentally hit?

i don't know and have no way of finding out other than trial and error.

but even though i can't explain exactly what is happening it's obvious that it is working well.

the light that is over the plant in the pics i posted cost me less than 350 dollars US to build. including the bulbs and lamp holders.

this plant is getting about 1200 umols ppfd for 12 hours which is about 51-52 mols per day DLI.

the ratio mix of this light could all be duplicated with led chips only but at a much greater expense.

the debate on this thread now is not "are hids or leds better for growing cannabis" but rather what ratios or percentages of the spectrum grow the plant better.

although i got larger flowers with hps when i initially began using led light i'm finally getting the results i wanted.

one more thing to consider is that research is showing that led grown flowers have a higher cannabinoid % than hps grown plants. and terpene expression is also better.

 

[greyfader]

here is another manufacturer showing both general-purpose lights and ones specialized for different phases of growth.

Spectrums – INDO Lighting

indolighting.com

 

[Ca++]

Im not on the far red good team, im on the team of addition of far red will have consequences depending on what spectrum (and intensity) it is added to. The "its complicated" team.
Im ready to drop arguing this on this thread, but if you have more relevant papers, especially the bugbee ones, then please dm it to me so i can have a look at it. Youtube videos may be helpfull but it is not a substitute for a proper paper.
However, lets keep it straight: the only other evidence or source thats been supplied here is one paper with some problems: low light intensity (which goes hand in hand with shade avoidance: a low light phenomenon that causes yield loss), adding far red on top of far red; yes, 90 cri has more far red than standard 80 cri, if you believe this is my feelings you can check the spectrum in the same paper to compare and no indication of how far red ppfd was measured: since its beyond the range of a standard par meter it would be nice to know how they measured it; par meters have a response curve which is usually biased against red and far red which would introduce the possibility that theyre actually adding a lot more.
In that context im sure you can imagine that someone would challenge statements about the "volume" or "all the evidence" or even "im not using one paper" when infact youve only supplied one, which was middling at best. Looking thru the paper i see missed opportunity : to make a case relevant to growers: noone is arguing red sup of 100% far red, but some add 660+730 in ratios; why not test this which is where things seem to be moving? Another missed opportunity would be to to correlate stretch to loss of yield. Also this is a paper where each condition is represented by only 5 plants.
Other arguments seems just based on authority: osram and phillips is doing this so this must be good and right, while HLG, the premier light maker of cannabis cultivation, is infact going the other way, adding far red to their R-spec boards after doing their own tests. How can either of these sides action be seen as proof of anything?

Im not saying youre wrong but i am saying that you havent really brought very much to say youre right, especially in the general terms you use. Please send som papers over dm though, ill be happy to engage over them

So your saying the only evidence presented here, is that it's not for putting in your main lights. That's pretty much what I am saying to.
I'm forever seeing papers that run silly amounts like 200umol, and dismissing them. 500 though.. it's not far off a very happy 650. Lots of grows have areas under 500.
The 90cri does have more FR than an 80cri usually. It's not important. Both have more 660 than 730. Which is where a study needs to start. Where you go from there, doesn't really matter, if it's a linear response found. The transition point could do with more data points, but one is there.
HLG are not what they were. It's cost cutting and marketing now. They are not a source I'm going to look at. I'm surprised you would reach to them yourself. It's about how far you have to go though, to find something that goes against what I have presented from sources that are surely worth more.


Edit: I'm mixing HID and LED, after first trying incandescent. I'm doing this, as HID has an 840 spike. Just as the incandescent. I realise I don't know it's the 840 doing the trick, but people have tried the 730, and not had the wanted results.

 

[greyfader]

So your saying the only evidence presented here, is that it's not for putting in your main lights. That's pretty much what I am saying to.
I'm forever seeing papers that run silly amounts like 200umol, and dismissing them. 500 though.. it's not far off a very happy 650. Lots of grows have areas under 500.
The 90cri does have more FR than an 80cri usually. It's not important. Both have more 660 than 730. Which is where a study needs to start. Where you go from there, doesn't really matter, if it's a linear response found. The transition point could do with more data points, but one is there.
HLG are not what they were. It's cost cutting and marketing now. They are not a source I'm going to look at. I'm surprised you would reach to them yourself. It's about how far you have to go though, to find something that goes against what I have presented from sources that are surely worth more.


Edit: I'm mixing HID and LED, after first trying incandescent. I'm doing this, as HID has an 840 spike. Just as the incandescent. I realise I don't know it's the 840 doing the trick, but people have tried the 730, and not had the wanted results.

just want to say that an incandescent does not produce a spike like hps, metal halide, or cmh.

the sun, incandescent, and halogen are smooth curves. continuous black body radiators.

editing to say thank you again to JKD for presenting this excellent pdf

 

[Cerathule]

Im not on the far red good team, im on the team of addition of far red will have consequences depending on what spectrum (and intensity) it is added to. The "its complicated" team.
Im ready to drop arguing this on this thread, but if you have more relevant papers, especially the bugbee ones, then please dm it to me so i can have a look at it. Youtube videos may be helpfull but it is not a substitute for a proper paper.
However, lets keep it straight: the only other evidence or source thats been supplied here is one paper with some problems: low light intensity (which goes hand in hand with shade avoidance: a low light phenomenon that causes yield loss), adding far red on top of far red; yes, 90 cri has more far red than standard 80 cri, if you believe this is my feelings you can check the spectrum in the same paper to compare and no indication of how far red ppfd was measured: since its beyond the range of a standard par meter it would be nice to know how they measured it; par meters have a response curve which is usually biased against red and far red which would introduce the possibility that theyre actually adding a lot more.
In that context im sure you can imagine that someone would challenge statements about the "volume" or "all the evidence" or even "im not using one paper" when infact youve only supplied one, which was middling at best. Looking thru the paper i see missed opportunity : to make a case relevant to growers: noone is arguing red sup of 100% far red, but some add 660+730 in ratios; why not test this which is where things seem to be moving? Another missed opportunity would be to to correlate stretch to loss of yield. Also this is a paper where each condition is represented by only 5 plants.
Other arguments seems just based on authority: osram and phillips is doing this so this must be good and right, while HLG, the premier light maker of cannabis cultivation, is infact going the other way, adding far red to their R-spec boards after doing their own tests. How can either of these sides action be seen as proof of anything?

Im not saying youre wrong but i am saying that you havent really brought very much to say youre right, especially in the general terms you use. Please send som papers over dm though, ill be happy to engage over them

Yeah that thesis has a lot of issues. Less light in flower as in veg though plants vegged 6 weeks long. Big plants just exacerbate the height dilemma further, esp. under the aspect of increasing selfshade of lower parts, where FR does reach much more readily than PAR. Any experienced person would rather give more light to fend this instead of doing the opposite. We know the various colors of light work differently not only when ratios to the other colours are shifted, but also at changing target PPF densities. If low light situation add better PAR, and esp. 660 to also reflect on the economic/efficiency realistic choice. Once the upper leaves come close to be light-saturated, the FR will be a better choice to increase net canopy carbon fixation. There's research by Bugbee showing this. The thesis also didn't use the photomorphological FR advantage in early veg, and should've rather not used during the transitional stretch. Were the phytochrome photostationary state ratios actually calculated in the paper? I remember some papers on that to various popular indoor specs and the white phospor Led + 730 bears indeed the danger of causing a shade avoid. When that already has a few percentages of it, what kind of control vs FR is that?!? Why not use the standard scientific R:G:B 8:1:1 at 1000umol/s/m^2?

 

[JKD]

This one has probably been posted already, but it’s interesting in its own findings, its summarising of where the research is currently (although it’s a couple of years old), and the sources cited for further reading:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669021001151?via%3Dihub

A problem with all of these, which @exoticrobotic would probably agree, is they lack a qualitative component for the all important subjective user experience that these plants are ultimately grown for.

But I guess that’s where we all come in.

Edit — was thinking of this one when mentioning the review:

Frontiers | An Update on Plant Photobiology and Implications for Cannabis Production

This review presents recent developments in plant photobiology and lighting systems for horticultural crops, as well as potential applications for cannabis (...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[greyfader]

Cannabinoid Yield​

"HPS resulted in a significant decline of THC concentration in flowers compared to both LED treatments in both experiments, while no significant differences between the two LED types were observed."

and some other interesting comparisons taken from;

The Effect of Light Spectrum on the Morphology and Cannabinoid Content of Cannabis sativa L.

Cannabis sativa L. flowers are the main source of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) used in medicine. One of the most important growth factors in cannabis cultivation is light; light quality, light intensity, and photoperiod play a big role in a ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Rocket Soul]

So your saying the only evidence presented here, is that it's not for putting in your main lights. That's pretty much what I am saying to.
I'm forever seeing papers that run silly amounts like 200umol, and dismissing them. 500 though.. it's not far off a very happy 650. Lots of grows have areas under 500.
The 90cri does have more FR than an 80cri usually. It's not important. Both have more 660 than 730. Which is where a study needs to start. Where you go from there, doesn't really matter, if it's a linear response found. The transition point could do with more data points, but one is there.
HLG are not what they were. It's cost cutting and marketing now. They are not a source I'm going to look at. I'm surprised you would reach to them yourself. It's about how far you have to go though, to find something that goes against what I have presented from sources that are surely worth more.


Edit: I'm mixing HID and LED, after first trying incandescent. I'm doing this, as HID has an 840 spike. Just as the incandescent. I realise I don't know it's the 840 doing the trick, but people have tried the 730, and not had the wanted results.

Im saying if you have problems understanding me please quote what you cant understand, post here or preferably send it to me in a DM. If there is any more papers please post them, id even love to see those low light intensity studies you discarded. If there is only this one then i refer you back to my previous answers, and again; please quote what you dont understand. I dont know how to make things clearer to you if you don't help me out.

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.

If there are things you need help with understanding about botany in general start by telling us what you dont understand. If in you prefer do it here but youre welcome to dm aswell

 

[Ca++]

S

just want to say that an incandescent does not produce a spike like hps, metal halide, or cmh.

the sun, incandescent, and halogen are smooth curves. continuous black body radiators.

View attachment 18911352

editing to say thank you again to JKD for presenting this excellent pdf

Sorry, I was rushing to a late appointment, and did think I could be clearer, or fetch the pics, if I had time.
The spike at 840 from HIDs is clear in these you provided, and the incandescent also has 840
The 840 is just a part of what the incandescent has, but it seemed to be doing part of the HIDs job, and the HID only has that in common. So I moved to looking at 840.
I left it sounding like I only just made this move, but it's been a couple of runs now.

An paper on 840 showed them stretching like crazy, just using LED emitters.

 

[Ca++]

Yeah that thesis has a lot of issues. Less light in flower as in veg though plants vegged 6 weeks long. Big plants just exacerbate the height dilemma further, esp. under the aspect of increasing selfshade of lower parts, where FR does reach much more readily than PAR. Any experienced person would rather give more light to fend this instead of doing the opposite. We know the various colors of light work differently not only when ratios to the other colours are shifted, but also at changing target PPF densities. If low light situation add better PAR, and esp. 660 to also reflect on the economic/efficiency realistic choice. Once the upper leaves come close to be light-saturated, the FR will be a better choice to increase net canopy carbon fixation. There's research by Bugbee showing this. The thesis also didn't use the photomorphological FR advantage in early veg, and should've rather not used during the transitional stretch. Were the phytochrome photostationary state ratios actually calculated in the paper? I remember some papers on that to various popular indoor specs and the white phospor Led + 730 bears indeed the danger of causing a shade avoid. When that already has a few percentages of it, what kind of control vs FR is that?!? Why not use the standard scientific R:G:B 8:1:1 at 1000umol/s/m^2?

Never heard of an r8 1000umol standard. Can you point me to it.

 

[Ca++]

Dynamic lighting is starting to shape up

That's a preview of a paper on sale. A broad white, compared to using 3 mixes of lighting, or 7 mixes, throughout. Look at that 130% increase. It's insane.

I have no idea what these states of lighting were, but it seems very valuable information.

I do know of one team using FR during rooting. First week without it, then second with it, it an effort to get the shorter ones up to the height of the bigger ones. This had greater meaning to growers that can't use hormones. These growers have slower and more mixed results, to those that can use them. So the FR is of great use to them, and can reduce the time taken to get enough from a batch, by 5 days.
If you can use hormones, this uniformity is of less consequence. This may mean you would rather use UV. UV has been shown to increase survival rates, leading to better cuttings overall. However, both techs won't work together, as the stretch response to FR is regulated by what goes on with blue and UV. The situation is, that with FR leading to stretch, the blue end still has more say in if it will happen.
Ultimately, you could use UV for a week, then FR. However, the guys that will install this kit for you, and mentor you in it's use, just use the FR and know who it is for. The UV guys are a lab team, that have not got to production.


I would love to see them 7 stages of lighting. The leveling up effect of FR seems fitting though. We shouldn't forget that a stretching plant has stretching roots also. Which I never thought of, with my transition use.

 

[Cerathule]

Never heard of an r8 1000umol standard. Can you point me to it.

You wouldn't understand, I told you before to read up on the daily light integral and its relationship with plant age (ie. veg-length) and also plant height.
I also do remember indeed you've commented & discussed already on several presented studies about Cannabis leaf or canopy net photosynthesis rates or studies, which put this factor into a relationship to a harvest index. Or studies that proof how much light Cannabis can take before light-saturation or even photoinhibition sets in.

So you should already understand this but instead you choose an arbitrare 650umol of optimum PPFD because simply it served your own argumentative standpoint. It's so tiresome when all you want is merely to argumentate and then next week all you did read is already forgotten again.

 

[Cerathule]

The situation is, that with FR leading to stretch, the blue end still has more say in if it will happen.

That's false.

Given enough 730 the plant will stretch regardless of overall blue or canopy top PPFD.