I miss my SAGE...fucking amazing high!!!!!!!
Have the Big Sur Holy Weed for the Sativa side,
Here is some very advanced discussion on the use of UV lights I think people following this thread will appreciate.
It's such a complicated issue. I can certainly see why you would want to emulate the outdoor in your grow room, especially for landraces or strains close to that. But the question is: can you, realistically? Not only do you need UVA and UVB, you need them in roughly the same ratio as outside (UVA may be counterproductive, while UVB almost certainly increases THC). Is there really a bulb or combination of bulbs that can do that? Also, take into account particularly UVB is strongly absorbed by air. Either you need a very strong light source, or you need the light sources very close to your plants. I am curious: UV light users, do you actually know - from measurements or info from the manufacturer - what UV spectrum actually makes it to your buds, and how much?
I think it's fair to say the average grower doesn't need UV supplementation. The trait may have even been lost through generations of breeding under HPS anyway. But in the quest for trip weed it may be very important, but the question is how to get it right!
Here
I think it's fair to say the average grower doesn't need UV supplementation. The trait may have even been lost through generations of breeding under HPS anyway. But in the quest for trip weed it may be very important, but the question is how to get it right!
I am very close, still tweakin, yes, but very close
That, indeed, might be possible. If you look at those cavedwellings with absolutely no pigment in their skin: They too evolved from creatures which needed the sun to stay healthy. If you'd put them in the sun as they are now, they most probably would burn.
Siever
That's a bold claim to make, my friend. I have no doubt you grow and breed excellent bud, but proving your UV setup contributes to the excellence is another question entirely IMO. For starters, how much UVA and UVB actually makes it to your canopy?
Sorry, being trained as a scientist, and now a journalist, skepticism is in my nature. I believe the process of challenging claims and generally poking at "common knowledge" brings progress, so I hope you are willing to oblige
For most growers, it doesn't really matter if it's true or not because we know UV is not necessary for great bud. The most commonly used light sources for growing don't have any UV, but the product still knocks your socks off. But, again, for weed that is the best of the best - or indeed trippy - there might be different requirements. In any case, we need to consider that response to UV is strain dependent.
Waldgeist beautiful plants! How did you grow them so well in 20oz of soil? That's incredible.
I know it is And I do not have a meter so the claim is anecdotal and suspect ,,,,,,,,,,,, agreed. But the high is so much better than without the UV added and the other clue is since I added it, every strain has become creeper weed, where before it wasn't.
As a devil's advocate I can't get over how other devil's advocate fluster me. It's quite possible that we haven't noticed a mechanism by which light outside the range what is now recognized as PAR.
We didn't figure out photosystem 1 and 2 until about the mid 60's. I know that seems like forever ago but we really are just scratching the surface science wise.
MostlyMe- the info I have from my reptile light manufacturers is 70% blue spectrum, 20% UVA, 10% UVB. I'm familiar with that thread, and I wish knna would have linked research papers to his statement about UVA. From what I've read, the sun puts out a ratio somewhere in the neighborhood of 20:1 UVA to UVB. Maybe I missed something, but why is UVA bad? From what I've calculated, my lights when new would emit UVB irradiance of 253,440 J/day in an 11/13 schedule. When you then factor in the inverse square law and CFLs apparent lacking in UVB transmission, I don't know where they sit. I'd need a meter. They're getting older now and should be replaced, but I would guess not under the 13,000J/day irradiance mentioned. I know the reptisun bulbs got a bad name from the Foster and Smith research, but reptisun told me they reworked their design. Maybe they were just feeding me...
Glad we agree I definitely think your results deserve further investigation though. Any chance you would dive into that?
I flustered someone
Plants definitely respond to UV or a lack thereof, but as you say we don't know a lot about the mechanisms governing that response. It's all about if and how UV can help us grow better cannabis.
I don't know if UVA is bad, I just picked that as an example. The point I was trying to make, is that if you want to supplement UV, it makes sense to mimic the sun. But then you need to mimic it properly! Reasoning like "the sun has UVB so I want UVB" and then installing a light that has UVB but also an amount of UVA that 100x the natural amount, might be counterproductive. Especially if the UVB doesn't even reach the canopy. It also might be fine, I don't know... I am just asking questions