Is less light better?

RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
No two gardens are alike regarding logistics and genes. Most posts here (and elsewhere) deal with theory. You need to find out what works best for you, which means pairing the number, size, and phenotype of your plants with THEIR LIGHT REQUIREMENTS. Does that make sense?

I cram my plants into my garden, use moveable highly reflective side panels, and efficient small horizontal hoods and get heavy yields while retaining most of my fan leaves. Your mileage will vary just by changing to a parabolic hood versus me using a small horizontal. You're trying to make this all black/white....can't be done as growing is dynamic and ever changing.

Gardening is all about tweeks, caveats, and gray areas.

UB
Click to expand...
I think the physics will be roughly the same for growing plants of the same basic morphology. The major question is whether or not we see diminishing returns when we go from the lower end of the required light scale to the higher end. I'm sure it is possible to collect data and plot a graph that will hold pretty much universally.

I also suspect that plants should touch each other but not shade each other for maximum yield.

It would be interesting to collect some data and plot a graph. I'm sure there is a peak point - I'm just not sure where it is. My gut tells me that one should utilize the maximum area a light is rated for as opposed to the minimum.
 
sunahura

sunahura

Active Member
When growing in soil, people tend to think , more plants more results, but really if you took one plant and gave it a 30 - 40 gallon bucket and 1000 watts HID, the plant would grow outrages, and need more light and give u big time yield, 1 pound at least. With hydro even more. So more light less plants, and yield goes up, trust me, I've made all the stupid mistakes a grower can make and this is the truth from my experience.
 
darkdestruction420

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
sunahura said:
When growing in soil, people tend to think , more plants more results, but really if you took one plant and gave it a 30 - 40 gallon bucket and 1000 watts HID, the plant would grow outrages, and need more light and give u big time yield, 1 pound at least. With hydro even more. So more light less plants, and yield goes up, trust me, I've made all the stupid mistakes a grower can make and this is the truth from my experience.
Click to expand...
you can have 2-3 smaller harvests w/perpetual done by the time your big plant is finished , so while yes it may increase yeild per crop in the long run you will be most likely to get more bud from more smaller harvests.
 
M

miteubhi?

Active Member
darkdestruction420 said:
you can have 2-3 smaller harvests w/perpetual done by the time your big plant is finished , so while yes it may increase yeild per crop in the long run you will be most likely to get more bud from more smaller harvests.
Click to expand...

I think that UB hit the nail on the head when he mentioned "your situation". We all try different techniques that do or don't work for us. Be scientific and use your results to your advantage.
 
georgi345

georgi345

Active Member
RickWhite said:
It would be interesting to collect some data and plot a graph. I'm sure there is a peak point - I'm just not sure where it is. My gut tells me that one should utilize the maximum area a light is rated for as opposed to the minimum.
Click to expand...
go for it! i'm sure it will make for interesting reading. an experiment along those lines then would probably then run something like growing clones from the same mother in isolated and identical conditions (medium, nutes, feed/watering sched, light sched, temp, humidity, etc) with one box receiving 2500 lumens, another 5000, and why not then (while we're at it) do a 7500 and a 10000 [all of course with the same type of light, something like multiples of the same bulb type]... all receive the same veg/flwr time and are harvested simultaneously at the pheno's nominal window. what are the yield proportions? i'm guessing that it's gonna be a straight linear (though not necessarily a doubling) and not a falling-off slope...

in the meantime, i think uncle ben has got it spot-on with "growing is dynamic". as you doubtless know, biological systems are more than slightly complex with a significantly wide range of variables, so while "the physics will be roughly the same for growing plants of the same basic morphology" (as we generally assume the laws of physics to be true everywhere in the cosmos, even in one's particular garden), to the way in which your original question was framed ("is 5,000 that much better than 2,500?") the answer "it depends" is appropriate, given that light is, obviously, not the only variable in the equation. taken as an isolated variable though (as suggested above), then i'd contend you'd find a not insignificant increase with 5000 over 2500 lumens/square foot.

you seem to be interested in SOG ("a good perpetual SOG with short bushy plants is the most effective way to grow"), so are you trying to ascertain here what the optimal number of plants are that you can effectively grow in your particular SOG setup? what kind of beans ya' got? what are you growing in? what kind of lighting do you have available? what are you using for nutes?

cheers
-g
:weed:
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
georgi345 said:
go for it! i'm sure it will make for interesting reading. an experiment along those lines then would probably then run something like growing clones from the same mother in isolated and identical conditions (medium, nutes, feed/watering sched, light sched, temp, humidity, etc) with one box receiving 2500 lumens, another 5000, and why not then (while we're at it) do a 7500 and a 10000 [all of course with the same type of light, something like multiples of the same bulb type]... all receive the same veg/flwr time and are harvested simultaneously at the pheno's nominal window. what are the yield proportions? i'm guessing that it's gonna be a straight linear (though not necessarily a doubling) and not a falling-off slope...

in the meantime, i think uncle ben has got it spot-on with "growing is dynamic". as you doubtless know, biological systems are more than slightly complex with a significantly wide range of variables, so while "the physics will be roughly the same for growing plants of the same basic morphology" (as we generally assume the laws of physics to be true everywhere in the cosmos, even in one's particular garden), to the way in which your original question was framed ("is 5,000 that much better than 2,500?") the answer "it depends" is appropriate, given that light is, obviously, not the only variable in the equation. taken as an isolated variable though (as suggested above), then i'd contend you'd find a not insignificant increase with 5000 over 2500 lumens/square foot.

you seem to be interested in SOG ("a good perpetual SOG with short bushy plants is the most effective way to grow"), so are you trying to ascertain here what the optimal number of plants are that you can effectively grow in your particular SOG setup? what kind of beans ya' got? what are you growing in? what kind of lighting do you have available? what are you using for nutes?

cheers
-g
:weed:
Click to expand...
Right. I'm looking for the perfect size plant and the optimum balance of illumination vs growing area.

My gut, my experience and my knowledge of biology tells me that one should illuminate as much area as possible without dipping below 2,500 lumens/sq foot, growing plants as short as possible and allowing them to crowd only as much as can be done without shading any growth.

My reasoning is that most biological mechanisms like photosynthesis need energy input of a certain level but then returns sharply diminish as more energy is put in. It's like protein metabolism. The body needs a given amount and after that it's just wasted. A person will not, contrary to what many strength trainers believe, use all the protein you can eat in a linear manner.

The part about the shading should be obvious although I'm sure emotions often overcome reason.

As far as the experiment, I don't think I'm going to do all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top