LED vs H.I.D

lol i thought this debate was settled at least 5 years ago.
Well sort of. People generally agree that you can grow well with leds which was a miracle some years ago.
Nowadays people dont argue which is best anymore but argue how to define best.
I use 2 of them, with a 1000w HID, for each 4 x 4 area, at 24 inches, and slowly build up the duration to 4 hours per day, but also still watch at the reaction the plants have to it. I also use often use a Blue Heavy Hortilux Blue or similar type of bulb for flowering, with a 6000k-6500k spectrum. Which the Halides, also release 280nm of light. All the way to 2400nm+. I use the Solacure, to intensify the lowest spectrum. I also find it useful with 1000w HPS-Hortilux to enhance the lowest spectrum.
Also at 280nm, it has been shown that it will reduce/eliminate powdery mildew. 280nm, is the line of UVB/UVC.
Thats a setup that makes a lot of sense. Equal height lighting.
We grow with leds pushed down fairly low towards the cannopy. Open space with amp limitations: any light on walls instead of cannopy is a loss. So single ledstars (or 4ups) is what works best for us; to be able to get the right spectrum mix and spread out evenly. Using uv led strips at the cost they ask for these would be very prohibitive. I get the feeling that its that car / fighter plane business model - the real money is in spare parts/maintenance. Led grow lights have become ridiculously cheap i dont knwo where they make their money on them any more.
 
Some strains, that didnt evolve around high UVA/B waves, may not benefit much from UVA/B supplementation, is what I understand. It is strain dependent.
Also it isnt really about increasing the NUMBER of Trichomes, it is about CHANGING THE CHEMICAL PROFILE.

It is also totally incorrect to state Infrared past 780nm has no benefit.

THIS IS NOT TRUE, as studies have been slim, to none, but, there is evidence that nm beyond 800nm, are beneficial.

One of the reasons nm beyond 800nm hasnt been studied, is for one, because the equipment, is limited to about 800nm, and beyond that, the equipment is not up to the task.


I'm well aware of the Emerson effect like up to a 750nm, stretch that maybe to 800nm.

But can you provide any sources for where they suggest over 800nm might be usefull?
Aside from certain shade responses from red to far-red ratios,
and the fact that rest of it just goes to heat.
Which of course could help if temps weren't optimal before.

  • Johnson et al. (1995): Proposed the existence of an undiscovered photopigment absorbing beyond 800 nm based on morphological changes observed in oat seedlings under NIR light.
  • Subsequent Research: Confirmed photosynthetic activity up to 780 nm and identified specialized organisms utilizing far-red light, but no evidence has been found for a photopigment in higher plants that absorbs beyond 800 nm.
 
The article ays the equipment, is not accurate enough to test above 800nm, but says, not enough study has been done to determine effects above that range.
The effects and potential economic benefits of near-infrared radiation – optical radiation with wavelengths longer than 800 nm – have yet to be explored.
Look at any textbook on botany and you will find this maxim: plants respond to optical radiation in the spectral range of 280 nm to 800 nm.The question is, how was this spectral range (sometimes referred to as Photobiologically Active Radiation, or PBAR) determined?

The Effect of Near-Infrared Radiation on Plants

The Effect of Near-Infrared Radiation on Plants​

Ian Ashdown, Senior Scientist | SunTracker Technologies

05/25/22, 05:34 AM | Indoor & Vertical Farming | LED

This question addresses issues beyond mere academic curiosity. Recent studies, both in the laboratory and in the field, have shown that ultraviolet-C radiation – optical radiation with wavelengths shorter than 280 nm – offers significant economic benefits for horticultural applications. The effects and potential economic benefits of near-infrared radiation – optical radiation with wavelengths longer than 800 nm – have yet to be explored.




Far-red and the Phytochromes​

To understand why 800 nm was chosen, we first need to look at the phytochromes, a class of photoreceptors that control numerous functions in higher plants, including seed germination, shade avoidance, photomorphogenesis, stem elongation, branching, circadian rhythms, root growth, and flowering times (e.g., Smith 2000 and Wang et al. 2015).

A phytochrome molecule has two isoforms, or states. Its ground state, designated Pr, preferentially absorbs red light with a peak spectral absorptance at approximately 660 nm. Upon absorbing a red photon, the molecule undergoes a conformational change to become the Pfr isoform. Left in the dark, this isoform will eventually revert to the Pr ground state. However, the molecule will also revert to the ground state if it absorbs a far-red photon with a peak spectral absorptance at approximately 725 nm.

The Pfr isoform regulates physiological changes in plants, and so it represents the biologically active form of phytochrome. It is, in other words, a biological switch. The relative concentration of Pr to Pfr will depend on the ratio of red to far-red light (expressed as R:FR) incident upon the plant leaves, and the plant will respond accordingly (although often in a species-specific manner).



FIG. 2 – Phytochrome spectral absorptances (from Sager et al. 1988).



The role of red and far-red light (which is nowadays defined by ASABE 2017 as the spectral region of 700 nm to 800 nm) was discovered by Borthwick et al. (1952). They determined that red light in the region of 525 nm to 700 nm promoted the germination of lettuce seeds (Lactuca sativa L.) with a peak spectral response at 660 nm, while far-red light in the region of 700 nm to 820 nm inhibited germination, with a peak spectral response of roughly 720 nm.

The spectral absorptances of Pr and Pfr were measured in vitro by Butler et al. (1964), Gardner and Graceffo (1982), and Sager et al. (1988), with moderately similar results. Today, the high-resolution (2 nm) dataset of Sager et al. is most commonly referenced.

Of note however is the spectral limit for these datasets: 800 nm. Visible light spectroradiometers typically have a spectral range of 350 nm to 800 nm. Wider spectral ranges are possible, but at the cost of reduced spectral resolution. Thus, while near-infrared spectroradiometers are available, they typically have spectral ranges on the order of 650 nm to 1100 nm. The decision therefore to define 800 nm as the limit of PBAR may have been dependent in part on the limitations of laboratory equipment.

Jury is still out, because almost no studies have been done.

My argument is?? The SUN has these light waves, and the plants evolved under these conditions, and anything less than the widest spectrum possible, is not a good example of a light used for growing plants. Sure, they work, but, are not optimal, and come nowhere near the spectrum of the sun.


 
This here post is one of those that i love that somebody had the idea to do:
Since were getting into spectrum i think its a good thing to check out.


Spectrometer placed under 1, 2 and then 3 leaves in order to determine what light was absorbed by the leaves.

If anyone got access to a spectrometer with good range it would be a very cool idea to repeat it but using sunlight as a light source, could be a very good place to start investigating this. Or why not adding a few IR diodes to one side of a plant?

There is a tendency for people getting stuck in looking at research papers and arguing things backwards and forwards; when we are perfectly able to generate data ourselves if we put a little effort and funds towards it. Its very nice to grow some good buds, but growing knowledge and understanding is much much greater. :)
 
Jury is still out, because almost no studies have been done.

My argument is?? The SUN has these light waves, and the plants evolved under these conditions, and anything less than the widest spectrum possible, is not a good example of a light used for growing plants. Sure, they work, but, are not optimal, and come nowhere near the spectrum of the sun.

When researchers explicitly control for temperature (e.g., matching leaf or canopy temperatures between treatments), the beneficial effects of 800+ nm light tend to disappear or greatly diminish. That’s strong evidence that any apparent benefits were likely thermal rather than photobiological.


Some studies that have done this:
  • Zhen & Bugbee (2020): Focused more on 700–750nm, but they point out that benefits from >750nm taper off rapidly, and >800nm effects are negligible if you eliminate temperature influence.
  • Lanoue et al. (2019, 2020): Tested high-intensity near-IR and found some elongation and stomatal responses, but also noted that most effects were linked to heat rather than photoreceptor activation.

I guess my argument is that there hasn't been any evidence that they would be usefull.
So especially when talking about grow lights, I'd say definatly not worth the electricity or the equipment.

I guess sun is valid control, though different places have different output, especially if talking about UV.
So when talking about optimal for plant growth, we ought to have better controlled setups.
But there is very little to none that suggests +800nm would be usefull, especially considering the efficiency of it.

If the questions is more about "chemical profile", as in more about terpenes,
then there is alot more buttons to push from imitating certain insects or providing UV at levels and wavelength that
is optimal for the specific plant, unlike what the sun provides, which is one size better fit all.
 
In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth's surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm). At the top of the atmosphere, sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (UV), with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically damaging short-wave ultraviolet
 
Sad that we are still entertaining threads with led vs hid..
It has been proven that led can produce more gpw than hid.
Why people are still trying to push hid anywhere outside of a greenhouse sized grow or other large scale thing is mind boggling. The benefits of led even have large scale growers making the switch.. Plants dont care about the artificial light source, and love the lack of issues associated with being outdoors
 
Plants dont care about the artificial light source
I agree with everything else you said except for this statement. If you’ve grown bud long enough and under enough different light sources, you would know that is a false statement. Hell everybody knows that’s a false statement. Studies show differences between plants grown under different light sources. Which light source will yield more? Yup, debate settled. But which light source provides the truest expression the genetics have to offer? Because it sure isn’t that LED spectrum recipe that literally everybody is using.

The debate shouldn’t be about one light source vs the other, or even about which spectrum is better. The debate should be about which nanometers of light trigger the plant to express itself as fully as possible and why?
Which nanometers? All of them? In what ratios?
What light harvesting pigments within the plant are we aiming to stimulate? And again in what ratios?
These are unanswered questions, that nobody has a definitive answer to. Which is why people keep pounding their chest saying one light source is better than the rest. The spectrums produced by CMH and Hortilux BLUE bulbs were and are superior to any commercial LED on the market. But, almost any commercial LED can out yield either of those bulbs and yield a better gm/W metric.
So which light source is better? One may yield more, one may have higher finished quality. Does the plant care what light source is used? Of course not. Does the plant care about the spectrum and intensity that IT uses to grow. Absolutely 100%.
The goal should be to elicit to truest fullest expression from the plant while maintaining good to high yields, and make this electrically efficient.
The question we should be asking is how we go about doing that? As previous studies and countless people’s anecdotal experiences, a broader more balanced spectrum can cause the plant to synthesize cannabinoids and terpenes not found in plants grown under a more narrow spectrum.

Answering the question as to why that is, is what will help leap frog us into the next generation of grow lighting and cannabis chemical synthesis science. Right now any new developments or breakthroughs seem stale and stagnant, even at the university level.
 
I agree with everything else you said except for this statement. If you’ve grown bud long enough and under enough different light sources, you would know that is a false statement. Hell everybody knows that’s a false statement. Studies show differences between plants grown under different light sources. Which light source will yield more? Yup, debate settled. But which light source provides the truest expression the genetics have to offer? Because it sure isn’t that LED spectrum recipe that literally everybody is using.

The debate shouldn’t be about one light source vs the other, or even about which spectrum is better. The debate should be about which nanometers of light trigger the plant to express itself as fully as possible and why?
Which nanometers? All of them? In what ratios?
What light harvesting pigments within the plant are we aiming to stimulate? And again in what ratios?
These are unanswered questions, that nobody has a definitive answer to. Which is why people keep pounding their chest saying one light source is better than the rest. The spectrums produced by CMH and Hortilux BLUE bulbs were and are superior to any commercial LED on the market. But, almost any commercial LED can out yield either of those bulbs and yield a better gm/W metric.
So which light source is better? One may yield more, one may have higher finished quality. Does the plant care what light source is used? Of course not. Does the plant care about the spectrum and intensity that IT uses to grow. Absolutely 100%.
The goal should be to elicit to truest fullest expression from the plant while maintaining good to high yields, and make this electrically efficient.
The question we should be asking is how we go about doing that? As previous studies and countless people’s anecdotal experiences, a broader more balanced spectrum can cause the plant to synthesize cannabinoids and terpenes not found in plants grown under a more narrow spectrum.

Answering the question as to why that is, is what will help leap frog us into the next generation of grow lighting and cannabis chemical synthesis science. Right now any new developments or breakthroughs seem stale and stagnant, even at the university level.
It goes even deeper than chemical composition. The eye opener for me was the difference in flower structure from the same genetic grown under different light sources.
Years ago I was testing a few things and it blew my mind how much more bag appeal HPS flower had over Hortilux Blue. Ya, the mh was frostier but the chunkiness of the hps flower is the characteristic that your bag had better have here in cali.
In the led world the standard SF / MARS excessive blue peak (higher than red) seems to be the wrong approach other than for efficiency dick swinging on paper.
For me personally, I look for an led that has a Red peak a bit higher than blue even if I'm using it for leafy greens. :peace:
 
It goes even deeper than chemical composition. The eye opener for me was the difference in flower structure from the same genetic grown under different light sources.
Years ago I was testing a few things and it blew my mind how much more bag appeal HPS flower had over Hortilux Blue. Ya, the mh was frostier but the chunkiness of the hps flower is the characteristic that your bag had better have here in cali.
In the led world the standard SF / MARS excessive blue peak (higher than red) seems to be the wrong approach other than for efficiency dick swinging on paper.
For me personally, I look for a led that has a Red peak a bit higher than blue even if I'm using it for leafy greens. :peace:
I agree with you completely. I don’t remember if it was a Bugbee study or where, I’d have to find it again, but the study basically concluded that a larger fraction of red in the spectrum composition can trigger more inflorescence (bud) growth. Like two plants that had the same end dry weight, but the higher fraction red light grown plant had a higher bud to leaf/stem ratio, than plants grown under a larger fraction of green blue light.

One thing to consider on the flip side of the coin, is that more flower growth without increasing trichome size or count, is in tiny way watering down the concentration of each bud. Probably to a negligible degree, but I could see certain stains be affected differently than others. That’s why I still feel there is a sort of balance between red to blue ratios of light spectrum, but I agree in being red weighted for overall plant growth. I feel it’s the spectrum on both ends that could be expanded/balanced to get us closer to what these plants can do outside. :joint:
 
I agree with you completely. I don’t remember if it was a Bugbee study or where, I’d have to find it again, but the study basically concluded that a larger fraction of red in the spectrum composition can trigger more inflorescence (bud) growth. Like two plants that had the same end dry weight, but the higher fraction red light grown plant had a higher bud to leaf/stem ratio, than plants grown under a larger fraction of green blue light.
The attached paper might be the one you're referring to.

One thing to consider on the flip side of the coin, is that more flower growth without increasing trichome size or count, is in tiny way watering down the concentration of each bud. Probably to a negligible degree, but I could see certain stains be affected differently than others. That’s why I still feel there is a sort of balance between red to blue ratios of light spectrum, but I agree in being red weighted for overall plant growth. I feel it’s the spectrum on both ends that could be expanded/balanced to get us closer to what these plants can do outside. :joint:
"yield dilution" - the Frontiers paper discusses provides some insight into this and cites a few other sources that have looked into it, ref. "Increasing Light Intensity Enhances Inflorescence Quality"
 

Attachments

Last edited:
The attached paper might be the one you're referring to.


"yield dilution" - the Frontiers paper discusses this and cites a few other sources that have looked into it, ref. "Increasing Light Intensity Enhances Inflorescence Quality"
That is the exact paper I was referring to, thank you for pulling it up!

One of the things I take issue from their concluding remarks is this following statement.

“ Increasing LI also increased harvest index and the size and density of the apical inflorescence; both markers for increasing quality. However, there were no and minor LI treatment effects on potency of cannabinoids and terpenes, respectively. This means that growers may be able to vastly increase yields by increasing LI but maintain a relatively consistent secondary metabolite profile in their marketable products.” (LI = light intensity)

Yet, this was their spectrum for the study…

IMG_2270.jpeg

To make that concluding remark while using that methodology is bullshit. Like we’ve talked about, different spectrums synthesize different cannabinoids and terpenes, and even this study showed that terpenes increased with increasing light intensity, even with their garbage blurple spectrum.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills because I’ve been saying the same GD thing for 8 years now, that a broader, more sunlike spectrum will produce “better” weed (I know some people hate that descriptor), but now some studies are also coming to those same conclusions which in my mind should be extremely intuitive.

But when a scientifically published study says some shit, everybody is like “whelp, I guess that settles the science there” . That’s why light manufactures use more or less the same spectrum recipe, because “scientists” said it doesn’t affect potency or terpenes. Well no shit, if you’re using a narrow banded spectrum like that. And that’s not just this study, this is a majority of modern studies on cannabis. All using inferior spectrums and coming up with bogus conclusions that any real growers know are nonsense. That misinformation feeds into the community discussion and keeps these silly LED VS HPS threads going, when we should be talking about what spectrum or bands of wavelengths stimulate the plant biology to do what we want it to do. Then we can formulate a plan on how to get there.
 
.
The goal should be to elicit to truest fullest expression from the plant while maintaining good to high yields, and make this electrically efficient.
The question we should be asking is how we go about doing that? As previous studies and countless people’s anecdotal experiences, a broader more balanced spectrum can cause the plant to synthesize cannabinoids and terpenes not found in plants grown under a more narrow spectrum.

Answering the question as to why that is, is what will help leap frog us into the next generation of grow lighting and cannabis chemical synthesis science. Right now any new developments or breakthroughs seem stale and stagnant, even at the university level.
Its up to one self to do the research. Hoping to test these out and few other ones aswell in a few months.
That is the exact paper I was referring to, thank you for pulling it up!

One of the things I take issue from their concluding remarks is this following statement.

“ Increasing LI also increased harvest index and the size and density of the apical inflorescence; both markers for increasing quality. However, there were no and minor LI treatment effects on potency of cannabinoids and terpenes, respectively. This means that growers may be able to vastly increase yields by increasing LI but maintain a relatively consistent secondary metabolite profile in their marketable products.” (LI = light intensity)

Yet, this was their spectrum for the study…

View attachment 5461793

To make that concluding remark while using that methodology is bullshit. Like we’ve talked about, different spectrums synthesize different cannabinoids and terpenes, and even this study showed that terpenes increased with increasing light intensity, even with their garbage blurple spectrum.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills because I’ve been saying the same GD thing for 8 years now, that a broader, more sunlike spectrum will produce “better” weed (I know some people hate that descriptor), but now some studies are also coming to those same conclusions which in my mind should be extremely intuitive.

But when a scientifically published study says some shit, everybody is like “whelp, I guess that settles the science there” . That’s why light manufactures use more or less the same spectrum recipe, because “scientists” said it doesn’t affect potency or terpenes. Well no shit, if you’re using a narrow banded spectrum like that. And that’s not just this study, this is a majority of modern studies on cannabis. All using inferior spectrums and coming up with bogus conclusions that any real growers know are nonsense. That misinformation feeds into the community discussion and keeps these silly LED VS HPS threads going, when we should be talking about what spectrum or bands of wavelengths stimulate the plant biology to do what we want it to do. Then we can formulate a plan on how to get there.
I think both yes and no on the wide spectrum. If this was true then all outdoor weed would be superior to indoors and fetch a higher market price which is not quite true. I think yes, you want a broad spectrum with targeted coverage of plant centric nm in the blue and red range. You want low to mid green; though not blurple. Imo opinion, both from the limited info you can glean from studies and from garden tests, is a drawback on quality in terms of smell/flavour and general flower response. Green is morphogenic but has a intracannopy response; it reverses blue response - transpiration, node distance - and makes the plant divert more energy towards structural tissue; basicly it creates more fibery tissue which is good for density and for penetration, but it mutes "the nose" somewhat. Maybe giving it a more complex tone which some may prefer but id prefer loud in your face terps.
This study, which is too big attach, shows this somewhat: the winning spectrums are the two peak/wide red (which I wouldn't caracterize as broad, its just a smidgen of white and then wide red sup) and the fully and broad spectrum which has a bit more +660 reds and far reds.

The same things seems to be true in our garden; lower green gives us more quality. But somewhat less penetration and buds down below.

As for the growlight aspect: green phosphor is both photon efficient, yieldy (extra dense and heavy bud), nice for penetration and readily available in white diodes which are cheap to implement. So light makers stick to the high efficiency approach even though it may not the best overall results and quality.

Hoping to try out these different spectrums in the next few months.
IMG-20250113-WA0002.jpgIMG-20250113-WA0000.jpgIMG-20250113-WA0001.jpg
 
Having used HPS, MH and many LED Products. This is the spectrum I have been most happy with thus far.
Beautiful to work under and grows nice chunky / frosty flowers.
I have not done lab testing on finished products but the power savings and savings from not buying lamps has won out.
This spectrum also performs just as well as 6500K T5 for lettuce :confused:

Screen Shot 2025-04-19 at 3.22.22 PM.png
 
Sad that we are still entertaining threads with led vs hid..
It has been proven that led can produce more gpw than hid.
Why people are still trying to push hid anywhere outside of a greenhouse sized grow or other large scale thing is mind boggling. The benefits of led even have large scale growers making the switch.. Plants dont care about the artificial light source, and love the lack of issues associated with being outdoors
There is more to it, than weight. Many many large scale growers still use DE HPS.
Pharma companies in Japan, doing experimental research on plants in general, use a Hortilux Blue, as they say it produces more chemicals, which for medical research, would be very important.

MMS released a study where they used LED, and 5800k 1000w Halide, and there were chemicals in the Halide, that were not present, in the LED-HPS-CMH
All of them can grow acceptable weed, and in hot places, LED may be a better choice. But as far as spectrum goes, none of them are as close to the sun, which is all I care about, than a 5000k-6500k Halide
 
Won't bother to put up new thread for this,
but for those interested I came across some fresh research:


 
All I can say is, the SUN, has Far Red, and it could also be the case, when they add specific Spikes, to the spectrum, with artificial light, this is Not the same, as having every nm, in the spectrum, not just Peaks.

I liken LED vs Halide, like I do with Guitar Pedals, and Musical Playback Reproduction.
Digital Sample, has roughly 50,000 bits of information, per second. Analog, has 160,000 cycles per second. Digital has 2/3 Less Information, than Analog.
Same for guitar pedals, not to mention, they add latency, to the signal chain. ON an Oscilloscope, Digital with show up as Peaks, and Valleys. Analog is one long uninterrupted line. No Peaks, or Valleys. Same for LED. What they are, are Samples, of known light frequencies. Peaks, and Valleys.

There is simply more Information in a Halide, than there is LED, not to mention, the Sun, and the Halide both go beyond 2000nm. Plus, one has to take into account they know little about this spectrum as far as plant studies. It could be that a 2000nm wave, could have a positive affect, on 800nm, And, it could be, that when they add only 800nm, and no other infrared spectrum, it could fuck with some sort of synergistic affect.
The total of the parts together, may be greater than the sum of just simple Spikes they experiment with.

All I know is the SUN, has a spectrum of about 290nm-2500+nm, and anything less, is not a total spectrum, regardless of if they have affect, or not. It is UNKNOWN, and, it is known that 45%-55% of the Sun Spectrum, is in the Invisible Spectrum. So that logically tells me, that and light that does not contain the most amount of its power, in the Invisible Spectrum, is Not, a good example of reproducing the spectrum of the sun. How can it be, when the sun produces 50% of its power, in the Invisible Spectrum?? It aint logical to me.
1745171557123.png

1745171429404.png
 
Last edited:
There is more to it, than weight. Many many large scale growers still use DE HPS.
Pharma companies in Japan, doing experimental research on plants in general, use a Hortilux Blue, as they say it produces more chemicals, which for medical research, would be very important.

MMS released a study where they used LED, and 5800k 1000w Halide, and there were chemicals in the Halide, that were not present, in the LED-HPS-CMH
All of them can grow acceptable weed, and in hot places, LED may be a better choice. But as far as spectrum goes, none of them are as close to the sun, which is all I care about, than a 5000k-6500k Halide
While i know that it may be a triggering statement but what is the proof that sunlight is the ultimate spectrum for buds? You could argue that its better than any artificial lighting youve tried and i wouldnt argue with you; ive seen some of our cuts grow outdoors and beat the shit out of indoor crops. But ive also seen what can be achieved by really playing with spectrum for higher than sunlight uv levels (in %).


Best is a very absolutist statement, just cause something has developed in the sun doesnt mean that you cannot get better results than the sun. My recommendation would be to keep on pushing for even better results; led gives you the possibility to push certain genetic buttons in a way you simply cannot do with your halides. Im not saying convert, try what happens if you add a couple of 100s of watts of targeted leds for flower on top of what you got. Some alibubbers outlets will allow you to chose your own design to led mono strips; my suspicion is that you would love what you get if you added 2:1 of red/blue using 640/660 and 400nm violet. This is already done in some greenhouses with great effects on yield, and ive seen for myself how quality goes up when adding this.

As for the invisible light: yes its there in the sun but does ot grow plants on its own? You could say that i could be beneficial but is it fair to say that it must be beneficial?

Please dont missunderstand me, this is not to say i see better quality in standard leds than sunshine; covering 450-660 doesnt even cover the full par range and does not give great quality, nor white based nor monocromatic blurple. But a real full range 365-680nm led light, with well designed red peak and blue peak and reduced green, i honestly think that it may be able to give the sun a run for its money. Maybe wit a smidgen of 285 uvb.

Caveat: if i could reduce green in the sun to 30-50% of intensity and maybe shave of some of the far reds then i think you would have something unbeatable :)
But this is hard to do, so ill keep trying with leds, and hopefully try to add some incandescant aswell in the future in order to be able to try infrared under controlled conditions
 
There is more to it, than weight. Many many large scale growers still use DE HPS.
Pharma companies in Japan, doing experimental research on plants in general, use a Hortilux Blue, as they say it produces more chemicals, which for medical research, would be very important.

MMS released a study where they used LED, and 5800k 1000w Halide, and there were chemicals in the Halide, that were not present, in the LED-HPS-CMH
All of them can grow acceptable weed, and in hot places, LED may be a better choice. But as far as spectrum goes, none of them are as close to the sun, which is all I care about, than a 5000k-6500k Halide
I agree with the sun stuff 100%. Indoors is indoors though.
The difference between the results of different artificial light sources is still pretty much bro science. If you could point me toward an actual side by side of some sister clones under varying types of artificial lighting i would give it a read
 
Back
Top