Reduced hour light cycles

Discussion in 'Advanced Marijuana Cultivation' started by torontoke, Aug 9, 2017.


    SonsOfAvery Well-Known Member

    Hopefully that's an explanation...but I'd expect High not drunk :P
    nxsov180db likes this.

    Raven121415 Well-Known Member

    I induced and maintained flowering with 14/10 with 2 diferwnt kush strains.

    Gaz29 Well-Known Member

    I been using the 'gas lantern routine' for veg =12 on 5.5 off , 1 hour on & 5.5 off, then switch to 11/13 for flowering and elsewhere I've got another grow on 20/4 veg & 11/13 flowering. Both are doing fine.. happy growing
    nxsov180db and ttystikk like this.

    nxsov180db Well-Known Member

    Awesome, and have you experienced this fabled loss of THC content from less than 12 hours of light?

    hillbill Well-Known Member

    Not just "No" but "HELL NO!"
    nxsov180db, GroErr and ttystikk like this.

    Gaz29 Well-Known Member

    Not that I've noticed..
    nxsov180db likes this.

    rollitup Forum Admin Staff Member

    Do you have any documented research to prove what you say?

    Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."

    How about you test your "feelings" in a lab, and then get back to us.

    Until then, let's hear some more of your "feelings." :lol:


    torontoke Well-Known Member

    Where’s your lab results?
    Maybe post anything remotely close to the numbers you claim before expecting it from others.
    We understand your standing by your book that was written before hid lighting was even used but seriously why bother posting in this thread if it’s just going to be a pissed off granny mod rant.

    This is exactly the reason more and more people are leaving these forums.
    No sense trying to help get any new stats or opinions let’s just continue to measure dicks and sling insults like the petty mods do
    If there’s no conversation to be had here then why bother?

    rollitup Forum Admin Staff Member

    In my first post was a quote by Dr. Clarke that started "research has shown." Then he cited the source.

    "before hid lighting was even used," HA! that gave me a really good laugh! I imagine that you were not even born when Rob published his research, so you would not know about the use of HID lights.

    Let's hear some more of your "feelings." :lol:


    torontoke Well-Known Member

    I won’t attempt to debate someone’s 40 year old research that isn’t even your own.
    Clearly genetics and light tech haven’t changed at all since then so the same blanket data must stay true forever.
    Everyone else must be wasting their time
    None of us would be able to tell our end product is missing a measly 50% of the thc because we aren’t as old as you

    rollitup Forum Admin Staff Member

    That's absolutely correct, now you're talking! You are threatened by my knowledge and experience.

    So it's time for me to thank you, and tell you how much I appreciate your growing skills. Because of that every time someone smokes my bud, they say it's the best they've ever had!

    Thanks again! :lol:


    nxsov180db Well-Known Member

    Documented research? Like from back when we were supposedly going into another ice age? Sorry but I'll side with lab results that test in the 30's and outdoor grows that finish with much less than 12 hours of light that test higher than the same clone indoors. There's a lot of experienced growers here and none of them are agreeing with you or your fairy tale unicorn voodoo research.
    mr. childs, GroErr, torontoke and 3 others like this.

    Flowki Well-Known Member

    Today at work I had trouble. I went to the toilet in a nearby restaurant and it felt like I was having a number one from my number two, but the type of number one experienced after you've fornicated. There's more. I was the only person to go to the toilet in that time and when I tried to flush, it didn't work. I took the lid off the top bit and started yanking on the floating device, I remember doing that as a child flooding the bathroom, seemed like an option.. but nothing happened. I walked out feeling very bad knowing the young waitress was not going to get an early finish today. Tomorrow my face is probably on a poster pinned to every post in town ''wanted for shit and run''.

    Still, not the lowest point of the day.. night guys.
    cindysid and ttystikk like this.

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    That's rough, bro. Hope everything works itself out soon...

    berten-ernie420 Well-Known Member

    Both flowered under shortened flower periods. So by your logic, these strains if flowered under 12, would've doubled levels? C'mon guy. Different strokes for different folks.

    Attached Files:


    OLD MOTHER SATIVA Well-Known Member

    this quote from RobClarke and the apparent 'research' is ridiculous.

    please think about this "twice as much statement "first..not all research is correct

    let me rephrase that because no i do not have documented info to support my claim

    and i thank the mod for inserting a bibliography[of one]

    so this means that the two hr period is responisble for 50% of producing thc

    Does this also mean that 13, 14 , [18 hrs, 24 hrs]yah know those auto's

    will increase it even more or is the magic number with all cannabis 12 hrs?
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017

    deno Well-Known Member

    50% less does sound suspect, but devaluing research because it is old is ridiculous. If it was just one study, than it is anything but confirmed. Its a data point to consider. At the same time, anecdotal evidence is not useless, but is suspect as well (among other things largely due to conformation bias we humans all suffer from). That 'going into an ice age' thing was a result of the media hyping it up. These wasn't a scientific consensus - not even close. It was one researcher who said it, and the media ran with it. The media does what the media does - tries to be interesting so they make more money. It's been bandied about by climate change deniers recently, holding it up as a false equivalence. Understand how the scientific method works, and you won't get conned by politicians (and their shills).
    rollitup and Bigz2277 like this.

    hillbill Well-Known Member

    I'm not doing a scientific experiment. I am though growing more herb in less days with less electricity since I cut my light period to 10 hours several months ago. I thought I would try it and here I am. I do grow under high quality full spectrum white COBs and LEDs, not street lights.

    Gotta go enjoy some anecdotal herb. My lights finally turned on!

    Global warming is very real, very serious and an incredible threat.

    deno Well-Known Member

    No one is suggesting you are. We all make decisions based on limited info. I think the anti-science sentiments so many people express are cute. They act as if its something to despise, as if their lives would be better without it. They act like a spoiled brats, thinking if he breaks his toy another even better one will magically appear. A brat with absolutely no appreciation of what he has, or how he got it. I'll stick with running the light as long as possible while still keeping the plant in bloom for yield reasons.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017
    rollitup likes this.

    hillbill Well-Known Member

    My yield is noticeably up. It just is. Potency is at least as good and plants flower time is a couple days shorter. Been doing some same strains for years. Only time I ever was under 12 hours before was down to just over eleven hours to try to finish full bleed Sativas. Too many folks here are having similar results to dismiss. I just like spending less on power with better results, faster.
    nxsov180db likes this.

Share This Page