Light Quantity vs Light Quality Evidence ... Just for 4 u gg lol!

Do you think quantity is more important than quality

  • Total voters
    122
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Trying not to contribute to the argument but nasa had excellent research on indoor growing. Someone is going to have to grow food in space soon enough. They likely know more about LED than anyone.
Click to expand...
Yeah but i think they are researching how to grow low light plants like lettuce, i don't think they are shooting for 600+ PPFD , they are going for maximum efficiency.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Johnnycannaseed1 said:
You raise a good point with regards to different phenotype can/will respond differently, clearly the ones who are not getting it are the ones who have not took the time to test stuff out, yet they want to preach their false gospel of Scientism rather than dealing in "Actual" observable scientific Facts!
Click to expand...
I like your use here of the word "scientism". And how pretending to know science is exactly like believing our own eyes.

Data is the only way to prove anything. People see what they want to see. That is why the tester of a study is not allowed to contribute to the evidence. The tester would skew the results. Whether they wanted to or not.
 
Johnnycannaseed1

Johnnycannaseed1

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
And the tomato plant project in op of this thread doesn't prove anything about anything but those little tomato plants and the opinion of the writer.
Click to expand...
What I wrote was exactly what I observed, for the most part I pretty much left my opinion out of it lol... although granted it was an extremely small scale/sample experiment there were significant difference some of which ties to things I have observed in previous crops so I absolutely stand by the fact that spectrum has an effect.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Johnnycannaseed1 said:
What I wrote was exactly what I observed, for the most part I pretty much left my opinion out of it lol... although granted it was an extremely small scale/sample experiment there were significant difference some of which ties to things I have observed in previous crops so I absolutely stand by the fact that spectrum has an effect.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing about spectrum having an effect. I have seen it myself and posted info that supports it.

But much of the stated info is opinion and it has been extensively proven as such.

For me it's like politics. I always end up disagreeing and agreeing some with both sides.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
If anyone is voting or trying to understand quantity lighting, I strongly recommend considering it as HPS (proven spectrum) not 660 + 450 which has consistently been proven to be a huge let down.
Quantity lighting is HPS. Quality is a well rounded amount of every color (closest to McRee curve) or High CRI.
HO Enhanced is a step beyond all 3, combining the best of all 3. Anyone who tries this for themselves will easily see the difference.
No scientific studies needed.
Not only is it common sense but it's obvious in the garden.
 
Johnnycannaseed1

Johnnycannaseed1

Well-Known Member
@ MichiganMedGrower and that is where I would have to completely disagree because there is no "Real" two party system only two sides of the same coin and the illusion of democracy and "your vote matters folk" lol!

@Hybridway could not agree more:clap:... for a fact HPS main commercial application was as a "supplemental" light to be used in conjunction with the (full spectrum) sun that fact alone says it all.
 
pop22

pop22

Well-Known Member
Although your methodology is good, your data set is way too small to jump to the conclusions you make. For you to prove your theory, your sample should be much larger, at absolute minimum 10 plants, lights etc. And I'm willing to bet science will win. anecdotal evidence at best misleads. I can't say its never proven right, but that's the problem with tests like this. It only proves that with the three cuttings you selected, you got this set of results. Thats a sample, not a data set.



Johnnycannaseed1 said:
Flowering/Fruiting time results

After 7 days the 219watt LED fixture was first to show signs of flowering. This was followed by the 152watt LED fixture which took 10 days to show signs flowering. And in third place the 680 watt HID fixture took 16 days.

By day 59 the 219watt LED fixture had finished producing its first batch of fully formed tomatoes. And by day 87 it had finished producing its 2nd batch of tomatoes.

By day 61 the 152watt LED fixture had finished producing its first batch of fully formed tomatoes. And by day 89 it had finished producing its 2nd batch tomatoes, initially growth was slower until feed was increased then so did the size of the tomatoes.

By day 69 the 680watt HID fixture had finished producing its first batch of fully formed tomatoes. And by day 76 it had finished producing its 2nd batch of tomatoes which showed good uniform growth.



Total yields produced as follows;

  • 219watt LED fixture = Batch 1 = 223 grams + 188 grams =411g

  • 152watt LED fixture = Batch 1 = 205 grams + 209 grams =414g

  • 680watt HID fixture = Batch 1 = 185 grams + 134 grams = 319g

  • Conclusion the fuller spectrum of the LEDs both outperformed the Hps and in the case of the tomato grown under 150watt LED it did so using virtually half the DLI of both the 220watt and the 680watt fixtures so clearly there is a point of diminishing returns. And clearly spectrum makes a difference.

Size and look of the tomatoes;

  • 152watt LED fixture produced a ratio of roughly 9:1 or 28 large to 3 small tomatoes. The colour of these tomatoes were bright red, see pics below.
Click to expand...
 
Johnnycannaseed1

Johnnycannaseed1

Well-Known Member
@pop22 I completely agree that it was an extremely small sample, but within it was enough anecdotal evidence of significance to warrant a full test or 2.

Based on undocument grows I did in the past, and what I noticed at the time I am confident I will be able to document differences between what I shall term a good spectrum vs a poor spectrum, not to mention other posters have chimed in reporting similar findings with regards to quality of spectrum vs quality/yield of crop. But again I agree that it requires large scale testing in order to officially validate or not as the case may be.
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Nasa's in the burple biz.
Click to expand...
actually they moved on to a cool white/ deep red mix. plant can adapt to their environment and lighting but only test grows will provide accurate results. theory is a good staring point but in the real world often needs adjustment to provide desired outcome."engineers design thing. technicians make them work" I grow with T5s because I don't want to punch holes in my closet for a vent/cooling system and have found that adjusting the spectrum has improved my yield and quality. as a PU MMJ grower these are important to me. commercial growers may have different goals
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
mauricem00 said:
actually they moved on to a cool white/ deep red mix. plant can adapt to their environment and lighting but only test grows will provide accurate results. theory is a good staring point but in the real world often needs adjustment to provide desired outcome."engineers design thing. technicians make them work" I grow with T5s because I don't want to punch holes in my closet for a vent/cooling system and have found that adjusting the spectrum has improved my yield and quality. as a PU MMJ grower these are important to me. commercial growers may have different goals
Click to expand...
I like using 2 WavePoint Ultra Growth Waves (Ultra Cola) bulbs in my T-5 mix. It's a R+B mix w/ a spike of green. Tried many different light recipes in my T-5 last year.
One thing I learned is that the plants don't really like blue bulbs. They'd rather get their blue from a white bulb (higher K-Temp).
T-5's rock but I'm packing them up to be replaced W/ Horizons. 12.5 watts is giving me just as high a par reading w/ a much fuller led white spectrum then the spikey Floros.
Plants are loving it & im using 1/4 the electricity I was. No heat too.
Come by my SunCloak thread n peep them out of you have a chance.
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
I like using 2 WavePoint Ultra Growth Waves (Ultra Cola) bulbs in my T-5 mix. It's a R+B mix w/ a spike of green. Tried many different light recipes in my T-5 last year.
One thing I learned is that the plants don't really like blue bulbs. They'd rather get their blue from a white bulb (higher K-Temp).
T-5's rock but I'm packing them up to be replaced W/ Horizons. 12.5 watts is giving me just as high a par reading w/ a much fuller led white spectrum then the spikey Floros.
Plants are loving it & im using 1/4 the electricity I was. No heat too.
Come by my SunCloak thread n peep them out of you have a chance.
Click to expand...
I use a mix of 6500k and roseate bulbs.http://www.ebay.com/itm/54W-54-Watts-T5-Bulbs-4-ft-48-High-Output-Fluorescent-Grow-Lamps-Bloom-Veg-/261229975287?var=&hash=item3cd28516f7 these look like zoo med flora suns but are better quality and brighter and provided a noticeable improvement in yield and quality compared to 3000k bulbs T5s provide UV and a fuller blue spectrum but different strains may respond differently
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Here is a link to the University of Utah testing of CMH. Yes I know this thread was testing LED but there is related info here. And good comparison graphs.

https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/USU_spectral_analysis.pdf

I am slow to catch up with technology and have only recently added 315 LEC to my air cooled Hortilux Super HPS flower room. All I can add is the penetration and footprint from the HPS is greater but I already can see and feel quality differences from using the better spectrum with some uv to finish the flowers during ripening. The uv may be the most significant part here but the link is about spectrum.

But my system was about 25% low on Blue light to reds with only HPS. So bumping up the room to a better spectrum and using it as a finishing lamp has increased the quality of the smell appearance and high in the last three plants of familiar strains.

But yield would suffer if I switched to the lower wattage higher tech bulb over the 600's for sure. Underdeveloped lowers at least.

So as usual there is some truth to both sides of the argument ;-)
Click to expand...
I guess scrog is not an option for large scale commercial growers.too labor intensive but for a small scale PU grower it's a great option. especially in states that have a low limit on the number of plants you can grow.I have done SOG and with a large number of small,short plants penetration is not a problem. as a PU MMJ growers quality is the most important factor to me.for commercial growers it's quantity and this is apparent with the pot sold at dispensaries. takes twice as much dispensary weed to get the job done
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
Not be be condescending but i didn't know NASA was in the cannabis grow bizz.
Click to expand...
very lity research has been done on growing cannabis because of laws against cannabis. but the plant is not much different from other high light plant like tomatoes or pepper.compare the absorption curve of cannabis with the mcree curve and you will see that this is truemccree_curve.jpg cannabis absortion spectrum.png cannabis absortion spectrum.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top