Lux lumen?
- Thread starter Lyleww
- Start date
Slow yellowish growth under vero 29 3000k/3500k
https://imgur.com/a/uLLbG Updated pics, lights on and off with camera flash. Turned down the lights to 200 watts total and they are 22" above the canopy... I wanna say the clone looks slightly better (back right) but the one on the back left is still pretty light colored with some curling...
www.rollitup.org
dabby duck
Well-Known Member
Not trying to spam this, as I just posted in that ridiculous Lush, thread, but this has very good advice IMHO!
Dr bugbee is concise and thorough, this is rockstar poop!
Dr bugbee is concise and thorough, this is rockstar poop!
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member
He might be concise, but you will thank me when you play that video at 1.5x speed!
Great video, BTW - thanks for sharing.
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member
I will only add that while he makes quite a bold claim that spectrum has no "major" effect on cannabinoid or terpene levels, at 39:17 he seems to contradict himself by saying "UV has the potential to trigger cannabinoid synthesis". I'd argue there is enough evidence to support the latter theory.
Humple
Well-Known Member
I think the logical inference is that there is evidence for UV, but not so much for the other wavelengths.
Edit: Oh, and how is it a "bold claim"? Are you aware of any verified, repeated lab results to the contrary? If so, please provide the info!
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member
Did you see any from him?
There are certainly studies that show near-UV has an affect on cannabinoids. Here is one that repeats two sets of experiments with the same results: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030
There have also been side-by-side grows that have shown the same: https://rollitup.org/t/thc-cbd-terpene-test-results-uva-vs-uvb-vs-none.1001617/
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of blue light – especially deep blue, near-UV and UVA – boosting cannabinoid and terpene profiles if you ask growers who have used CMH vs HPS.
Humple
Well-Known Member
Yes, but I've already conceded that for UV. We're talking other wavelengths.Did you see any from him?
There are certainly studies that show near-UV has an affect on cannabinoids. Here is one that repeats two sets of experiments with the same results: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030
There have also been side-by-side grows that have shown the same: https://rollitup.org/t/thc-cbd-terpene-test-results-uva-vs-uvb-vs-none.1001617/
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of blue light – especially deep blue, near-UV and UVA – boosting cannabinoid and terpene profiles if you ask growers who have used CMH vs HPS.
As for results from Bugbee - I imagine you could request the results via email. Are you suggesting he doesn't have the data?
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member
I used the word "bold" but Bugbee himself says it is an "amazing statement".
What I would suggest is they either don't have the data, or they are not including UV in the equation. Even if they don't consider UV a "colour" (that may strictly be true, as you can't see UV, so it's not a "colour"), near-UV in the 400-430nm range is definitely a colour and it has been shown to increase cannabinoid and terpene production.
Admittedly there are not that many scientific tests. But if Apogee uses standard 450nm pump LEDs with no significant light under 440nm, then it is possible their data do not show any "significant" effects. I am not sure if they have tested HIDs (MH vs CMH vs HPS) with various spectra, including so-called "finishing lights" up to 10,000K. I don't know what their definition of "colour" or "significant" is either.
For our part, we are hoping to do some tests in the next few weeks comparing the same strain grown under different UV sources (UVB + UVA, UVA, near-UV). In some ways it will be a confirmation (or not) of the Or_Gro test, as most of the same lighting systems were used. The main difference will be the addition of a CMH + standard (450nm pump) LED grow.
Humple
Well-Known Member
In other videos he speaks on the spectrum of HID, and voices the same conclusion - the color isn't a big deal (yet).
I'd love to see the info on any test that shows 400nm-430nm "has been shown to increase cannabinoid and terpene production." (And that's a serious statement, not sarcasm.)
So you're having the product tested? I would have thought that would be difficult to do in Australia. Or are you having someone outside the country do it? I look forward to your results!
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member
You should read the Italian study I linked to, it's all in there. Specifically, look at the spectra below and compare it to the yield graphs in Fig.2:
As you probably know, Or_Gro did some tests for us in the US which aligned with the above results, but this time it will be a lab in Australia. Licensed medicinal grows are permitted in most Australian states and although the conditions are very strict here, there are ways to test.Humple said:
Humple
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link! Somehow missed it the first time. It's an interesting study, and a beginning perhaps, but... It certainly doesn't prove the point. We need far, far more than two tests, first of all. Secondly, I'd like to see the LED test done with a light that has the same amount of UV, but less near-UV/blue - they hypothesized that both contribute to THC synthesis, but until they test each without the other, that's just speculation. Additionally, the lower THC in the HPS grow is being attributed to the ratio of red to far red? That also strikes me as a premature conclusion. Another interpretation could simply be the damage caused by the plant reacting to IR as heat, no? I'm glad to see more labs studying this, but as a basis for light manufacturers' claims of performance, it's weaksauce.
Very happy that someone finally ponied up some real damn data though! Good on ya'.
Humple
Well-Known Member
Oh, and as some are a bit dubious about Bugbee's tests, due to his position with Apogee, it should at least be noted that the study you linked was funded by Valoya, who - if I understand the paper correctly - also happen to manufacture the fixture that is claimed to have produced the highest THC.
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member
Of course we also have a vested interest
In addition to the Italian tests, the Or_Gro tests showed near-UV could produce cannabinoid and terpene levels on par with combined UVA/UVB, all of which were higher than the control LEDs with no UV or near-UV. We agree it's early days, but that is at least some evidence.
CMH and Metal Halides produce strong light in the 400-430nm area, especially compared to HPS, so there has been annecdotal evidence for years that the stronger blue and violet were responsible for perceived higher levels of cannabinoids and terpenes (the "sniff and smoke" test). Many older growers would likely agree with this.
400-430nm also coincides with a number of chloroplast absorption peaks such as Chlorophyll A and Phytochrome Red. There is a lot going on in the region.
In addition to the Italian tests, the Or_Gro tests showed near-UV could produce cannabinoid and terpene levels on par with combined UVA/UVB, all of which were higher than the control LEDs with no UV or near-UV. We agree it's early days, but that is at least some evidence.
CMH and Metal Halides produce strong light in the 400-430nm area, especially compared to HPS, so there has been annecdotal evidence for years that the stronger blue and violet were responsible for perceived higher levels of cannabinoids and terpenes (the "sniff and smoke" test). Many older growers would likely agree with this.
400-430nm also coincides with a number of chloroplast absorption peaks such as Chlorophyll A and Phytochrome Red. There is a lot going on in the region.