Full spectrum lights UNDERNEATH the canopy increases dry bud mass by 24.5% what are you using?

University studies show that blue light and subtle red lights under the canopy during flower increase cannabis dry bud mass by 19.8% and pushes THC creation up by 4.0% and full spectrum colors under the canopy increased yields by 24.5% according to their empirical data. Tents/heat/and other things to consider... what are regular people using for this application to make it all fit? You can't just ram a 4 x 4' LED array underneath the canopy so.. blue tubes? etc? Anyone doing this? Advice? >

https://www.thriveagritech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/White-Paper-Under-Canopy-Lighting.pdf

Sounds promising.
A bit of a hazard when watering is my second thought.

Wonder if could run vertical lighting in all four corners of tent

Paindevice said:

University studies show that blue light and subtle red lights under the canopy during flower increase cannabis dry bud mass by 19.8% and pushes THC creation up by 4.0% and full spectrum colors under the canopy increased yields by 24.5% according to their empirical data. Tents/heat/and other things to consider... what are regular people using for this application to make it all fit? You can't just ram a 4 x 4' LED array underneath the canopy so.. blue tubes? etc? Anyone doing this? Advice? >

https://www.thriveagritech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/White-Paper-Under-Canopy-Lighting.pdf

Click to expand...

Amazing results! A 19.8% improvement with 19% more light

More light = more yield. Whodathunkit

500umol vs. 500umol + 95umol undercanopy

"University studies"? Bullshit, there's nothing there to indicate any accredited University had anything to do with that "paper".

A high school kid could design a better experiment.

Billy the Mountain said:

Amazing results! A 19.8% improvement with 19% more light

More light = more yield. Whodathunkit

500umol vs. 500umol + 95umol undercanopy

"University studies"? Bullshit, there's nothing there to indicate any accredited University had anything to do with that "paper".

A high school kid could design a better experiment.

Click to expand...

I think scrogging with canopy management or just lollipopping makes more sense than underlighting, but the intro says:
"This paper summarizes results from a controlled experiment conducted at The University of Guelph"

Paindevice said:

University studies show that blue light and subtle red lights under the canopy during flower increase cannabis dry bud mass by 19.8% and pushes THC creation up by 4.0% and full spectrum colors under the canopy increased yields by 24.5% according to their empirical data. Tents/heat/and other things to consider... what are regular people using for this application to make it all fit? You can't just ram a 4 x 4' LED array underneath the canopy so.. blue tubes? etc? Anyone doing this? Advice? >

https://www.thriveagritech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/White-Paper-Under-Canopy-Lighting.pdf

Click to expand...

This was put out by a light company. Fuck do people ever look a little deeper than what's on the paper in front of them.
University study. Fucking just laughable!!

lusidghost said:

I think scrogging with canopy management or just lollipopping makes more sense than underlighting, but the intro says:
"This paper summarizes results from a controlled experiment conducted at The University of Guelph"

Click to expand...

A lighting company had someone at a University add their light to an existing light and compare results, an apple vs. orange comparison. That "paper" was not published by a University or academic journal but rather a lighting company.

The light reflected off the top of the tent. They don't photosynthesize from the bottom of the leaf.

I’ll just leave this gem here

Paindevice said:

I don't like or trust LED grow lights with a hundred little LEDs in them; about a hundred things that can go wrong IMO and I think its just a dumb design overall

Click to expand...

ye mate I have side lighting, but not directly underneath shining up through the canopy. With 60w and also being inexpensive as well as being water proof, I couldn't resist, I had to give it a go.

I've had them on my last grow and current, probably will keep using them till they die. Wouldn't mind adding a few more.

yeah they would’ve had to do a side by side and add the same light to the top on one and the bottom on another.

I haven’t read the link but it does sound like somebody trying to find a way to sell more lights.

With all due respect, you should read the article before responding

A lot of closed minded ignorant assholes in this thread that have apparently never heard the term "light recipe"... too bad

"Researchers in the Netherlands are experimenting with “inter-lighting” to improve yields, especially in taller crops. HID lamps are still the primary overhead light source, but LEDs are added lower in the canopy in specific color spectrums. For example, some frequencies of blue light stimulate the opening of the stomata. Green light, on the other hand, causes the stomata to close. As the upper leaves shade out the lower leaves, photosynthesis begins to shut down. By adding high-efficiency LEDs lower in the canopy, it is possible to stimulate more of the plant to become photosynthetically active, resulting in higher yields."

Fair enough.

I just read it and the most interesting thing to me was that exposure to light increased thc and terpene content. I was under the impression that that was controlled by genetics and light was only responsible for how dense the buds were.

that’s a good reason to do partial harvests.


I still think that they should’ve added the light to the top of another grow to compare before saying that adding light specifically underneath increased mass. I wonder if being underneath makes a difference or if like somebody said before they just added 19% more light and got a 19% increase.

Who exactly is the asshole in this scenario? I'd point to the guy who posts some junk science from a lighting company and present it as a legitimate research paper.

You site a "paper" from a lighting company that lacked basic experimental rigor yet somehow seem offended. Maybe work on your reading comprehension before posting bullshit?

Billy the Mountain said:

Who exactly is the asshole in this scenario? I'd point to the guy who posts some junk science from a lighting company and present it as a legitimate research paper.

You site a "paper" from a lighting company that lacked basic experimental rigor yet somehow seem offended. Maybe work on your reading comprehension before posting bullshit?

Click to expand...

The University thesis and study is cited in the original link at the top within "tHe cRaZy LiGhTiNg cOmPanY SCAM report"... You just failed to see it at the bottom of the very first page (1 Hawley, Dave. “The influence of spectral quality of light on plant secondary metabolism and photosynthetic acclimation to light quality”, A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph, 2018.) Try looking again. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/14294/Hawley_David_201809_phd.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y So to answer your question with all due respect, you would be the "asshole" here in this scenario.

Paindevice said:

The University thesis and study is cited in the original link at the top within "tHe cRaZy LiGhTiNg cOmPanY SCAM report"... You just failed to see it at the bottom of the very first page. Try looking again. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/14294/Hawley_David_201809_phd.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y So to answer your question with all do respect, you would be the "asshole" here.,

Click to expand...

Can you go back to your 2.5g/watt thread and update us on that please?

Paindevice said:

The University thesis and study is cited in the original link at the top within "tHe cRaZy LiGhTiNg cOmPanY SCAM report"... You just failed to see it at the bottom of the very first page. Try looking again. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/14294/Hawley_David_201809_phd.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y So to answer your question with all due respect, you would be the "asshole" here in this scenario.,

Click to expand...

If that thesis was legit, it would be published in an academic journal, rather than used as promotional material for a lighting company.
They compared yield for 500 vs. 595 umols of light, 595umols won; that's fundamentally flawed and wouldn't pass muster in an introductory research methods course. That should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.

bk78 said:

Can you go back to your 2.5g/watt thread and update us on that please?

Click to expand...

That was a troll joke.... are you kidding? If you couldn't tell that that was a joke with that ridiculous picture I don't know what to tell you... yikes

Billy the Mountain said:

If that thesis was legit, it would be published in an academic journal, rather than used as promotional material for a lighting company.
They compared yield for 500 vs. 595 umols of light, 595umols won; that's fundamentally flawed and wouldn't pass muster in an introductory research methods course. That should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.

Click to expand...

So now it's a thesis that was presented to a University and yet its still BS because its not on the cover of High Times... okay... There are tons of "light recipe" academic papers out there being discussed World wide right now... You're just set in your ways and don't apparently like new data and experiments.