Max Par in flower? :D
- Thread starter Adi1989
- Start date
Lordhooha
Well-Known Member
Rarely do you need 1500 ppm of co2 in flower 1300 ppm is really the max and that's when the par meter is sitting at 1500.
smokey0418
Well-Known Member
This is plan this time around.
The week before I flip I will turn the light up a bit and lower a bit to give them a bump of what’s coming.
Then going into flower I would again turn up some more maybe raising the light a bit then lowering .
Once the hairs appear again more power and a bit lower and more feed.
By week 5 I plan on full blast and as low as they will allow me to take it.
Week 8 I will slowly start to back off saving what they have created.
No meter they will inform me if there’s a issue.
The week before I flip I will turn the light up a bit and lower a bit to give them a bump of what’s coming.
Then going into flower I would again turn up some more maybe raising the light a bit then lowering .
Once the hairs appear again more power and a bit lower and more feed.
By week 5 I plan on full blast and as low as they will allow me to take it.
Week 8 I will slowly start to back off saving what they have created.
No meter they will inform me if there’s a issue.
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
I have CO2 enrichment in the winter but it's relatively uncontrolled. Can get to over 3k but it usually is 1800-2200 or so. Those buds can get pretty dense.
Adi1989
Active Member
Awesome thanks dude, I will give that a go!
When do you raise to 1500 par? week 3/week4 after flipping to 12/12
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
Why?
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
My heater is unvented and exhaust through the flower room.
Jjgrow420
Well-Known Member
Sounds safe
Lordhooha
Well-Known Member
Why though
The videos on YouTube by Dr Bugbee address PPFD levels at some length and you might want to check out a paper on Cannabis and PPFD - Google "Chandra cannabis mississippi".
Bugbee addresses the "should I turn it up slowly" issue. In terms of the plants' ability to deal with the increase in light level, he gives a direct "no" - the plants will handle the increased light without issue, the assumption being that the strain can tolerate the increased DLI. That's all well and good but there is the grower's perspective which is to ensure that the plants can deal with the expected light level. If you're not familiar with how the strain that you're growing performs, caution may be the best approach. If, however, you've got experience with a given strain, crank it up to 11.
smokey0418
Well-Known Member
To keep up the momentum.
Lordhooha
Well-Known Member
It’s just unneeded stuff that your jacking with. Cannabis has plenty of momentum on its own.
smokey0418
Well-Known Member
I would agree with it has momentum
But there is a zone under my light were things happen much faster than further away.
And much slower if too close.
Perhaps if I had a apogee I could just dial up a number that’s recommended and just go with the flow.
Wizzlebiz
Well-Known Member
Holy overly complicated batman!
Agreed.
The goal is to give them as much light as they can tolerate through each growth phase to maximize photosynthesis.
Wizzlebiz
Well-Known Member
There is nothing wrong with experimenting.
Something I have learned through my life I would like to share with you.
Experiment in private, document your results, come to a conclusion and then and only then show your results if they matter. Don't bring fourth meh results or questionable result.
But most of all..... No one needs to watch your failures happen in spectacular fashion.
That sir should be a private show just for you.
smokey0418
Well-Known Member
Aye aye captain.
That protects one’s ego but it also antithetical to the scientific process and, for members of the various cannabis fora, we all benefit by not taking that approach.
One significant issue that we face today is “Publish or perish” - researchers and academics are on the treadmill of having to publish papers that show positive results. One of the many problems that causes is that we don’t have information about the things that didn’t work so a lot of time is spent trying things out that don’t work. If people to publish only the results of successes there’s less knowledge about what not do to.
I don’t have a problem with the “show only the good stuff” approach - that’s the choice that the individual makes and I realize that many people really are deeply embarrassed if the don’t get a positive outcome. For me, if I try something that goes sideways, I want to people know about it and I hope that they, in turn, will publish their efforts or research that don’t have a positive outcome so I don’t have waste my timing proving that square wheel really isn’t all that a good an idea.
Last edited:
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
No worse than a gas stove.