Jack Harer
Well-Known Member
Yep. I had a great yielding JHxIndica, and averaged about an Oz and a half or a bit more per plant dry. I'm just waiting for he chance to try that Iranian G13. that fucker looks like it would yield 3 per.
Grams per watt is a incomplete measure... I think....
- Thread starter Diabolus Sonata
- Start date
Diabolus Sonata
Member
Try dividing by a fucking million it makes no diff, it's still gonna be more grams in a year with lower flowering times. Im just saying when 2 separate growers both have 1 gram per watt it doesn't mean shit. I'm going to be more impressed by the guy with 19000 grams a year off 1 gram per watt vs 11000 grams a year at 1 gram per watt.
Jack Harer
Well-Known Member
Therein lies the rub. What if the guy who did 19000 had more plants than the guy who did 11000? There are many other factors involved than GPW. GPW is just a baseline to compare ability, not an absolute. A beginner may get 1/2 GPW, and a great grower may get 2 GPW.
Diabolus Sonata
Member
So what if he did. It's not grams per plant. I see it as a measure of efficiencies more than anything. You can cram 100 plants under a 1000 watt and get 100 grams or 2 huge mofos and have 100 grams still same gram per watt. (example only)
I just think we need a better standard or a clearer pic of grams per watt. The way I see it is:
You need total dry bud weight, watts and days flowered.
Days flowered divided by 365 = amount of harvest a year x grams per harvest divided by watts = grams per watt
I just think we need a better standard or a clearer pic of grams per watt. The way I see it is:
You need total dry bud weight, watts and days flowered.
Days flowered divided by 365 = amount of harvest a year x grams per harvest divided by watts = grams per watt
sso
Well-Known Member
are you guys commercial?
i just grow for myself and apart from being interested in gpw as a noobie, ive only once weighed my harvest and i didnt weigh all of it, just a few grams to see how much more i was smoking than when i wasnt growing.
i judge how im doing by how happy the plants were and the quality of the smoke. not the quantity (grow more than enough for me with the 600w and in my mind, thats all that counts)
oh not judging, just asking a question and making a comment how i do it.
i just grow for myself and apart from being interested in gpw as a noobie, ive only once weighed my harvest and i didnt weigh all of it, just a few grams to see how much more i was smoking than when i wasnt growing.
i judge how im doing by how happy the plants were and the quality of the smoke. not the quantity (grow more than enough for me with the 600w and in my mind, thats all that counts)
oh not judging, just asking a question and making a comment how i do it.
Jack Harer
Well-Known Member
I have fretted over a lot of shit in my growing education, and this never even came close to that list. Pointless discussion. I'm out.
Diabolus Sonata
Member
No, I'm a personal medical grower. I just see all these post about gram per watt and I think flower time is the missing factor. All numbers I used were just for example. And your "if there green and happy" translates into more bud and a higher gram per watt.
Diabolus Sonata
Member
Wow pointless, just trying to better define the standard that everyone seems so worked about... Grams per watt. If it scares you and gets your panties all bunched up just don't read it. But please keep useless negative comments to yourself. I know it's a new idea but damn...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Forgive me for horning in but I think you're overanalyzing it, Diabolus. It isn't a standard so much as a rule of thumb for high-efficiency HID growers. There's a correlation between wattage of lights and area devoted to plants. If you're doing gram per watt of lighting or better, you're definitely doing it right. If you're doing better than half a gram, you're still in the ballpark. Sure, it could turn into a competition ... grown men race riding mowers at actual track events after all.
I do see that a better measure of grow efficiency, if that is what you seek, is grams of cured bud per kWh consumed ... (net) for the lights, and (gross) for the entire grow's lights and accessories. The gross measure loses relevance imo because folks who need to actively heat or cool their grow ops will be at a disadvantage. That amounts to a climate penalty imo. cn
Diabolus Sonata
Member
Your formula is more exact but you use kwHour. Isnt that the power a 60 watt bulb uses in one hour or something, either way it's a measure of time or power used.
John: 1000 watts gets 1000 grams and does it in 55 days. a 1gr per watt ratio but.
365/55=6.6363 x 1000 grams = 6636 grams / 1000 watts = 6.63 grams per watt
Dick: 1000 watts gets 1000 grams and does it in 140 days. 1 gr per watt
365/140 = 2.6071 x 1000 grams = 2607 grams / 1000 watts = 2.60 grams per watt.
Both looked to have 1 to 1 watt to gram but frequency is the key. Its just a tool. If either grower betters their grow game the numbers will reflect it. Who really did better???
Fuck that, they are the same guy just testing sativa vs indica. It's a better measure. Not to mention it makes all the "I got so many grams per watt" threads even more useless then they already are.
It was just a thought I had today and wanted to share.
John: 1000 watts gets 1000 grams and does it in 55 days. a 1gr per watt ratio but.
365/55=6.6363 x 1000 grams = 6636 grams / 1000 watts = 6.63 grams per watt
Dick: 1000 watts gets 1000 grams and does it in 140 days. 1 gr per watt
365/140 = 2.6071 x 1000 grams = 2607 grams / 1000 watts = 2.60 grams per watt.
Both looked to have 1 to 1 watt to gram but frequency is the key. Its just a tool. If either grower betters their grow game the numbers will reflect it. Who really did better???
Fuck that, they are the same guy just testing sativa vs indica. It's a better measure. Not to mention it makes all the "I got so many grams per watt" threads even more useless then they already are.
It was just a thought I had today and wanted to share.
The guy growing the sativa obviously wins, though his g/w/d will be lower. Sativas rule
sso
Well-Known Member
i think what jack harer meant, was that this train of thought is pointless for him 
it would just be extra work for the small grower to weigh all the stuff (keeping a scale around to boot
)
and pretty pointless, i got enough smoke and its all going up in smoke anyway
i dont really see a point to this other than for the commercial grower or maybe large scale grower (where difference between runs might be more than a few grams) (for myself, i just weigh it by eyes, close enough (usually was right on the spot, back in the day)
though i gotta say, i havent really thought about weight of my buds in years. (not awfully many lol, only been growing 5, but still years (at least 2 lol)
it would just be extra work for the small grower to weigh all the stuff (keeping a scale around to boot
)and pretty pointless, i got enough smoke and its all going up in smoke anyway
i dont really see a point to this other than for the commercial grower or maybe large scale grower (where difference between runs might be more than a few grams) (for myself, i just weigh it by eyes, close enough (usually was right on the spot, back in the day
) though i gotta say, i havent really thought about weight of my buds in years. (not awfully many lol, only been growing 5, but still years (at least 2 lol)
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Grams per watt is just a quick and dirty first measure of efficiency. Its OK for those interested in improving their efficiency to get some rough sense of where they are, and where they "could" be, but not much more. Its really NOT all that useful in comparing one grow operation to another, especially if different strains are being grown.
As mentioned, the best (and in fact ONLY) true measure of production efficiency is going to be net yield/total energy consumed during the grow.
So that could be expressed as grams/kilowatt hour, or some similar measurement. (For example, grams/100kwh, won't need so many decimal places and is probably a better way to express this).
Total energy consumed, of course, should include not only lighting energy costs, but also all energy used for light movers, fans, cooling, hydroponic pumps, timers, and anything else grow-related that uses electricity. That's the only way you're going to get a true efficiency measure. So its total yield of dried trimmed bud in g/ total kwh for the grow on the actual energy meter.
Note that many bulbs do NOT use in reality the same wattage that they are nominally rated for. Some use more. . .some use less. Plus, on top of that, ballasts use their own energy, and this is often not included in the calculation, though it needs to be.
Yes, this will put people whose grows require lots of heat control at a "disadvantage", but so what? Its not a competition! If it were, then everyone would be growing the maximum yielding strains (only), and doing their grows indoors under remote arctic conditions requiring no electrically generated cooling, and no odor control.
The fact is, all else being equal, if you need to cool your grow significantly, then your grow will be somewhat less efficient overall. Again, so what? That's nothing to be ashamed of.
For many growers, efficiency is really only a minor consideration, if one at all. Giving up quite a bit of theoretical grow efficiency may make perfect sense for low cost, ease, and simplicity of grow. As mentioned, some strains just don't lend themselves to high efficiency. . .that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile to grow, and in fact, the opposite may be true. For some growers, absolute yield may be far more important than efficiency. . .for example, it well may be worth it to use 50% more energy just to grow 25% more weed from a particular fixed site.
As mentioned, the best (and in fact ONLY) true measure of production efficiency is going to be net yield/total energy consumed during the grow.
So that could be expressed as grams/kilowatt hour, or some similar measurement. (For example, grams/100kwh, won't need so many decimal places and is probably a better way to express this).
Total energy consumed, of course, should include not only lighting energy costs, but also all energy used for light movers, fans, cooling, hydroponic pumps, timers, and anything else grow-related that uses electricity. That's the only way you're going to get a true efficiency measure. So its total yield of dried trimmed bud in g/ total kwh for the grow on the actual energy meter.
Note that many bulbs do NOT use in reality the same wattage that they are nominally rated for. Some use more. . .some use less. Plus, on top of that, ballasts use their own energy, and this is often not included in the calculation, though it needs to be.
Yes, this will put people whose grows require lots of heat control at a "disadvantage", but so what? Its not a competition! If it were, then everyone would be growing the maximum yielding strains (only), and doing their grows indoors under remote arctic conditions requiring no electrically generated cooling, and no odor control.
The fact is, all else being equal, if you need to cool your grow significantly, then your grow will be somewhat less efficient overall. Again, so what? That's nothing to be ashamed of.
For many growers, efficiency is really only a minor consideration, if one at all. Giving up quite a bit of theoretical grow efficiency may make perfect sense for low cost, ease, and simplicity of grow. As mentioned, some strains just don't lend themselves to high efficiency. . .that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile to grow, and in fact, the opposite may be true. For some growers, absolute yield may be far more important than efficiency. . .for example, it well may be worth it to use 50% more energy just to grow 25% more weed from a particular fixed site.