IndooorGardnerOhio
Well-Known Member
I was not aware of that, thank you for the info!
LM301H vs LM301H-EVO
- Thread starter RainDan
- Start date
cdgmoney250
Well-Known Member
This was the study regarding the addition of monochromatic light to white light
It does seem like light manufacturers are focusing on system/electrical efficiency, instead of plant growth efficacy, which shows in their copycat spectrums and advertising the newest most “efficient” chips as selling points. But what do the plants think?
I think that there is still much to be learned about optimizing spectrum quality indoors, especially at low to medium flux levels.
I also think the research being done still has flaws, as most of the studies I’m reading about regarding spectrum quality, effects of far-red light and so on.. are using inferior spectrums as their “control”.
For example, as taken from a referenced study from Dr. Bugbee, they were comparing the effects of background FR light to white light. The white light used as their control looked like this…
As well as this one, from Bruce Bugbee’s study…
I hate to keep calling these studies out, but much like the Nichia Hortisolis paper, the effects of far red were compared to a photosynthetically inferior control spectrum, one which didn’t effectively cover the red end of Chlorophyll-a and had a heavily Blue weighted spectrum. It’s not surprising that photosystem I would react to far-red when it wasn’t properly being excited in the first place. Again the second study was done at lower flux conditions (<400ppfd).
It’s these “subtleties” that make me question the conclusions that some have come to (including Bruce) about the overall efficacy of Red heavy spectrums and Far-Red wavelengths. I think we certainly need as many is those usable nanometers as the plants can take. The question I have is in what ratio/proportions/flux densities will give the best results?
It looks like they did produce well for you. I’d imagine the results could even be better with some of the other more modern chips mentioned on the “cool end”, and also expanding more into the DR/FR regions. Maybe balance the blue/green/red ratio a bit.
It does seem like light manufacturers are focusing on system/electrical efficiency, instead of plant growth efficacy, which shows in their copycat spectrums and advertising the newest most “efficient” chips as selling points. But what do the plants think?
I think that there is still much to be learned about optimizing spectrum quality indoors, especially at low to medium flux levels.
I also think the research being done still has flaws, as most of the studies I’m reading about regarding spectrum quality, effects of far-red light and so on.. are using inferior spectrums as their “control”.
For example, as taken from a referenced study from Dr. Bugbee, they were comparing the effects of background FR light to white light. The white light used as their control looked like this…
As well as this one, from Bruce Bugbee’s study…
I hate to keep calling these studies out, but much like the Nichia Hortisolis paper, the effects of far red were compared to a photosynthetically inferior control spectrum, one which didn’t effectively cover the red end of Chlorophyll-a and had a heavily Blue weighted spectrum. It’s not surprising that photosystem I would react to far-red when it wasn’t properly being excited in the first place. Again the second study was done at lower flux conditions (<400ppfd).
It’s these “subtleties” that make me question the conclusions that some have come to (including Bruce) about the overall efficacy of Red heavy spectrums and Far-Red wavelengths. I think we certainly need as many is those usable nanometers as the plants can take. The question I have is in what ratio/proportions/flux densities will give the best results?
Attachments
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I also hate to keep reminding you that Nichia did not specficially state they used that diode in their horticultural experiments. What they did say was they did a series of tests at their facility in Shanghai and the resultant Hortisolus spectrum performed best under the conditions they set. If you are the world's biggest LED manufacture, it is reasonable to assume you have access to any LED you want to compare. And out of all those LEDs, Hortisolis is what they produced in response to multiple trials.
Don't get stuck on the fact they compared two 5000K spectra – that is not proof they used that diode in all their trials and it would be naive to think so (I'm not saying you a "naive", I'm just emphasising that we don't know all the facts). Maybe they did, but it seems unlikely they only used one type of diode to reach their conclusions. They're not short of money, technology or research facilities.
On to the Bugbee trials . . . I suspect I know why they used an RB and a cool White spectrum to compare, and that's because they wanted to see the results of Far Red with and without high levels of Red to possibly measure it agains the Emerson Effect to see if there were other phenomena that could influence photomorphogenic response. They wanted to isolate far red in situ as best they could with the cool white (I'm guessing).
I don't see an issue with these experiements as long as you are aware of the parameters. You cannot replicate every horticultural condition in the lab, so what they are looking for is trends, as opposed to absolutes.
I'm not sure if you have ever used supplemental far red in any of your grows, but perhaps you should try. We did and we saw results. Not least a decrease in flowering times on average about 10%. We saw this with numerous strains we had been growing out: typical 9-week sativa-dom hybrids finished in 8.5 weeks; more sativa-doms finished in 70 vs 77 days; typical 8-week hybrids finished about 3 days earlier. And they all had similar yields, which translated to a defacto increase of 10% (ie: same yield in 10% less time).
Those trials were done with the original High Light panel I showed you just now, and we did some here in Australia and in the US. Former member @Or_Gro did the US trials against three different HLG QB lighting arrangements, so they were done independently. He paid full price for the High Light LED panels and so he owed us nothing. He is an experienced wine producer, so is a professional farmer and knows what he's doing.
All I'm asking is if you are not convinced, then at keep an open mind about Far Red.
KitnerPush
Member
Yes, and also flowering times reduced significantly over sativas. It's crazy to think about the amount of sun a sativa is exposed to in a lifecycle over a pakistani grown indica.
KitnerPush
Member
According to samsungs own testing, the regular 5000 evo is better than the mint in terms of flavinoid content.
tstick
Well-Known Member
Yeah...but, again....which strain and phenotype are we talking about? Like I said, I'm sure that some plants will respond to different spectra better....and some others might not. How can anyone make a claim that, across the board, ALL cultivars produced more flavonoids? I would say that Samsung might have a bit of a bias in their testing.
KitnerPush
Member
Blue and Red are not only the most electrically efficient but also in terms of photosynthesis. If there are any two colors in the spectrum you would want to combine for growing it would be these two, in arguably different concentrations. I mean look at phillips-signify lights...they're pretty much blurple. For those of us who grew before the introduction of white LED's we know what that's all about. The argument for white light in horticulture lighting is by using many of them (as they are cheaper) we are achieving efficiency which is feasible to the application of growing in tents at relatively low hanging heights. The difference between lm561C top flux bin and todays lm301 EVO is not really anything to write home about, although adding 660nm reds, and giving treatment spurts of UV and FR are. The only way you can equate using low efficiency 'full spectrum' white diodes, is either by hanging your light lower or using a lot more of them to where it becomes economically inefficient. Correct me if I'm wrong. When thinking about growlights for cannabis, we care more about potency and flavor? So where does potency and flavor meet satisfying growth rate? A capital driven greenhouse operator probably doesn't care, which is why you see a lot of blurple LED still used in commercial cannabis, as they can fork out the cash for an exhaustingly expensive lighting fixture...
Edit: so I guess in many ways, if you are to think along the lines of a greenhouse operator by using white diodes in a tent, you would probably focus on red leaning type diodes to achieve a HPS quality light, and receive HPS quality bud.
Edit: so I guess in many ways, if you are to think along the lines of a greenhouse operator by using white diodes in a tent, you would probably focus on red leaning type diodes to achieve a HPS quality light, and receive HPS quality bud.
Last edited:
If you tell me what flavinoids (sic!) are and how they are relevant that might help. Because like that it's rather pointless information.
Also efficiency is rather pointless to us (atleast in the marginal differences we are discussing). We don't get more light to the canopy as that is already at saturation and then would dim the light to prevent damage. Lifecycle cost of a fixture (with purchase, install and electricity) is not much different if you have 2,8 oder 2,9 umol/J.
tstick
Well-Known Member
First of all, "potency and flavor" come from the genetics. The genetics that are out there, now, are very complex and potentially include zillions of expressions among them all. There's absolutely no way to tailor a spectrum that would apply to all of these genetics in the exact same way and with the exact same results across the board.
Secondly, efficiency means nothing to plants. It's only important amongst the lighting jocks to be able to claim "highest efficiency" as a selling point.
IF there was a "secret sauce" light that could take mediocre genetics and turn them into something better, then THAT would be something. But there isn't such a thing. And there's no special bat shit or any other chemical that can improve anything from its genetic predisposition, either. I've personally grown great weed under all kinds of lights. Some of them were REALLY inefficient!
What matters is that the plants get full, strong light -lots of it. A pinch of color here or there won't be a game changer, in my opinion. But if someone can claim a "new" thing in the market -especially if it has a cool name like "EVO mint chip", then people are going to bite -just like they did with plasma bulbs, supplemental UV, IR, FR. The next thing you know, there will be a microwave light!
Secondly, efficiency means nothing to plants. It's only important amongst the lighting jocks to be able to claim "highest efficiency" as a selling point.
IF there was a "secret sauce" light that could take mediocre genetics and turn them into something better, then THAT would be something. But there isn't such a thing. And there's no special bat shit or any other chemical that can improve anything from its genetic predisposition, either. I've personally grown great weed under all kinds of lights. Some of them were REALLY inefficient!
What matters is that the plants get full, strong light -lots of it. A pinch of color here or there won't be a game changer, in my opinion. But if someone can claim a "new" thing in the market -especially if it has a cool name like "EVO mint chip", then people are going to bite -just like they did with plasma bulbs, supplemental UV, IR, FR. The next thing you know, there will be a microwave light!
hillbill
Well-Known Member
The differences we talk about now are very narrow compared to old HPS compared to modern LEDs. I switched long ago and have had wonderful results since i began switching to white and white/red discreet diode panels starting in 2012, COBs a little later and finally Boards. Only HIDs used since about 2015 have been old 4000k Philips 250w and 400w CMH. I have NIB bulbs from way back.
Charles U Farley
Well-Known Member
I'd love to see the spectrum read out on this fucker, circa 1983. At least the bulb was a Sunmaster warm deluxe:
Charles U Farley
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, the wire and electrical circuits were cool as they could be, I've got electricians in my family.
The problem might have been because I put 1 kW MH light in a 2x5 closet, even though it was vented with a 400+ CFM exhaust fan, it got a little warm in there during the summer.
cdgmoney250
Well-Known Member
But Nichia did actually state what diode they were using in those trials you had linked. They put the “conventional LED” 5000k (Ra>80CRI) on the spectral graph next to the Hortisolis chip to so that the reader has a visual understanding of the differences between the spectrum used in their trials.
Now, I’m not so naive to assume that Nichia ONLY tested their Hortisolis spectrum against only a 5000k 80CRI chip for ALL of their research, nor did I imply that. But I can plainly see that the 5000k Conventional LED was used in the trials you originally linked as reference. I don’t know why you think Nichia would arbitrarily compare the spectrums of two diodes, and then do a bait and switch on control chips actually used to do the growing.
“Our objective was to quantify the effects of far-red substitution for 400–700 nm photons on radiation capture, canopy quantum yield, carbon use efficiency, and biomass allocation of a model crop lettuce.”
…from the Bugbee Study. No mention of trying to isolate Red from Far-Red, just “substituting” a certain flux level of 700-750nm wavelengths. Since we know the Emerson effect has to do with R: FR ratios, I’m dumbfounded as to why 660-700nm weren’t adequately covered in the white light experiments.
Substituting Far-Red for Traditionally Defined Photosynthetic Photons Results in Equal Canopy Quantum Yield for CO2 Fixation and Increased Photon Capture During Long-Term Studies: Implications for Re-Defining PAR
Far-red photons regulate shade avoidance responses and can have powerful effects on plant morphology and radiation capture. Recent studies have shown that far-red photons (700 to 750 nm) efficiently drive photosynthesis when added to traditionally defined ...
I don’t have issues with the studies themselves. But extrapolating growth effects of Far-Red light would be somewhat foolhardy, considering the experiment parameters and control spectrum limitations.
I have experimented using supplemental Red, Far-Red, and UV in my grows dating as far back as 7 years ago. I also grew 3 different cuts under the enhanced spectra, as well as under 3500K (80CRI) Vero 29 chips only, because I had two different grow rooms to trial the lights. My results weren’t anything to write home about. Yield was less under the “enhanced” spectrum while including UV, but was similar when the Power VEG bulbs were swapped with standard 6500k T5 bulbs. Like you, I experienced similar yields between my experimental spectrum and the control spectrum and maybe a bit quicker ripening of buds by a few days. They seemed to pray a bit easier, which I contributed to the 660nm diodes, but end results couldn’t be really distinguished. I did these trials for a little over 2 years. I used an Apogee Quantum meter to ensure similar flux conditions, which means the “enhanced” spectrum had more photons that weren’t being measured by the light meter.
I don’t doubt Far-Reds role or benefit in photosynthesis, but many make claims that a spectrum is inferior without having Far-Red in the spectrum. My question is how much is needed and what results should one expect? And then I’d say “prove that it’s better”
Last edited:
tstick
Well-Known Member
IF we were dealing with a completely stable genetic phenotype (IF there even is one, anymore) then it might be something that could be quantified. But, most of the plants out there now, are extremely complex hybrid plants that could/couldn't express any number of traits from any one of its distant relatives. Very little of it is stable. And, even if you found SOME stable strains, they might not be representative of any desirable smells or flavors. It's just too much of a genetic-smorgasbord for there to be "a" single light fixture or spectrum that's best for every type of plant....in my opinion.But Nichia did actually state what diode they were using in those trials you had linked. They put the “conventional LED” 5000k (Ra>80CRI) on the spectral graph next to the Hortisolis chip to so that the reader has a visual understanding of the differences between the spectrum used in their trials.
View attachment 5353212
View attachment 5353214
Now, I’m not so naive to assume that Nichia ONLY tested their Hortisolis spectrum against only a 5000k 80CRI chip for ALL of their research, nor did I imply that. But I can plainly see that the 5000k Conventional LED was used in the trials you originally linked as reference. I don’t know why you think Nichia would arbitrarily compare the spectrums of two diodes, and then do a bait and switch on control chips actually used to do the growing.
“Our objective was to quantify the effects of far-red substitution for 400–700 nm photons on radiation capture, canopy quantum yield, carbon use efficiency, and biomass allocation of a model crop lettuce.”
…from the Bugbee Study. No mention of trying to isolate Red from Far-Red, just “substituting” a certain flux level of 700-750nm wavelengths. Since we know the Emerson effect has to do with R: FR ratios, I’m dumbfounded as to why 660-700nm weren’t adequately covered in the white light experiments.
Substituting Far-Red for Traditionally Defined Photosynthetic Photons Results in Equal Canopy Quantum Yield for CO2 Fixation and Increased Photon Capture During Long-Term Studies: Implications for Re-Defining PAR
Far-red photons regulate shade avoidance responses and can have powerful effects on plant morphology and radiation capture. Recent studies have shown that far-red photons (700 to 750 nm) efficiently drive photosynthesis when added to traditionally defined ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I don’t have issues with the studies themselves. But extrapolating growth effects of Far-Red light would be somewhat foolhardy, considering the experiment parameters and control spectrum limitations.
I have experimented using supplemental Red, Far-Red, and UV in my grows dating as far back as 7 years ago. I also grew 3 different cuts under the enhanced spectra, as well as under 3500K (80CRI) Vero 29 chips only, because I had two different grow rooms to trial the lights. My results weren’t anything to write home about. Yield was less under the “enhanced” spectrum while including UV, but was similar when the Power VEG bulbs were swapped with standard 6500k T5 bulbs. Like you, I experienced similar yields between my experimental spectrum and the control spectrum and maybe a bit quicker ripening of buds by a few days. They seemed to pray a bit easier, which I contributed to the 660nm diodes, but end results couldn’t be really distinguished. I did these trials for a little over 2 years. I used an Apogee Quantum meter to ensure similar flux conditions, which means the “enhanced” spectrum had more photons that weren’t being measured by the light meter.
View attachment 5353230
View attachment 5353231
View attachment 5353232
I don’t doubt Far-Reds role or benefit in photosynthesis, but many make claims that a spectrum is inferior without having Far-Red in the spectrum. My question is how much is needed and what results should one expect? And then I’d say “prove that it’s better”
Rocket Soul
Well-Known Member
A few notes and thoughts:
Far red/emmerson effect: its probably important to note that emmerson is a low light reaction, i think it mainly happens at sub 150 ppfd iirc. At full flower intensity im not sure if its even there. Far red does many thing that its hard to differentiate whats going on when you add it: if youre only looking at yield how would you know if its increased photosynthesis or just flower inducement? To me and in a led growlight it seems most useful for offsetting blue response; making it easier to add uv/violet without drawing down yield.
Also, unless you put test tray and comparison tray in the same space the environment wont be the exact same. With difference being so small then its extra hard to weed out whats signal and whats noise.
@RainDan
Have you been able to draw any conclusions or ideas from the discussion here? Seems like were veering of the subject a bit but these "ideal spectrum" threads tend to do so.
In your initial post you said youre going foward with 3500k 80cri + 660, based on comparisons made by trusted growers. What where the other spectrums that were compared?
As for going evo h: i sincerely think this is a really good way to go but not in the way you proposed initially: a 5000k evo h is going to have blue levels like a 5600-6500k standard diode due to using a deeper, less visible blue photon pump (compare spectrums in the datasheets; evos blue peak is always taller than comparable standard white; cct is human eye centric).
However i really think that using two separate blue pumps is beneficial: evo h seems to to fit better with chloro A spectrum, standard 450nm a bit better for chloro B (i may be getting these reversed).
So what you can try is to use half and half 3500k and evo-h 3000k (the blue peak is about the same as 3500k standard). Then add some reds.
Youd get a very similar spectrum and efficiency but with the added bonus of better coverage of both chloro A and B on the blue side.
Far red/emmerson effect: its probably important to note that emmerson is a low light reaction, i think it mainly happens at sub 150 ppfd iirc. At full flower intensity im not sure if its even there. Far red does many thing that its hard to differentiate whats going on when you add it: if youre only looking at yield how would you know if its increased photosynthesis or just flower inducement? To me and in a led growlight it seems most useful for offsetting blue response; making it easier to add uv/violet without drawing down yield.
My guess is that using only 16 diodes will not have enough effect to actually make an impact. But at the same time id have to add that weve seen something similar: our own tests have had very varied results, sometimes plain white winning sometimes red tweaked spectrum (2700k 90cri + 660) winning in yield. Nothing really constant.But Nichia did actually state what diode they were using in those trials you had linked. They put the “conventional LED” 5000k (Ra>80CRI) on the spectral graph next to the Hortisolis chip to so that the reader has a visual understanding of the differences between the spectrum used in their trials.
View attachment 5353212
View attachment 5353214
Now, I’m not so naive to assume that Nichia ONLY tested their Hortisolis spectrum against only a 5000k 80CRI chip for ALL of their research, nor did I imply that. But I can plainly see that the 5000k Conventional LED was used in the trials you originally linked as reference. I don’t know why you think Nichia would arbitrarily compare the spectrums of two diodes, and then do a bait and switch on control chips actually used to do the growing.
“Our objective was to quantify the effects of far-red substitution for 400–700 nm photons on radiation capture, canopy quantum yield, carbon use efficiency, and biomass allocation of a model crop lettuce.”
…from the Bugbee Study. No mention of trying to isolate Red from Far-Red, just “substituting” a certain flux level of 700-750nm wavelengths. Since we know the Emerson effect has to do with R: FR ratios, I’m dumbfounded as to why 660-700nm weren’t adequately covered in the white light experiments.
Substituting Far-Red for Traditionally Defined Photosynthetic Photons Results in Equal Canopy Quantum Yield for CO2 Fixation and Increased Photon Capture During Long-Term Studies: Implications for Re-Defining PAR
Far-red photons regulate shade avoidance responses and can have powerful effects on plant morphology and radiation capture. Recent studies have shown that far-red photons (700 to 750 nm) efficiently drive photosynthesis when added to traditionally defined ...
I don’t have issues with the studies themselves. But extrapolating growth effects of Far-Red light would be somewhat foolhardy, considering the experiment parameters and control spectrum limitations.
I have experimented using supplemental Red, Far-Red, and UV in my grows dating as far back as 7 years ago. I also grew 3 different cuts under the enhanced spectra, as well as under 3500K (80CRI) Vero 29 chips only, because I had two different grow rooms to trial the lights. My results weren’t anything to write home about. Yield was less under the “enhanced” spectrum while including UV, but was similar when the Power VEG bulbs were swapped with standard 6500k T5 bulbs. Like you, I experienced similar yields between my experimental spectrum and the control spectrum and maybe a bit quicker ripening of buds by a few days. They seemed to pray a bit easier, which I contributed to the 660nm diodes, but end results couldn’t be really distinguished. I did these trials for a little over 2 years. I used an Apogee Quantum meter to ensure similar flux conditions, which means the “enhanced” spectrum had more photons that weren’t being measured by the light meter.
View attachment 5353230
View attachment 5353231
View attachment 5353232
I don’t doubt Far-Reds role or benefit in photosynthesis, but many make claims that a spectrum is inferior without having Far-Red in the spectrum. My question is how much is needed and what results should one expect? And then I’d say “prove that it’s better”
Also, unless you put test tray and comparison tray in the same space the environment wont be the exact same. With difference being so small then its extra hard to weed out whats signal and whats noise.
@RainDan
Have you been able to draw any conclusions or ideas from the discussion here? Seems like were veering of the subject a bit but these "ideal spectrum" threads tend to do so.
In your initial post you said youre going foward with 3500k 80cri + 660, based on comparisons made by trusted growers. What where the other spectrums that were compared?
As for going evo h: i sincerely think this is a really good way to go but not in the way you proposed initially: a 5000k evo h is going to have blue levels like a 5600-6500k standard diode due to using a deeper, less visible blue photon pump (compare spectrums in the datasheets; evos blue peak is always taller than comparable standard white; cct is human eye centric).
However i really think that using two separate blue pumps is beneficial: evo h seems to to fit better with chloro A spectrum, standard 450nm a bit better for chloro B (i may be getting these reversed).
So what you can try is to use half and half 3500k and evo-h 3000k (the blue peak is about the same as 3500k standard). Then add some reds.
Youd get a very similar spectrum and efficiency but with the added bonus of better coverage of both chloro A and B on the blue side.
KitnerPush
Member
Definitely true. But you're still going to want to get a good uniform 1200ppfd over your canopy if you are using CO2.First of all, "potency and flavor" come from the genetics. The genetics that are out there, now, are very complex and potentially include zillions of expressions among them all. There's absolutely no way to tailor a spectrum that would apply to all of these genetics in the exact same way and with the exact same results across the board.
Secondly, efficiency means nothing to plants. It's only important amongst the lighting jocks to be able to claim "highest efficiency" as a selling point.
IF there was a "secret sauce" light that could take mediocre genetics and turn them into something better, then THAT would be something. But there isn't such a thing. And there's no special bat shit or any other chemical that can improve anything from its genetic predisposition, either. I've personally grown great weed under all kinds of lights. Some of them were REALLY inefficient!
tstick
Well-Known Member
I grow in two, small tents and I spend so much time with my plants, I think I expel enough CO2 for them!
The other thing I forgot to mention, before, was that even if someone could find a strain to use in testing the different light effects, whatever the results end up being, there will always be variance among each grower, as to how the final product turns out.
I forget who it was, but years ago, when medical was peaking, this guy went around to several dispensaries and bought several "versions" (for lack of a better term) of Blue Dream. All of the versions of Blue Dream came from different growers. Even though it wasn't a very scientific test, he determined that there was hardly any similarities among all the versions he tested. It was like they were all completely different strains....and maybe they were, tbh. But the point is that lighting is only one aspect of how even a specific cultivar will grow. You could have the same exact lighting, but change the fertilizer or the temperature, drying technique...etc....and you'd get noticeably different results, too.
Lighting is trying to be sold as a secret sauce that will make all the difference in yield, terpenes, etc... And it just keeps getting broken down further and further to the point that now, the suggestion is that a few nanometers of difference in the color of the light, may be relevant and noticeably better/worse. I don't think it will matter to the plants because of all the other variables involved that I mentioned. But, on the other hand, if I'm in the market to buy a new light, then I want to try and buy into the technology that's likely to be around for awhile and not be outdated every year. A lot of growers are still using HID and getting great results. Some would argue that the spectral color of HPS is "wrong", too. Some would argue that HID lights are "inefficient". Yeah, maybe. But the point is that great weed has been grown under all kinds of crappy lights over the years. IF the lighting could make as much difference as is claimed, nowadays, then why isn't the quality of weed off the charts by now? In fact, in my experience, it's never been as tasty as it was back in the 70's and 80's. What does that mean?
-just saying....
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
This is what Nichia actually said:
See the bit about "combination of LEDs and phosphor? It means exactly what it means.
Also, don't get hung up on the 5000K spectral comparison – it is not arbitray. It is there to highlight the Pr anf Pfr peaks between diodes of similar CCT – the notes even say so:
You ran 4 XP-Es at around – I'm guessing 500mA – so arounf 1W each? So around 1% far red (maybe less due to the inefficiency of the 730nm diode). Even doubling that figure to 2% (1A or 2W each) is not a lot of extra far red. The Apogee won't give you a spectral reading in any case.
At least you have experimented with it. I started noticing differences around 5% far red and ended up doubling that with the next design.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Bugbee study in the same way I disagree with your interpretation of the Nichia study, but it's OK to disagree. You can interpret the same thing in different ways. But it's not just these two studies pointing to enhanced effects with far red. There is evidence building all the time.
Can they all be wrong?
