Johnnycannaseed1
Well-Known Member
We know because the HPS side wasn't CAL-MAG deficient, the levels were optimum, or else he would have mentioned it.To be honest and NOT HATING ON LED or HLG (those are fine pieces of equipment) - anyone that can set their feeling aside would look at thise test and completely discredit the end results on one factor alone - CAL-MAG
You can not give a significant nutrient input to one set of plants and not the other and even remotely call it a "VS"
He should have gave exact nutrient programs to both rooms.
Obviously bumping the Nitrogen, Calcium, Magnesium, (and whatever else is in his brand of Cal-Mag) will influence plant growth.
How do we know that the HPS yield wouldn't have gone up 30% with the addition of Cal-Mag??
Since the HPS side "wasn't" CAL-MAG deficient, but the LED side is, what's the man supposed to do?
Would it be a fair trial to keep the LED plants in a state of deficiency?
Surely it's more scientific, and makes more sense to feed both the HPS and LED sides at their respective optimum levels?
Personally, I have ran LED vs HPS trials and I always found the LED side was a bigger eater with regards to water and nutes, which shocked me at first, then I began to realize the plants are working harder (increased metabolic rate) under the LED side.
The Fact is when you are doing an HPS vs LED grow, you have already changed one environmental factor with regards to the spectrum, and consequently, that has a knock on effect, which you have to factor in and allow for.
Both sides cannot be fed at the same rate and same levels because you will find they have different requirements. Feeding each side at the Optimum level is the only "fair" thing you can do