Full spectrum lights UNDERNEATH the canopy increases dry bud mass by 24.5% what are you using?

lusidghost

lusidghost

Well-Known Member
Billy the Mountain said:
A lighting company had someone at a University add their light to an existing light and compare results, an apple vs. orange comparison. That "paper" was not published by a University or academic journal but rather a lighting company.
Click to expand...
That's fair. I just pointed out that the introduction sighted that specific accredited university. The article was originally published by: American Society for Horticultural Science. I'm not sure if that's a light company. I didn't go to college, so I'm not great at researching research.

HortScience: a publication of the American Society for...

HortScience: a publication of the American Society for Horticultural Science | Citations: 6,976 | Published seven issues per year (February, April, June, July, August, October, December) and includes the Annual Conference Program and Abstract issue. HortScience publishes horticultural...
www.researchgate.net www.researchgate.net
 
Billy the Mountain

Billy the Mountain

Well-Known Member
Paindevice said:
So now it's a thesis that was presented to a University and yet its still BS because its not on the cover of High Times... okay... There are tons of "light recipe" academic papers out there being discussed World wide right now... You're just set in your ways and don't apparently like new data and experiments.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention High Times you moron. 500 vs. 595 umols is not a valid comparison, you can't comprehend that? I suggest you read some of Dr. Bruce Bugbee's work; he actually publishes his results in peer-reviewed academic journals.
 
Lordhooha

Lordhooha

Well-Known Member
Paindevice said:
So now it's a thesis that was presented to a University and yet its still BS because its not on the cover of High Times... okay... There are tons of "light recipe" academic papers out there being discussed World wide right now... You're just set in your ways and don't apparently like new data and experiments.
Click to expand...
What you linked isn’t a university study man. It’s simply a lighting company extrapolating data from a study done by a university. They had no stock in the study the school did. They simply made it sound like they were so idiots like yourself but into a false narrative and feel like they did something special so you buy their lights. also they based this information from the actual study from the university on something as basic as lettuce which has low photon needs compared to a tomato, cannabis or any other fruiting/flowering plant. So they are simply goat roping you into a deceptive advertisement.
 
P

Paindevice

Active Member
Lordhooha said:
What you linked isn’t a university study man. It’s simply a lighting company extrapolating data from a study done by a university. They had no stock in the study the school did. They simply made it sound like they were so idiots like yourself but into a false narrative and feel like they did something special so you buy their lights. also they based this information from the actual study from the university on something as basic as lettuce which has low photon needs compared to a tomato, cannabis or any other fruiting/flowering plant. So they are simply goat roping you into a deceptive advertisement.
Click to expand...
How about this scientific peer reviewed article? Good enough? Or still no? There are COUNTLESS new studies out showing under canopy light colors with increased growth.. How everyone here is so against even talking about this new science is mind boggling.. To just shun something so logical & obvious and to dismiss it entirely makes no sense to me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5145862/
 
Wastei

Wastei

Well-Known Member
Paindevice said:
How about this scientific peer reviewed article? Good enough? Or still no? There are COUNTLESS new studies out showing under canopy light colors with increased growth.. How everyone here is so against even talking about this new science is mind boggling.. To just shun something so logical & obvious and to dismiss it entirely makes no sense to me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5145862/
Click to expand...
I guess you've been looking through the vertical grow forum section? There's nothing new under the sun.
 
Lordhooha

Lordhooha

Well-Known Member
Paindevice said:
How about this scientific peer reviewed article? Good enough? Or still no? There are COUNTLESS new studies out showing under canopy light colors with increased growth.. How everyone here is so against even talking about this new science is mind boggling.. To just shun something so logical & obvious and to dismiss it entirely makes no sense to me.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5145862/
Click to expand...
Did I say I was against new science or new tech no. I said the lighting company pulled some bullshit together based on a low photon absorbing plant and didnt even use proper control groups to prove the point of the original study. Instead they’re just advertising for their light. Now the new arrivals you posted though is from 2016 isn’t that bad at all though slightly dated. However they don’t get into photon saturation point but it does indicate that full spectrum leds, granted with good diodes do the best in a growing environment. Meaning get yourself a good light well built and enough wattage a sqft and you’ll be golden.
 
P

Paindevice

Active Member
Lordhooha said:
Did I say I was against new science or new tech no. I said the lighting company pulled some bullshit together based on a low photon absorbing plant and didnt even use proper control groups to prove the point of the original study. Instead they’re just advertising for their light. Now the new arrivals you posted though is from 2016 isn’t that bad at all though slightly dated. However they don’t get into photon saturation point but it does indicate that full spectrum leds, granted with good diodes do the best in a growing environment. Meaning get yourself a good light well built and enough wattage a sqft and you’ll be golden.
Click to expand...
I did not mean you... I meant that towards Billy the Mountain.. I respect both of you and am sorry for me posting that idiotic light company article to begin with when I should've posted the peer reviewed one that I just did. I'm sorry.. to both of you.
 
Porky1982

Porky1982

Well-Known Member
Paindevice said:
I did not mean you... I meant that towards Billy the Mountain.. I respect both of you and am sorry for me posting that idiotic light company article to begin with when I should've posted the peer reviewed one that I just did. I'm sorry.. to both of you.
Click to expand...
So you can't tell the difference between an advertisement and a study by the looks of things!!
 
70's natureboy

70's natureboy

Well-Known Member
It sounds like common sense to me. If it's a little shady under the canopy and you light it up down there then good things should happen. I was experimenting with it last year and I was actually going to start a thread about it. I did happen to get an above average crop with my bottom lighting but I wouldn't think 20%. Actually the more I think about it, it may have been roughly 20% better. I used some cool 4 ft led bar lights that daisychain together and layed them facing up on top of my DWC totes. It looked impressive as hell.
 
the native

the native

Well-Known Member
Its sounds like common sense to me also. In some orchids I've been to, I've seen crop growers use reflective white plastic sheeting laid out on the ground, down each row(if you look how kiwifruit is grown you will see what I mean), I'm thinking there trying to reflect light that gets through the canopy back up to the undersides. I guess it couldn't hurt to give it a try
 
GoatSoup

GoatSoup

Well-Known Member
Iwas looking at those strip light arrays on Amazon and One said "80 Watts", but the wall wart was only rated for 30 watts. Still photons are photons. Another 100 Leds couldn't hurt.

If it didn't work you could make a cool seedling/Germination light with some Coroplast and glue.
 
P

Paindevice

Active Member
70's natureboy said:
It sounds like common sense to me. If it's a little shady under the canopy and you light it up down there then good things should happen. I was experimenting with it last year and I was actually going to start a thread about it. I did happen to get an above average crop with my bottom lighting but I wouldn't think 20%. Actually the more I think about it, it may have been roughly 20% better. I used some cool 4 ft led bar lights that daisychain together and layed them facing up on top of my DWC totes. It looked impressive as hell.
Click to expand...
What color? 4k? 5k? 6500K? thanks..
 
P

Paindevice

Active Member
Porky1982 said:
So you can't tell the difference between an advertisement and a study by the looks of things!!
Click to expand...
I didn't think I'd be attacked by something so trivial just because my original link was from a lighting company (with .gov University citations) when there are TONS of .gov scientific studies about it everywhere from both under canopy supplemental lighting studies increasing yields out of Amsterdam to blue and red light stomatal control from under canopy studies from the early 80s. My God it's like you post around here that the sun rises in the morning and goes down at night and its - "THAT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT AND NOT TRUE you fucking idiot!!!!!!!! That's not the way the sun works!!!!" Whatever....
 
Last edited:
Zephyrs

Zephyrs

Well-Known Member
The Actual Sunshine has never shined upwards from the ground. Only from above. Millions of years worth of plants growth, will tell you the same thing. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it with a hair brained idea. :blsmoke:
 
P

Paindevice

Active Member
Zephyrs said:
The Actual Sunshine has never shined upwards from the ground. Only from above. Millions of years worth of plants growth, will tell you the same thing. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it with a hair brained idea. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
So.... all the Universities studying this under canopy lighting phenomenon and showing growth improvement are just wrong in their empirical data? So fuck .gov University empirical data? Okay got it. That makes about as much sense as you can't possibly get stronger by using steroids, humans can only get stronger by the way we've naturally done so for the last 5 million years; all steroid based body builder mass increase is a lie, steroids don't make humans bigger and stronger.
 
Last edited:
Zephyrs

Zephyrs

Well-Known Member
Paindevice said:
So.... all the Universities studying this and showing growth improvement are just wrong in their empirical data? So fuck University empirical data? Okay got it. That makes about as much sense as you can't possibly get stronger by using steroids, humans can only get stronger by the way we've naturally done so for the last 5 million years; all steroid based body builder mass increase is a lie, steroids don't make humans bigger and stronger.
Click to expand...
Hay bud, if you wanna pump a whole shitload of Completely Unnatural shit at your plants like FSL underneath the canopy and PGR's then go right ahead on it.. Then show us with Honesty, your Anecdotal Proof.
 
P

Paindevice

Active Member
Zephyrs said:
Hay bud, if you wanna pump a whole shitload of Completely Unnatural shit at your plants like FSL underneath the canopy and PGR's then go right ahead on it.. Then show us with Honesty, your Anecdotal Proof.
Click to expand...
Dude, you've got to be kidding... The under canopy red and blue light University stomata control studies go back to 1982... Here is peer reviewed empirical photosynthesis light under canopy data from just 4 years ago... > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5145862/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top