36 hours of darkness after veg?

Hilikus said:

I still don't understand the logic behind this at all. When does this happen in nature? Why would there be more growth? Enlighten me.

Click to expand...

Look at page two posts, I explain some basic science behind the dark period.

Mor

lol this is your first post on this thread, i dont see where you explained anything... But yeahs the links I posted on page 2 should be sufficent

OB Cron Kenobi said:

It doesnt happen in nature, but a lot of things that are going on in your grow room dont happen in nature and a lot of things going on outside cant be done inside your grow room (outside: the moon, morning dew, frost, dramatically ranging soil temperatures, etc.) When outside is their ever 24 hrs of light? Or even 18 hours of light as strong as the hps we hang? There just isnt.

Click to expand...

I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, no doubt BUT lets do the math on this statement.

If you have a 1000w HPS with 140,000 lumens in a 4x4 (very small area to prove a point) 4x4 is 16 sq feet so 140,000/16 = 8750 lumens per sq foot.
The sun hits the ground at 10,000 lumens per sq foot.

My new grow room has

2 600w HPS total lumens 180,000
and
2 400w MH total lumens 70,000
for a total of 250,000 lumens with 2000 watts
but wait, I use lumatek ballast that claims upto 30% more light.
To be consertive we will go with 15%
250,000 x .15= 37,500lumens + 250,000 lumens for a total of
287,500 lumens
My growroom is 8x4 = 32sqft
287,500/32= 8984 lumens per sqft with 2000w basicly in a room the size of a sheet of plywood.
Again the sun hits the earth at 10,000 lumens per sq foot

As for having lights on for 24 hours durring veg, that is just wasteful. Your plant cant store that much energy. Plants put their growth on mostly at night, unless they dont have any other choice. The reason you get growth in 36 hrs of dark, is because that is when plants grow. Had you been 18/6 from the start, you would have already passed that point.

That being said. You are clearly an experenced grower, as I am. But undersatnd, just because it works one way dosen't mean their isn't a better way. Plants are adaptive. Indoors, the less stress you put on it, the more resources it devotes to THC production, or yeild, or chlorafill, or what ever you are training it to do.

Hmm- I never realized indoor lights were less than the sun. And they seem so bright- but i believe you for sure bout that.

Light cycles are something that are really manipulatable for experimentation in growing, and for that i am happy because it makes for very unique adaptations of conditions and an ability for growers to try different things. To each his own- let us all share our stories of success and even those of pitiful failure so we can learn from eachother.

I believe on my next grow I will go 18/6 straight thru and do half in 36 darkness half in not- and see what happens- I did a lot of playing with lighting this time- so i have all sorts of variables

Thanks to the cool breakdown on the light- btw you have some serious light cranking 2000 watts damn!

OB Cron Kenobi said:

Hmm- I never realized indoor lights were less than the sun. And they seem so bright- but i believe you for sure bout that.

Light cycles are something that are really manipulatable for experimentation in growing, and for that i am happy because it makes for very unique adaptations of conditions and an ability for growers to try different things. To each his own- let us all share our stories of success and even those of pitiful failure so we can learn from eachother.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail right on the head

Hi,
Sorry about that I thought I was on a diffi thread. But the info i was wrote/referring to might apply here too.
https://www.rollitup.org/879197-post40.html

OB Cron Kenobi said:

It doesnt happen in nature, but a lot of things that are going on in your grow room dont happen in nature and a lot of things going on outside cant be done inside your grow room (outside: the moon, morning dew, frost, dramatically ranging soil temperatures, etc.) When outside is their ever 24 hrs of light? Or even 18 hours of light as strong as the hps we hang? There just isnt. Growing inside requires the grower to adapt the plant and make it think it is outside. By putting it into a 36 hour dark period the plants internal clock is restarted, at some point in its darkness it says WTF i thought I was getting light and thriving and now my energy source is out and without knowing it will come back on the plants survival mechanisms kick in and it uses the energy that it had stored and attempts to produce seeds- (sexing) and thus develops flowers. Idk if it works for everyone or what... But I did it- and I saw 4 with pre-flower development that wasnt on them when the lights when out. And the worlds finest growers recommend it- need I say cervantes' and Arjan are the best! and both use between a 24-72 hour darkness after veg. Check those links- they are loaded with details and much more knowledgeable people explaining the science behind it- I only know the before and after

Click to expand...

I agree with you - the whole "when does this occur in nature" thing is kind of annoying to me. Indoor growing doesn't occur in nature. Hydroponics doesn't occur in nature. (Don't bother arguing on that - there's hydroponic-like situations in very rare cases, but it almost always results in stunted growth.)

We're not trying merely to duplicate nature. We're trying to improve on it. If we wanted to duplicate nature we'd randomly over water and under water. We'd simulate cloudy days and days that are far too hot. We'd trod on some seedlings and mangle foliage to simulate herbivores.

The only thing "natural" about cultivated MJ is that it comes from nature's cookbook. If it being completely natural is that important the only thing to do is to go out into nature and find naturally growing (wild) MJ. The rest of it is altered simply by the fact that it's been cultivated by humans. We seek to optimize it, give it the best chances and conditions we can. Even growing outdoors isn't completely natural if you give it any water, fertilizer, weed around it or anything like that.


Yeah, learning from nature and using that to provide for the plant's needs is smart. But refusing anything based solely on whether you can find an example of it in nature isn't.

Putting them in the dark for awhile before going to 12/12 works. There's a few theories as to why, and none of them are ultimately important. It works. That's all that's important.

i set the timer 12/12 its ok ar must started whit 24 or 36,how can i guess then the plant started flowering (its my first time dont laughing pleace hihik)

lotta type o's- they have an edit button... clean that up- i am no grammar police- but that hurt to read...

the plant will show pre-flowers when its a girl and is about to start flowering- click my journal's link or look at others who have sexed their plants

hooked.on.ponics said:

Hydroponics doesn't occur in nature. (Don't bother arguing on that - there's hydroponic-like situations in very rare cases, but it almost always results in stunted growth.)

Click to expand...

Rice the most eaten food on the planet.
Swamp land has insane vegitation
Have you been to the waterfalls of Maui? The humming birds are the size of robins. and the roots of plants hundreds of yards away are growing out of the ground to get the mist in the air.(aeroponics)

cloudflyer said:

Rice the most eaten food on the planet.
Swamp land has insane vegitation
Have you been to the waterfalls of Maui? The humming birds are the size of robins. and the roots of plants hundreds of yards away are growing out of the ground to get the mist in the air.(aeroponics)

Click to expand...

Why? Why was this necessary?

You even quoted me saying that it was a stupid thing to argue about and you went ahead and argued. For what vaguely rational reason?

Rice is grown in flooded fields, not a hydroponic setting. The defining quality of hydroponics is "soil-less". There's still soil in a flooded field.

The size of hummingbirds in Maui is completely irrelevant.

OMFG, roots are growing out of the ground (aka "soil") to get to mist? Who freakin' cares? That's still not hydroponics.


If you really needed to pick nits, which is so wholly unnecessary that it boggles the mind, why would you completely overlook the non-terrestrial bromeliads and other species which actually do not grow in dirt? Those rare few species actually ARE hydroponic natives.


Besides the fact that I very CLEARLY stated that there are rare cases of hydroponic setting in nature - which makes your effort to prove that such settings exist very confusing.

The point of my prior post is (I think) abundantly clear and no amount of proving the exception negates the rule. Hydroponics do not appear in nature to any significant degree and, in the rare cases where it does, it does not produce improvements in plant health like it does in man-made applications.

hooked.on.ponics said:

Why? Why was this necessary?

You even quoted me saying that it was a stupid thing to argue about and you went ahead and argued. For what vaguely rational reason?

Rice is grown in flooded fields, not a hydroponic setting. The defining quality of hydroponics is "soil-less". There's still soil in a flooded field.

The size of hummingbirds in Maui is completely irrelevant.

OMFG, roots are growing out of the ground (aka "soil") to get to mist? Who freakin' cares? That's still not hydroponics.


If you really needed to pick nits, which is so wholly unnecessary that it boggles the mind, why would you completely overlook the non-terrestrial bromeliads and other species which actually do not grow in dirt? Those rare few species actually ARE hydroponic natives.

.

Click to expand...

This is a discusion form. Don't bothering arguing, because I wont listen is what you should have said. Roots growing out of the ground for mist is Aeroponics naturally occurring in nature. Otherwise by your definition, Both hydro and Aeroponics can never be considered organic either. Is that what your saying?

hooked.on.ponics said:

The size of hummingbirds in Maui is completely irrelevant.

.

Click to expand...

I forgot the humming birds. Hmm why would I mention that, what ever could it be...
Ahh thats right, it's the big picture. You had said that the quality and quanity would be diminished. Well where do humming birds get their food?
Thats right , flowers. And where do you suppose those giant flowers get their food? Ohh yea, their roots are growing out of the ground to collect the mist from the waterfall. Obviously it is that much better because the roots are exposing themselves to light to get there. It's the bigger picture. I assumed that since their is no point in arguing with you that you were not a one dimensional thinker.

Back to the point. YES hydroponic and Aeroponics are different indoors, but they are based on what we have seen in the real world. With rice the soil is for support, just like I use expanded clay for support, not as a medium.
Everything is not black or white, there is a grey area.

Have you ever heard the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"? This is the whole central point that you're missing. For almost every hard-and-fast rule in nature there's this one little stupid thing that represents an infinitesimally small fraction of a fraction of the whole that breaks that rule. No sooner than you say "plants need sunlight" than someone will point out a couple rare species that don't.

That doesn't disprove the axiom.

This is the whole point that I've stated, restated, and you're still arguing about.

cloudflyer said:

This is a discusion form. Don't bothering arguing, because I wont listen is what you should have said. Roots growing out of the ground for mist is Aeroponics naturally occurring in nature. Otherwise by your definition, Both hydro and Aeroponics can never be considered organic either. Is that what your saying?

Click to expand...

No, I said exactly what I meant. There's no point in arguing that exceptions exist - I specifically said they do. You don't look smarter when you disagree with someone about something they aren't disagreeing with you over in the first place. Do hydroponics exist in nature? Yes. Does it happen frequently? Hell no.

And the least you could do is use good examples. "Roots growing out of the ground" is not a good example of hydroponics. How much soil is in a hydroponics system?

None. That's the point. It's soil-less.

By your definition every overzealous uneducated wanna-be gardener that sprays water in the backyard garden until the roots are exposed would be practicing hydroponics.

There's a simple test. If the plant is getting nutrients from dirt, it's not hydroponics.

cloudflyer said:

I forgot the humming birds. Hmm why would I mention that, what ever could it be...
Ahh thats right, it's the big picture. You had said that the quality and quanity would be diminished. Well where do humming birds get their food?
Thats right , flowers.

Click to expand...

Wow. I gotta hand it to you, this is some brilliant logic. It's not like there's are a few different species of hummingbird or anything, and that one of the key differences between the species is that their genotypes express in different average sizes.

So what you're saying is that the reason one guy's ball python is only 5 feet long and another guy's reticulated python is 20 feet long is because the second guy feeds his python better food, right? That a ball python will get to be the same size as a reticulated if it's fed the same?

cloudflyer said:

And where do you suppose those giant flowers get their food? Ohh yea, their roots are growing out of the ground to collect the mist from the waterfall.

Click to expand...

I just figured the giant flowers were giant because they... oh, I dunno... supposed to be? I mean we're talking about the only species of flower on the planet, right? We live on Daisyworld?

Some flowers are just bigger than others. I grow some marigolds. The neighbor grows giant sunflowers. His flowers are bigger than mine because they're genetically predestined to be.

Furthermore, certain species of plants routinely grow roots above ground regardless of the presence of a friendly mist. But since we're talking about the Cloudflyer Huge Flower (for which I'm not familiar with the Latin name) perhaps you could provide us with comparative size, vigor, and hummingbird nutritional value of the non-waterfall living members of the species.

Oh, and then demonstrate how we can know for sure every other Cloudflyer Hummingbird (again, let us know the Latin name for your species) is undersized simply because it lives in the wrong place.

cloudflyer said:

Obviously it is that much better because the roots are exposing themselves to light to get there.

Click to expand...

Or it's a rare species that doesn't have photophobic roots.

I mean it's not some freakish location that lacks a gravitational field, right? So we can safely assume that water, even in mist form, will obey the natural laws of physics and due to it's greater density than the surrounding air, eventually fall to the ground where it could just as easily be absorbed in the soil, right?

"The roots grow out of the ground, thus the mist must be more desirable than the sunlight is undesirable" is a hypothesis, not a fact. That's the same kind of logic that led to theories of spontaneous genesis like "untended piles of grain create mice". We didn't see the mice arrive at the pile of grain (because it was untended). We looked, saw no mice, stopped looking for awhile, checked again and saw mice.

Ergo, grain creates mice.

cloudflyer said:

Back to the point. YES hydroponic and Aeroponics are different indoors, but they are based on what we have seen in the real world. With rice the soil is for support, just like I use expanded clay for support, not as a medium.
Everything is not black or white, there is a grey area.

Click to expand...

So what's the difference between rice and wheat? Answer: rice likes wetter conditions.

Wheat doesn't have little roots growing through the soil gobbling up the nutrition with little teeth. It absorbs nutrients from water just like every other plant.

Plants (not counting carnivorous plants - OMG, another exception?) cannot absorb nutrients unless those nutrients are dissolved in water. The difference between soil growing and hydroponic growing is the source of the nutrients. If the nutrients come from soil, it's not hydroponics. If a plant has some roots in soil and some roots not in soil, how do you propose to prove that it gets more, less, or no nutrients from one of the two sources?


But ultimately it all comes back to the single, central point that I've now pointed out (futilely, it seems) several times.

The reason that it is pointless to argue that hydroponics does happen in nature is A: I never said that it absolutely never does, and B: proving an exception to a rule doesn't negate the rule.

If I say that when we see the moon we're seeing the reflection of light from the sun, this is true to such a degree that it's just stupid to say "well, except when it's actually blocking the light of the sun in an eclipse".

Especially if I've just said that there's no point it arguing with the statement by pointing out eclipses.


Let's take a quick look at my qualifying statement, shall we? I said, "there's hydroponic-like situations in very rare cases, but it almost always results in stunted growth".

Very rare. Almost always. Neither of these statements are indicative of absolutes. I'm very clearly stating (or at least I thought it was very clear) that certain examples do exist which contradict the larger truth I had just stated. I can say that nearly every toilet paper manufacturer contributes to deforestation, and then say that there's no point in arguing with me because the rare few that don't (by merit of using cotton or something else to make their product instead) are so few and far between as to be inconsequential to the greater truth.

Of course you're still free to argue with that. "Dude! Cottonelle doesn't contribute to deforestation!" you can say all indignant. To which I then reply, "Yes, I know, I said as much before. It just doesn't matter because their tiny little slice of the market is practically nothing compared to all the rest who use wood pulp."

But there's still no point in you making the argument that something I've said is possible is in fact possible. Especially when you're not even using good examples. Growing in soil just isn't hydroponics. I'm sorry, I don't make the definitions, that's just the way it is.

Dude seriously you have no life what so ever. How long did it take to write that? Were you sitting at your computer all pissed of typing away? Do people in your life say you argue to much? How many times did I say roots growing out of the ground to get to mist is AEROPONICS. And yes they are getting their food from the air not the ground. No special breed, all the plants are doing it in the area. The exact same plants are not doing it further away from the waterfall. The exact same humming birds that fly around the lanai back at the house, are not huge. It's because they are not near the waterfalls. Have you ever been to the waterfalls in Hawaii? How then are you such an expert?

Again, yes I agree, indoor growing hydro/aero is better than 90% of nature, but we learned what we know from nature. We will never be able to replicate the entire echo system that is nature. We pick and choose the variables that are practical and cost effective that provide the best results. That is it, But in no way will we ever comprehend the entire complexity of what mother nature is doing. And I never said growing is soil is hydroponics. I was probabaly growing advanced hydroponics before you knew that plants need water. I have a firm grasp of hydroponics. You have 38 posts and no gallery. I am curious to what makes you an expert?

thats some funny shit, lol

watered with Alaska Morbloom(0-10-10) left em in dark for 36 hrs, had all new budsites and they sexed real fast! Heres a pic of like 2 weeks into flowering.

I don't usually enjoy reading what appears to us outsiders as a heated discussion, but find it entertaining as well as similar to some legal case presented well from both the defense and the prosecution. When I hear the prosecutions case I usually think to myself "Yep...the son-of-a-bitch did it". Then the defense puts on their dog and pony show and I think to myself " Well......maybe he didn't after all".

All I know is that I grow Aeroponically and I haven't seen one of those huge hummingbirds or gigantic flowers recently. Hold it...it was just a joke! Actually, and technically speaking, I think I'm doing Hydro rather than Aero. By the way...that was NOT a solicitation to create my own topic for discussion. I read somewhere that the defining factor was the size of the droplets measured in microns. Most of us who use spray nozzles in our systems are spraying water droplets with mag drive pumps. Few of us use direct drive (which can achieve high head pressures) and true misting nozzles. Not that this has anything to do with your discussion.

Anyway.......You guys write well and are obviously two intelligent people. It is refreshing to read this post and consider both points of view.

New Papaya/Kush Journal with pics

gohydro said:

I don't usually enjoy reading what appears to us outsiders as a heated discussion, but find it entertaining as well as similar to some legal case presented well from both the defense and the prosecution. When I hear the prosecutions case I usually think to myself "Yep...the son-of-a-bitch did it". Then the defense puts on their dog and pony show and I think to myself " Well......maybe he didn't after all".

All I know is that I grow Aeroponically and I haven't seen one of those huge hummingbirds or gigantic flowers recently. Hold it...it was just a joke! Actually, and technically speaking, I think I'm doing Hydro rather than Aero. By the way...that was NOT a solicitation to create my own topic for discussion. I read somewhere that the defining factor was the size of the droplets measured in microns. Most of us who use spray nozzles in our systems are spraying water droplets with mag drive pumps. Few of us use direct drive (which can achieve high head pressures) and true misting nozzles. Not that this has anything to do with your discussion.

Anyway.......You guys write well and are obviously two intelligent people. It is refreshing to read this post and consider both points of view.

New Papaya/Kush Journal with pics

Click to expand...

Well said and you are right! In true Aeroponics, your water droplets should be .05 microns in size. In order to acieve this a pump like this should be used (unless you want to get a preasure tank) Ecoplus 250 Pump by Horizen Hydroponics
Sprinkler heads do offer higher performance than say flood and drain, but fall short of true aeroponics.

Ok, back to the topic at hand. While we're discussing the advantages, and/or disadvantages of 36 hrs of darkness I'd like to toss in one more variable. I do not have the luxury of a veg area, yet I want a harvest every month and a half. I go straight from my cloner to my 12/12 HPS area when my clones have rooted and are about 6-8" tall. Generally my clones are joining a group of ladies that have been flowering for about a month. My current plants are about 2' tall after 17 days of flower and appear to be at their maximum height. Some have suggested that 36hrs of darkness can reduce stretch by putting a halt to vegetative growth almost immediately. I'm not sure I want to limit the "stretch" and end up with a 12" tall plant since I'm not really trying to do a SOG. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Damn, I'd post pics but my camera battery is dead.