What's new

LED and BUD QUALITY

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
@Wolverine97
LEC lights are a marketing tool. Somebody selling you normal lights, with a different name, to try and corner you into believing they have something special, that everybody didn't have. Which is a past tense.

By it's right name, it's a cmh. Though the newer HF ballast types with different sockets and outputs, so you don't mix them with your existing cmh.

HPS reached ~1.7umol/w which left the old mh behind. Then new mh came along with 1.9umol/w. This was good while LED was still in it's infancy. Today, LED isn't really developing, and is mature tech. Nobody is buying LED with just 1.9umol/w.

A 315 lamp alone, is about $115. A Mars 300w unit, $230, both the first I saw on Amazon.
The 315 lasts half as long, so there seems good symmetry.
The 315 is 1.95umol/w but most of that light isn't on your plants. It must reflect off something. The driver also needs powering. You won't get 1.8umol/w as a system efficiency.
Back to Mars. Costs the same, but you get 2.8umol/w system efficiency. That is 50% more light, or 33% less power to make as much light.
The reason CMH died is plain to see. A devote user was recently posting as finding new CMH gear was causing a problem. IIRC they were guided towards people still selling it under a false flag. LEC.
It's a zombie product.

We should also look at the blue and UV these produce, and how stunted you want your crop. Possibly a desireable trait in veg, or with very stretchy plants. Making something reluctant to grow isn't an ideal though.

You might want to swap out any 400 MH's you have, with a 315, which is quite equivical. Though LED would actually gain you something instead
Have you grown with CMH? I swear the buds are more frosty. My favorite setup so far is CMH with LED. My 2 CMH lights are off right now to save some amps from my circuit, but if it could handle the extra watts I'd be using both still. Someday I'll upgrade the circuit. I'm happy with my LED's though too.
 

Phytoplankton

Active member
I get that it's a toxicity that's causing the deficiency. My guess is too much Ca and Mg, making K harder to access. I've had the same symptoms before and it was usually shortly after feeding too. My well water has plenty Ca too, and with the Ca in the dry amendments it can get off balanced. When the ratios get off it can actually help to add more of the deficient nutrient as long as you don't overdo it despite what some say. Especially in sulfate form.

Sulfates can be your friend if you know the toxicity and deficiency. When I know my Ca is a little higher and it's locking out Mg, I'll add Epsom salt. If the Ca is locking out K, I'll add langbeinite or potassium sulfate depending on if I think it needs Mg. I'm no expert, but I'm getting better at figuring this stuff out slowly.

I tried finding the ingredients for that 2-8-8, and this is all I could find:

Recipe 420 Ultra Bloom fertilizer was developed by professional growers. Our complete fertilizer blend is exactly what your plants need to develop robust blooms.
This 100% natural & organic formula delivers maximum impact that your plants need during the flowering stage. Recipe 420 Ultra Bloom fertilizer includes ingredients such as Azomite, Bio Char, Glacier Rock Dust, Calcium and Magnesium.

I'm kinda guessing there is a bunch of langbeinite in there and the Mg from that and the Ca in the fertilizer along with your water is causing K deficiency. I think the Mg dissolves faster than the K in the langbeinite and so those first few waterings are mostly Mg and not so much K. But that's just a theory based on some of my experiences using langbeinite.
Except the decency is gone with no additional additives, just water. If you look at pics of deficiencies and toxicity of K they look almost identical, particularly in the early stages.
 

Ca++

Well-known member
Have you grown with CMH? I swear the buds are more frosty. My favorite setup so far is CMH with LED. My 2 CMH lights are off right now to save some amps from my circuit, but if it could handle the extra watts I'd be using both still. Someday I'll upgrade the circuit. I'm happy with my LED's though too.
The older CMH, but it shouldn't be much different. Just changing the light, gives an instant impression of more, as the blue helps us see. Or not.. if it's car headlights.
That same nature compacts the buds, but doesn't limit resin production. Leading to a denser field of glands. Same resin yield, but less bud yield. Though that bud is generally better, by any metric. When compared to HPS alone.

Then LED entered the scene. We can have that blue, or even UV, if we want to. Or, go the other way, keeping white LED for inspection reasons, but a warm white. Then add in 660 and even 730 to HPS like stretch.

Many manufactures are still reading every paper, and trying to give us everything. So you get the stunting and the stretching at the same time. I did know the topic better, but have let it all go. I'm actually quite single minded, so deep dive things, talk about them, then promptly forget everything I don't need to know. First out, being sources. As sources are vetted at the acquisition stage of knowledge development.

Would you be adding your MH for any particular reason?
I add HPS, for heat, which like the sun, warms the tops in particular. I feel this works towards distribution of the passively taken elements. I think I could use a different heat source, and indeed have, to see what was up with my LED grow, before moving back to HID LED blends.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
Except the decency is gone with no additional additives, just water. If you look at pics of deficiencies and toxicity of K they look almost identical, particularly in the early stages.
Maybe it could be more an imbalance in the ratios if not a specific nutrient toxicity. But I still think it has something do with not enough K for the amount of Ca, Mg. I'm still learning though. I just think this ratio stuff is interesting. I stole this off internet:

The first conjecture at a "proper" Ca:Mg ratio came about in 1901 while looking at total Ca and Mg levels. The results here, suggested a ratio of 5:4 Ca:Mg.
Next, there was further research done in 1945. By this time, researchers had realized that total and exchangeable Ca and Mg levels were different and now considered exchangeable the more important factor.
From this, they determined the "proper" ratios of Ca:Mg based on CEC and saturation percentages.
They resulted in a saturation of; 65% Ca, 10% Mg, 5% K and 20% H. From this they determined that the "proper" ratios of Ca:Mg was 6.5:1 Ca:Mg.
As time passed and further research was conducted; suggestions of "proper" Ca:Mg ratios seemed to land at or between 5:1 and 8:1 Ca:Mg.
 

Ca++

Well-known member
If I lived in the right state, tissue sampling would be $20. I would never ask advice on a forum, but post pics after the fact.
Tissue sampling is so much more, than telling you what you can see.

Trying to buy calmag with the right ratio was a nightmare. I basically failed, but at least got close to the window for my efforts.
 

Phytoplankton

Active member
Maybe it could be more an imbalance in the ratios if not a specific nutrient toxicity. But I still think it has something do with not enough K for the amount of Ca, Mg. I'm still learning though. I just think this ratio stuff is interesting. I stole this off internet:

The first conjecture at a "proper" Ca:Mg ratio came about in 1901 while looking at total Ca and Mg levels. The results here, suggested a ratio of 5:4 Ca:Mg.
Next, there was further research done in 1945. By this time, researchers had realized that total and exchangeable Ca and Mg levels were different and now considered exchangeable the more important factor.
From this, they determined the "proper" ratios of Ca:Mg based on CEC and saturation percentages.
They resulted in a saturation of; 65% Ca, 10% Mg, 5% K and 20% H. From this they determined that the "proper" ratios of Ca:Mg was 6.5:1 Ca:Mg.
As time passed and further research was conducted; suggestions of "proper" Ca:Mg ratios seemed to land at or between 5:1 and 8:1 Ca:Mg.
IMHO the imbalance was just plain too many nutes.at a time when the plant didn’t need them. I’ve used these nutes/soil and setup for years, never had this happen until I double dosed the plants. I don’t believe it’s as complicated as you think. Sometime the obvious answer is the answer. I understand Mulders chart, and cec, and the pathways fungi and plants use to metabolize nutrients/micronutrients, as well as active and passive transport. We might have to agree to disagree. (lol)
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
IMHO the imbalance was just plain too many nutes.at a time when the plant didn’t need them. I’ve used these nutes/soil and setup for years, never had this happen until I double dosed the plants. I don’t believe it’s as complicated as you think. Sometime the obvious answer is the answer. I understand Mulders chart, and cec, and the pathways fungi and plants use to metabolize nutrients/micronutrients, as well as active and passive transport. We might have to agree to disagree. (lol)
I agree, too much of something but what exactly is my question. I'm just trying to find out the actual cause of those symptoms. I've had lots of deficiencies and some are easier to diagnosis than others. I still think that looks like K deficiency symptoms, but I could be wrong. I would just like to figure it out and this is the perfect place.

When I've had it before on those lower leaves like that feeding potassium sulfate took care of it. But I'm not ruling anything out. I'm mainly here to learn.

Do you buy new soil each time?
 
Last edited:

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
i was seeing some light burn at 1200umols led yes, which is 300umols more than the recommended if no co2 added (99.9% of home growers)
That’s about right. Without co2 most strains I’ve grown seem to start having issues between 800-1200umols. Without co2 I max my temps out between 78-80*. With co2 I bump the lights up to 1200-1400umols and the temps up to 85-88*.
 

Wolverine97

Well-known member
Veteran
Edit; this was in reply to Ca++, guess I didn't click "Reply".

You made a lot of assumptions there. Most of it is not correct (the assumptions). I really don't feel like typing out a full page response addressing all of it, doesn't matter to me. But a couple points.

I say LEC to differentiate from the old style CMH, these pin socket bulbs, not the old mogul base. The bulb construction itself is different, much smaller. They're different. no doubt about it.

Yes, those are prices you will find online. I got mine for $20/bulb, brand new, and stocked up. There was a sale.

I don't care that LED's last longer. Makes zero difference to me. As I said above, I would then need to add heat into my space, especially in the winter, canceling any efficiency gains.

The rest I have already said in previous posts, and I don't like repeating myself. One thing I will repeat; LED lighting for horticulture is very much still developing. It's about more than MM/m, it's the spectrum itself, as I had said in a previous comment above. Even the best LED's have a very spiky/peaky spectrum, with a lot of areas missing entirely (though their literature will not show this).

Also, I don't think HID lighting was displaced for quite the reason you state, I think it's much more nuanced. If we were still a country full of home growers, I would bet HID lighting would still be a large portion of lighting sales. But big business has taken over, with mega facilities pumping out the cheapest flower they can produce... so of course that is going to drive the market. Now with weed being so cheap in most places, it's hard for companies to remain profitable on their HID products because business demands efficiency and profit over all else.

I will not mention names here, so please don't ask. Several years ago I was offered a position running a large facility in Colorado, for a well known (you all know him) cannabiz guy. Close to 1k light setup, all LED. Even he would freely acknowledge that my flower surpassed anything they could produce. I passed on it, because I would have had to learn a new system, at scale, with huge consequences if I failed... so I stuck with where I am and what I do. The only reason they grow with LED is because cash is king.

I am yet to smoke any LED grown herb that has better attributes than my own. One friend who does well with LED's (owns a grow store locally) puts out some really nice flower. Smokes nice, tastes good... but still not quite as nice as what I produce with HID lighting. He has even commented on it multiple times, but he's stuck on the efficiency because it's an income source for him. It is not for me, so I just want to grow the best flower that I can. At the moment, that is with HID lighting.

Guess I ended up typing that full page after all.... goddamnit!
 
Last edited:

Wolverine97

Well-known member
Veteran
Have you grown with CMH? I swear the buds are more frosty. My favorite setup so far is CMH with LED. My 2 CMH lights are off right now to save some amps from my circuit, but if it could handle the extra watts I'd be using both still. Someday I'll upgrade the circuit. I'm happy with my LED's though too.
Yes, they're definitely frostier with larger heads. But the added depth of flavor is another plus. And yes to Ca++ it will keep them shorter, that's part of the reason for the switch. I turned my old flowering room into a workshop, so I'm in a space with less headroom than I am used to.

I'm just not interested in switching to LED, yet. Once spectrum curve is refined to where there aren't such peaks and valleys, and they can produce REAL uv light (not just one single wavelength), then I will make the jump.
 

Ca++

Well-known member
While I see you don't want to use LED, I have to make the comparison, as this is the LED and Bud Quality thread.

On topic now though, why do you want UV? I'm a HPS grower, and also do bud as good as it can be. No UV though. Far Red is where we are seeing gains. Enough agreement there, that the PAR spectrum has been enlarged to include it as ePAR. The same people have a general agreement UV has no use.

The LED graphs we see, are often smoothed out a lot, and people's sudden interest in light spectrums (now that the choices are being thrust at us) has led to a few people noticing this. Retrospectively, it's nothing new though. Smoothing is nearly always applied to graphs of this nature.
iu

Graph borrowed from Apogee, who's meters are trying to convey accurate information.

The excitation peaks of metals are quite narrow. Those seen from LEDs can be much wider.

LEDs have been around as long as I have. I look around and see them on my wall, my ceiling, street lighting, shops, theatre, Stadiums, warehouses, TV screens, projectors, everywhere. In cars, we saw incandescent lamps first. Then MH. Then LED. Now Laser.
LED isn't just mature, it's getting replaced in some applications.

If we could convert 1 watt of electricity into green light, over 600 lumens is possible (lumens being related to our vision, and the green band where we see the easiest). In white light, 350 lumens. If weighted towards the red. 250 lumens if sun like spectrum is wanted. These are numbers LED isn't that far from. If it gets there, a 100% conversion, there will be no heat or other byproducts. It's just theory. We are pretty close.
HPS used to be king, at 150 lumen. MH was lower. T5 barely got past 100. LED is knocking on 250. All of which a plant can use.

If LED is lacking anything, IMO, it's heat. You don't have to be around them for long to realise this. I don't think it's some mad science problem. More light, has always been more light. We know roughly what they like, to a level of understanding that didn't matter when it was just Hg or Na. Flourescents offered spectral choices, but Hg or Na won by brute force. MH killed Hg (which was a huge UV source) by offering something between HPS and flo's. Later, the electronic versions of cmh suppassed HPS output in PAR terms, while still offering white light. That was the pinnacle of HID lighting. Found in car showrooms and shops, and growrooms. However, LED was coming. Very soon after the CMH was released, LED surrpassed it's PAR output, and today, has put 50% on it.


50% more light, should make a difference. HID growers all shared this dream. If 50% more light hasn't proved useful, then it's trade against heat is where I would look for problems. Nearly everybody got tripped up by this, and it's a bit humbling really. Not stripping off to enter the grow space, then wondering what was different.
I fully understand comments from cold areas, where peoples lower lighting bill, just meant a higher heating bill. Putting them back at square one. No matter what tartan pattern the LEDs produced.

My HID use is about heating, but not the whole airspace, that's being extracted constantly. I'm trying to be more efficient. Using radient heat to warm the bits I'm working on. There also seems to be a trigger from the extended IR range, that incandescent lamps also hit. It may be 840nm, but conversation surrounding 840 has run dry of late. The CMH isn't doing much here, by design. A lot of things we do out of band, are not game changing, so maturing these ideas isn't a big deal. UV being the classic example.
 

Wolverine97

Well-known member
Veteran
A Metal Halide graph? I don't use Metal Halide anymore, and have said as much here in this thread. And I am going to stop responding to this particular string, because you are ignoring what I have actually said. Read my posts again. You're making an argument that isn't there... and I do not understand why, other than to "win", but again you are arguing with yourself. Have a good day man, really.

Later.
 

zachrockbadenof

Well-known member
Veteran
we started off growing some fine bud under hps/mh 3 to 4 1000 watters in the corner of an open room... after that, we switched to a 4x3.5ft tent with '2' 315 cmh;s - bud was good... but not as good as the hps/mh- i think the 2 315's is not enough lite in the tent... our last grow was with a mars fce8000 in a 5x5ft tent... i'd peg the weed as on par with the cmh's...
 

PlastikeRubba

Active member
IMHO the imbalance was just plain too many nutes.at a time when the plant didn’t need them. I’ve used these nutes/soil and setup for years, never had this happen until I double dosed the plants. I don’t believe it’s as complicated as you think. Sometime the obvious answer is the answer. I understand Mulders chart, and cec, and the pathways fungi and plants use to metabolize nutrients/micronutrients, as well as active and passive transport. We might have to agree to disagree. (lol)

Too much nutes always mean trace nutes out of balance. I've tested every weed fertilizer on the market, all wack, every last one. Random ass trace mineral profiles zero though put into em.

You'd think one of these youtube hobby grow gurus would develop a post-harvest leaf tissue standard for home growers. You simply have to have a quality crop to test in the first place. There's your standards, and why no one has them. Fan leaves pulling sideways, sugars leaves folded down , interveinal bleaching, all acceptable according to today's Marijuana fertilizer gurus.
 

Ttystikk

Well-known member
Veteran
Been doing this 30 years... used to supply dispos back in medical days and have turned down offers to run large legal ops in Colorado, and Michigan. My flower is pretty close to as good as it comes. I just have no interest in switching to LED, with my particular setup.

But this is a weed forum, so people come out of the woodwork to argue, or troll, or nicely insult you. It's fucking old, man.
It really is crazy, isn't it? I grew good weed with HPS, I grew good weed with CMH/CDM and I grow good weed with LED.

Personally, I prefer LED but having been around this block a time or two I'm well aware that it's all about the systems approach; how everything works together is much more important than any one component.
 

Ttystikk

Well-known member
Veteran
Have you grown with CMH? I swear the buds are more frosty. My favorite setup so far is CMH with LED. My 2 CMH lights are off right now to save some amps from my circuit, but if it could handle the extra watts I'd be using both still. Someday I'll upgrade the circuit. I'm happy with my LED's though too.
Interesting, because when I switched from CMH to LED, my buds were so much better people could tell from across the room!
 

Ttystikk

Well-known member
Veteran
we started off growing some fine bud under hps/mh 3 to 4 1000 watters in the corner of an open room... after that, we switched to a 4x3.5ft tent with '2' 315 cmh;s - bud was good... but not as good as the hps/mh- i think the 2 315's is not enough lite in the tent... our last grow was with a mars fce8000 in a 5x5ft tent... i'd peg the weed as on par with the cmh's...
I think people are scared of giving plants enough light.
 

PadawanWarrior

Well-known member
Interesting, because when I switched from CMH to LED, my buds were so much better people could tell from across the room!
I only ran CMH for about a year and a half before switching to full LED, but it seemed like the CMH buds were frostier. I think LED buds are denser, but that's just from my limited experience. I'd be running both if I thought it wouldn't stress my circuit. I still have my CMH above a couple LEDs in my closet just waiting for me to get my electrical upgraded.
 
Top