Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
hmmm I've seen numerous investigations into the LSP with Cannabis but always higher - 1000, 1500, 1800 ppfd.
Where is your 800 coming from please?
It seems the medical strains can't take much
Is there optimal amount of light that you can give for photoperiod plants? 18/6 to 24 hours? And when to swap?
- Thread starter Blossom21
- Start date
Where is your 800 coming from please?
It seems the medical strains can't take much
twentyeight.threefive
Well-Known Member
Offensive language? Hahaha where?oh I remember now why I had you on ignore my little friend
tags someone just to reply with offensive language
/ignore
I simply stated that observing one set of plant(s) under 24/0 and seeing issues was a ridiculous conclusion that plants benefit from a dark period.
You made the assumption without even measuring the amount of light the plants were getting over the 24 hr period.
twentyeight.threefive
Well-Known Member
That’s a terrible analogy as it’s not true. Humans can not live on a 24/0 schedule. It’s not that “we don’t want to”, it’s physically impossible.
Edit: I reread your statement and guess you’re referring to living where there is 24 hrs of light and not a rest period. Why would we artificially light an area when we need rest? That’s a waste of energy.
Blossom21
Active Member
Yes thank you for answering, i'm actually getting information.
And I FORGOT TO MENTION AT THE START i meant growing conditions WITHOUT extra CO2 and keeping your TENT also without in some perfect lab environment with absolutely correct temps and all the jazz you know!
Answer to this thread was meant to be for a regular grower, maybe you don't have perfect lab conditions in your tent but i was looking for legit testing that takes time and effort, especially for a regular grower. So getting an answer to this is gonna take time i think.
I personally have pretty good growing tent and all the jazz with quantum boards, cooling (fans and stuff), a big filter connected to a nice big (but) silent cooler with a silencer etc.. even i think i'm above average growers with all my setup that i've bought lol, but it has paid off because i can control my environment to my liking pretty much how i like. I just don't have extra CO2 and don't wanna spend extra money and time for that, and it's getting more and more complicated.
How about your plants getting (near) the perfect amount of light, to grow (near) the perfect root mass, to need perfect amount of water and suppliments to get more boost than people even realize? I don't believe the answer to this has been cracked yet.
What if you had lights mimicking the sun? That would be cool.
NOT REALLY YOUR POST, I just wanna give props to Kassiopeija too, i'm pretty high at the moment to reply to the right answers
twentyeight.threefive
Well-Known Member
Not exact sure what magic number you are looking for? Light schedule?Yes thank you for answering, i'm actually getting information.
And I FORGOT TO MENTION AT THE START i meant growing conditions WITHOUT extra CO2 and keeping your TENT also without in some perfect lab environment with absolutely correct temps and all the jazz you know!
Answer to this thread was meant to be for a regular grower, maybe you don't have perfect lab conditions in your tent but i was looking for legit testing that takes time and effort, especially for a regular grower. So getting an answer to this is gonna take time i think.
I personally have pretty good growing tent and all the jazz with quantum boards, cooling (fans and stuff), a big filter connected to a nice big (but) silent cooler with a silencer etc.. even i think i'm above average growers with all my setup that i've bought lol, but it has paid off because i can control my environment to my liking pretty much how i like. I just don't have extra CO2 and don't wanna spend extra money and time for that, and it's getting more and more complicated.
How about your plants getting (near) the perfect amount of light, to grow (near) the perfect root mass, to need perfect amount of water and suppliments to get more boost than people even realize? I don't believe the answer to this has been cracked yet.
What if you had lights mimicking the sun? That would be cool.
Optimal light schedule going to be dependent on DLI. The total amount of light your plants receive in a 24 hr period. That will be dependent on the power and distance to your canopy of your light. Assuming an equal PPFD across the canopy you could run 18/6 at a certain distance or raise the lights and use 24/0.
Splinter7
Well-Known Member
only things i have experienced is stretch with lights off. it seems the plants can get tired...sometimes they need to rest or something. was getting droopy leaves, added 4 hours off and they were praying again. not always needed, but it is worth trying if your plants are shying from the light.
new setup is just 63in tall, so stretch is no bueno.
new setup is just 63in tall, so stretch is no bueno.
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
You are trying to be technical and missing my point. The sun, outside, defines everything you do indoors. It informs everything about what to do and why.
Nowhere on this planets surface does anything grow in 24/0. It "could", as proven indoors, but it doesnt. This is the natural state of the world.
The lights you use, the weather conditions you recreate, everything you do is informed by the Sun and nature outside...not inside. DLI is a measure of light outside and what intervals the various plants use.
You can be stubborn, and rude (terrible analogy), and you are unable to process simple comments.
Everything I wrote is valid and makes sense. Only you are unable to understand that outdoors informs indoors. Your DLI measurements come from outdoors. The weather you recreate comes from outdoor knowledge applied indoors.
You are believing your logic makes obvious sense and it does not.
The answer to your question is simple. Nature does not have people living in 24/0. It also does not have plants living in 24/0. In both cases, we can artificially make this happen. And in neither case is it proven to be a good idea. It is not an accident that plants get dark periods. It is not a simple fact that is unimportant. You may think it is, and search for ways to prove you are right.
Sometimes you dont have to argue basic points.
If 24/0 was superior, every indoor grow op would use it, and none of them do. Nature showed what was optimal and millions of plants grown indoor and outdoors has proven it. It is neither more effective, or efficient.
Bugbee and Chandra use CO2-enriched environments. Bugbee says, in a video, words to the effect that "we've never hit a maximum PPFD" for cannabis. The 780 is for non-CO2 enriched. The only reference I have is at this link. If you have other references, please post them.
I have not searched in systems such as the NIH; I've been using only Google.
The 780 value, ± for strain variation, fits with the 900± range that DeBacco and others talk about. The chart from Photone calls for 40 mols which is 925 µmols for 12 hours. Lacking a research paper, 780 is a citable source but I think it's fair to say that 900± can be correctly inferred. Yes? No? Maybe?
Last edited:
twentyeight.threefive
Well-Known Member
Again wrong on so many points. You don’t even understand the definition of DLI. It has nothing to do with indoors/outdoors.
“If 24/0 was superior, every indoor grow op would use it, and none of them do.”
More flawed logic. You will have quicker and more growth with max DLI. It’s not used by a lot of commercial growers because it’s not cost effective.
Not sure where calling me rude came in from, but I’m quite able to process simple comments, even the incorrect ones.
“If 24/0 was superior, every indoor grow op would use it, and none of them do.”
More flawed logic. You will have quicker and more growth with max DLI. It’s not used by a lot of commercial growers because it’s not cost effective.
Not sure where calling me rude came in from, but I’m quite able to process simple comments, even the incorrect ones.
"not cost effective"? - Bugbee states that, when he's called in to consult at a grower's site, almost all of the growers are "leaving money on the table" by not using enough light. Of course, that only one perspective and I'd posit that Bugbee is on the higher end of the consulting fee range but I have no reason to doubt what he says.
The only study that I've seen that discusses the economics of increasing DLI concludes that it is worth the extra expense to increase DLI. A quote from "The relationship between light intensity, cannabis yields, and profitability" - "Finally, for all the intensity ranges that we considered, the value of the gain in yields from increasing light intensity far exceeded the cost of using more electricity."
Looking at fixed vs variable costs, I can see the logic - electricity and HVAC to deal with the increased lighting is a variable cost. Given that the increase in net photosynthesis tends to increase as DLI increases, albeit the law of diminishing returns kicks in, the variable costs to increase yield are not significant as compared to the fixed costs and increasing the DLI does not significantly increase the most expensive variable cost, that cost being labor, especially in North America. Add in the extremely high value of the crop and the study shows that increasing DLI was cost effective in the site they discussed. Granted, that's one study but it is worth reviewing.
For the home grower, the extra electricity may well be worth it. I don't do cost accounting for my grow but the cost of electricity for a grow is not a significant amount. I'm using a 330 watt light, running at 260 watts. My smart strip indicates that it's using 4.5 kWh per day which, even at the obscene rates here in California, is < $1.50 per day. If I could only get 1% increase in yield for a 1% increase on cost, that would make the increased DLI worth it because the cheapest I can buy cannabis here in SoCal is about $300 per pound.
Attached is a graphic from Chandra. The rate of increase in the yield curve drops but the curve is positive at all temps up to 1500 µmols and, when the environment is 25°, the curve is on a strong positive slope even at 2000 µmols.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
well, 2 answers really:
cannabis is a C3 plant so it doesn't require a dark period
and then DLI as well.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
you think there is a difference b/t a medical strain and a recreational strain?? do tell.
twentyeight.threefive
Well-Known Member
Well the end answer only comes down to DLI as cannabis being a C3 plant is a given. I don’t see the difference in reaching max DLI in 18 or 24 hrs.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
i meant the C3 plant comment for those who think a plant is human and needs to sleep. that bro science is so wrong it's not funny.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
how can you say Chandra uses CO2 when you are lacking his works?
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
there's studies yes with photosynthesis rates
you are so incredibly dumb
c'mon show me your 2 week sprout flowering plant
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
BAHAHAHAHAHA
DUMB & ILLITERATE
DOESN'T KNOW SHIT BUT KEEPS HIS MOUTH OPEN
^^^^^^^^^^^
same for that idiot:
BAHAHAHAHAHA
DO SOME RESEARCH
blueberrymilkshake
Well-Known Member
Hey Kass!