Will 10 hrs of light make my plant stunted?

BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
It'll make it grow slower/less than 12. I wouldn't say stunted necessarily, just less weight, probably less dense buds.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
I've only ever used less than 12 for the last week or two of flowering, never the full term. 10 hours is for final ripening, not a steady type of cycle. It's like in nature in, say, Afghanistan. It sure isn't 10 hour days all season.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
torontoke said:
You already answered that one sir.
Plus enough experts have already warned that less then 12 hours for even one day will result in less potent less yielding plants.
If people honestly still believe that then I'm certainly not about to argue with them.
Click to expand...
RIU is full of 'experts' who haven't actually done the testing...

That's why I asked for the opinion of the guy who has.
 
Serva

Serva

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
I've only ever used less than 12 for the last week or two of flowering, never the full term. 10 hours is for final ripening, not a steady type of cycle. It's like in nature in, say, Afghanistan. It sure isn't 10 hour days all season.
Click to expand...
The point is, that there is really just a short period, where nature has 12/12. Maybe we should also start and shift our plants smoother into flowering. The plant will start flowering when 14-13h the light is on. It will need longer than we are used with 12/12 hard switch, but maybe the plant needs this time to prepare to get fat buds? :)

So to come back to the point, everything which is <12 / >12 (on/off) is way more natural than stubborn 12/12 (don't want to say it's wrong!).

But running 6-8 weeks the unnatural 12/12 rhythm, to switch for the last 2 weeks to a more natural rhythm isn't logical for me ;)

I am no expert, just some thinking!
 
Last edited:
torontoke

torontoke

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
RIU is full of 'experts' who haven't actually done the testing...

That's why I asked for the opinion of the guy who has.
Click to expand...
If the direct question is whether or not it's strain dependent I'd say no. Using a reduced hour cycle will speed up any strain regardless. Those long ass running sativas might eventually become worthwhile to grow indoors in a reasonable time frame.
Until someone does a whack of side by side comparisons we won't be able to chart all the differences and actual numbers but hopefully one day soon ;)

Serva said:
The point is, that there is really just a short period, where nature has 12/12. Maybe we should also start and shift our plants smoother into flowering. The plant will start flowering when 14-13h the light is on. It will need longer than we are used with 12/12 hard switch, but maybe the plant needs this time to prepare to get fat buds? :)

So to come back to the point, everything which is <12 / >12 (on/off) is way more natural than stubborn 12/12 (don't want to say it's wrong!).

But running 6-8 weeks the unnatural 12/12 rhythm, to switch for the last 2 weeks to a more natural rhythm isn't logical for me ;)

I am no expert, just some thinking!
Click to expand...
It is these comparisons to the sun and "natural" light patterns I don't buy as a valid argument. In fact I think the famous old saying "try to mimic the sun" is 100% wrong.
12/12 on a perfect schedule for 60days with monitored temps, humidity nutrients doesn't happen anywhere in the world far as I know.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
I've only ever used less than 12 for the last week or two of flowering, never the full term. 10 hours is for final ripening, not a steady type of cycle. It's like in nature in, say, Afghanistan. It sure isn't 10 hour days all season.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you read the thread on it you would know they respond quit well to 8 hours of light.

Not an arguing. Just saying the results speak for themselves.

Nevermind. I don't want to start an argument.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Serva said:
The point is, that there is really just a short period, where nature has 12/12. Maybe we should also start and shift our plants smoother into flowering. The plant will start flowering when 14-13h the light is on. It will need longer than we are used with 12/12 hard switch, but maybe the plant needs this time to prepare to get fat buds? :)

So to come back to the point, everything which is <12 / >12 (on/off) is way more natural than stubborn 12/12 (don't want to say it's wrong!).

But running 6-8 weeks the unnatural 12/12 rhythm, to switch for the last 2 weeks to a more natural rhythm isn't logical for me ;)

I am no expert, just some thinking!
Click to expand...
I used to do that when I vegged and flowered in the same room. Like 30 minutes a week. They start flowering around 14/10. Give or take.

Its hard to do with a dedicated flower room.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
torontoke said:
If the direct question is whether or not it's strain dependent I'd say no. Using a reduced hour cycle will speed up any strain regardless. Those long ass running sativas might eventually become worthwhile to grow indoors in a reasonable time frame.
Until someone does a whack of side by side comparisons we won't be able to chart all the differences and actual numbers but hopefully one day soon ;)



It is these comparisons to the sun and "natural" light patterns I don't buy as a valid argument. In fact I think the famous old saying "try to mimic the sun" is 100% wrong.
12/12 on a perfect schedule for 60days with monitored temps, humidity nutrients doesn't happen anywhere in the world far as I know.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna guess some mountaintop on the equator in South America. Maybe.

Yet Cannabis grows from Aruba to Alaska, so it must be pretty flexible, right?
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
Maybe if you read the thread on it you would know they respond quit well to 8 hours of light.

Not an arguing. Just saying the results speak for themselves.

Nevermind. I don't want to start an argument.
Click to expand...
You mean the War and Peace thread by Torontoke? Yeah, when I have a spare month. Show me one article in which less light produced equal or greater plant growth and dry weight and I might agree with you. Never found one myself.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
Serva said:
The point is, that there is really just a short period, where nature has 12/12. Maybe we should also start and shift our plants smoother into flowering. The plant will start flowering when 14-13h the light is on. It will need longer than we are used with 12/12 hard switch, but maybe the plant needs this time to prepare to get fat buds? :)

So to come back to the point, everything which is <12 / >12 (on/off) is way more natural than stubborn 12/12 (don't want to say it's wrong!).

But running 6-8 weeks the unnatural 12/12 rhythm, to switch for the last 2 weeks to a more natural rhythm isn't logical for me ;)

I am no expert, just some thinking!
Click to expand...
I recently was trying longer hours, 13 and even 13.5, and the plants just never ripened up. I went 11 weeks, with the last two being reduced to 12, and they still were full of white hairs and small calyxes. Now I just stick with what I know works, 12/12 all the time. I don't have the space to let plants flower for 3 fucking months. It's pretty well established at this point that 12/12 is optimal all around, so why fuck yourself up by deviating from it at all? That's my current philosophy. I'm not even reducing hours at the end anymore, 12/12 steady. I fucked up too many crops already with the experimental light cycles.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
You mean the War and Peace thread by Torontoke? Yeah, when I have a spare month. Show me one article in which less light produced equal or greater plant growth and dry weight and I might agree with you. Never found one myself.
Click to expand...
Never said it produced equal weight. Neither did torontoke. He said that loss of yield was minimal and no loss in potency.
 
Last edited:
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
whitebb2727 said:
Never said it produced equal weight. Neither did torontoke. He said that loss of yield was minimal and no loss in potency.
Click to expand...
Okay but is there an advantage, aside from reduced power cost, which would only matter to someone with a large operation? Also, why doesn't tt post the yield per watt he got right here so people won't have to wade through his thread trying to find it, and probably never find it because it's probably not even in there? Everything I've read indicates 12/12 as optimal. If he likes the 8 hour cycle, fine, I just don't think it's advisable really so I won't be using it.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
Okay but is there an advantage, aside from reduced power cost, which would only matter to someone with a large operation? Also, why doesn't tt post the yield per watt he got right here so people won't have to wade through his thread trying to find it, and probably never find it because it's probably not even in there? Everything I've read indicates 12/12 as optimal. If he likes the 8 hour cycle, fine, I just don't think it's advisable really so I won't be using it.
Click to expand...
Lose again. He states it in the thread. Over 1 gram a watt.

Why would 12/12 be optimal? Nowhere in nature is it 12/12 the whole flowering time except maybe around the equator.
 
torontoke

torontoke

Well-Known Member
BobCajun said:
Okay but is there an advantage, aside from reduced power cost, which would only matter to someone with a large operation? Also, why doesn't tt post the yield per watt he got right here so people won't have to wade through his thread trying to find it, and probably never find it because it's probably not even in there? Everything I've read indicates 12/12 as optimal. If he likes the 8 hour cycle, fine, I just don't think it's advisable really so I won't be using it.
Click to expand...
Ok first things first
My journal is as detailed and honest as you're going to find on riu.
I over post perhaps but that's because it's my journal, not to appease the negative nay Sayers such as yourself.
Secondly I don't ever recommend or try to sell my methods to others in fact I usually talk people out of going as extreme as me on light hour reduction.
I think everyone should tinker and find what works best for them. Just so happens that I am able to produce enough meds for myself using only 8 hrs. Tbh I don't care what cycles others use because it's none of my business and to each their own.
Usually you'll notice that I don't jump into these light question threads because my patience for the subject is at an all time low.
But people tag me and draw me into these debates.
Now you want a Coles notes number rundown

My cabinet is 6sq ft (3x2)
I used 160 watts of pcb led
And my best yield was 355 grams
2.2grams per watt in under 50days
My goal is to harvest 500+ using <200watts
I'm sure my numbers are no where near as good as yours but I'll keep doing what I do anyway.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
torontoke said:
Ok first things first
My journal is as detailed and honest as you're going to find on riu.
I over post perhaps but that's because it's my journal, not to appease the negative nay Sayers such as yourself.
Secondly I don't ever recommend or try to sell my methods to others in fact I usually talk people out of going as extreme as me on light hour reduction.
I think everyone should tinker and find what works best for them. Just so happens that I am able to produce enough meds for myself using only 8 hrs. Tbh I don't care what cycles others use because it's none of my business and to each their own.
Usually you'll notice that I don't jump into these light question threads because my patience for the subject is at an all time low.
But people tag me and draw me into these debates.
Now you want a Coles notes number rundown

My cabinet is 6sq ft (3x2)
I used 160 watts of pcb led
And my best yield was 355 grams
2.2grams per watt in under 50days
My goal is to harvest 500+ using <200watts
I'm sure my numbers are no where near as good as yours but I'll keep doing what I do anyway.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really looking for an argument from the guy.

I run 12/12 myself. The only reason I even tagged you was because of what you said. Its an honest journal and the results speak for themselves.

You gotta remember though Bob is the guy that blames abcess teeth on the immune suppressant qualities of cannabis.

No way it could be anything else right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top