AfricanGrower's 1st Hydro Journal - Ebb&Flow - Bubblelicious 2013

SWvoodoo said:
I think I see where you are going with that train of thought AG but in my opinion low light growth leads to a larger plant but also larger internodes and a weaker base structure. eg If a tip is blocked of light it will stretch to find it, removing that leaf blocking the light will stop that stretch and therefore keep that tip shorter, preventing an even canopy. Is that where you are sort of going with it?
Click to expand...

Yes this is what I am trying to test out. Now the differences between light intensity and light penetration is what I am after. Lets say you adjust some supplemental light on your plant to further penetrate the lower foliage...letting those growths be exposed to direct light for a period of time should slow stretch of that branch based on what we know. Now if we were to expose the lower growth to this light and THEN further the distance of penetration abruptly, could this possibly lead to another stretch of growth to 'search' for that direct light it was used to being exposed to?

Well this is what I am trying to figure out. Maybe it might be possible to manipulate growth rates of specific branches in order to achieve the best spread of canopy of a grow. I am currently testing the above theory currently and will be posting results in the next week or two.

This quest for knowledge on the subject was directly sparked by the Capn, when he mentioned to me twice before that my defoliating and supplemental light is actually slowing down growth than supporting it to grow faster. Here is a small excerpt of evidence he showed me in light of this:

Capn said:
>>>Here is a picture of a plant, with two giant fan leaves shading some premium bud spots. It sure is tempting to take off these fan leaves so those under branches can get light and grow. But if I do, it will actually make those two shaded branches grow slower. When a lower branch doesn't get light, it grows and stretches until it finds light. That's why a Christmas tree is wider at the bottom than at the top.
k113.jpg

>>>After ONE week, look how those branches blast right thru the fan leaves.
k21weeklater.jpg

>>>When we switch to flower, plants stretch. The reason for this, is because they are not getting as many hours of light. In the night, they are stretching for light. I know I usually error on the side of not taking off enough fan leaves during flower, but defoliating during vegetative growth is just... crazy, yo! During veg, we want that plant to get as bushy, leafy, and green as possible. Most importantly, if we are going to scrog, we want a flat top. By taking off fan leaves durning veg, or giving light to the lower growth, we actually SLOW down those branches, and they will never reach the screen.
Click to expand...

Now although this is proven that branches in shaded light DO stretch longer in a certain time frame than a branch that is exposed to direct light. But me being an AfricanGrower, I have to say that there is more to it than just that. Thus the experiments ;)
 
I think the results of this experiment may assist in the potential of LA's Flux technique. +REPs for pioneering!
 
Im sure giving it extra stored energy will then give it more stretch when light source is removed. Look at the internodes on the lower growth, testimony to light intensity creating shorter internodes more compact growth and imo more budsites. Im sure youll also find that growth with more intense light with be thicker more well developed and more capable of supporting bud growth all that adds up to more yield. I think once growth STRETCHES to find light that it is past a certain point of development where it wont become as thick and robust as a stem that had intense light throughout growth.

All this said yes im sure you can use such methods in combination with light exposure to slow upwards growth. A buddy is maxing his tent height the centre of the canopy closest to the light is about 8 inches shorter than the surrounding less intensely lit areas. Just my 2c
 
yeah i agree with voodoo. i also find that although plant growth is slower in veg wen topped, training and removing fan leaves that they then explode with growth in flower. My vegged plants are very small and bushy wen i flip, max veg for me is 3 weeks, yet i still get 6-12oz monsters. but all experiments show something so im interested to see where u go with it.
 
yes its the dwc mate and my strains and conditions etc. im doing something a little dif in my current journal but there will still be some dwc monsters. i pull 6-8oz per plant, x4 plants per 600w hps. Or 8-12oz per plant, x4 plants per 1000w hps. i have roughly a 9.5 week turn around start to finish. in DWC especially but also other hydro methods, a small plant in veg can turn into a monster in flower. for me its not the size of the plant in veg thats important its the closeness of the nodes and number of them.


U dont want wide node spacing, it creates smaller less dense flowers.
 
29/10/13

Hey all, time for a well needed update of the lady. So I was planning on flipping to 12/12 on the 1st (this Friday) but it looks like I might have to flip a little earlier due to a slight Phosphorous def.

As you can see here, these are the tall tale signs of a P def. It starts off with curled edges and a slight purple hue to the UPPER part of growth and affected stems. It is important to note that a P def will show itself in upper growth rather than lower growth, AND then start to work its way down.

20131025_063432.jpg

20131025_063455.jpg


The leaves which were affected all had purple stems, and the unaffected, lower growth had not developed any type of purple hue yet.

20131026_061820.jpg

20131026_061850.jpg

20131026_061953.jpg


Now the pictures below show a purple hue of a different cause. These are from the bagseed, and have always had a purple hue to their stems since seed. There is very slight differences in the hue between the affected Bubb and the genetic bagseed, but, the bagseed has purple hues ALL over the plant and not generally in the upper most growth.

20131026_062240.jpg

20131026_062256.jpg


Another sure fact that is leading me to this conclusion is that the Bubb and the bagseed all get the same feed, with the same PPMs, and only the Bubb is showing the def. Luckily I caught this just in time, and what you are seeing now is the furthest extent to which the P def has reached. I have a slight yellowing of leaves towards the bottom, indicating a N related def. This girl really is starting to demand a lot of food.

I usually change my res on Wed., so instead of waiting till Fri. to flip over to 12/12, I will flip over tomorrow with my res change. This will allow me to start introducing high Phosphorous flowering nutrients into the feeding to further avoid any more P related deficiencies.

I plan on letting it go in 12/12 until my 5 gallon nursery pots arrive which will be in the next few days. I won't be putting up the trellis until this weekend, latest early next week. Until then this lady will have a few days to adjust to the 12/12 and I will be expecting to see some stretch, but hopefully not too much before the trellis goes on.

20131029_173720_1_.jpg

20131029_173806_1_.jpg

20131029_054559_Richtone_HDR_.jpg

20131029_061155.jpg


Any comments or questions are welcomed;)
 
Hey Voodoo, I didn't think of that, yes you are right it might limit stretch, but I also don't want overall yield to be severely reduced either. As B.real said, there is still very little signs of a def as I caught it quite early.

My only concern with the limited stretch is the possibility that some specifically trained branches will never reach the screen.

But thank you guys for the comments. I should be posting a nutrient update, and maybe the focus group of my recent experimentation in the next couple of hours ;)
 
Looking very well AG! Man I hope to see the same very soon.
 
30/10/13

FLOWER DAY 1

It's finally here guys, I switched all my timers to 12 hours of every evening now. So my schedule looks something like this: 7am-7pm= lights on. I keep my lights on during the day to avoid light leaks in flower. When I had received my tent, there were some stitching that loosened up on the seams, giving off ever so little light. So not to risk it, my plant night cycles coincide with my actual night.

20131030_073437.jpg


Excerpt from notes:

Res Change: per 5 gallons

-15ml of CaMg
-4 Part Big Bloom
-3 Part Tiger Bloom
-3 Part Grow Big

PPM:650
pH:5.9

Bennies Tea:10ml/g of Aquashield and .18ml of Great White


Okay so I have been experimenting with light to try and expand MY OWN knowledge on the subject.

I want to implement both HID and CFL, using them in conjunction. I am hoping for little to no growth from the branches exposed 3-4inches from the CFLs. While on the other side of my plant, there is branch about the same height that is about 20 inches form my HID.

Now the pictures below show the two spots of growth I will be focusing on. Both on opposite sides of the plant. Now the growth that is being exposed to the HID at 21 inches is side branch off of one of the main stems. The branch exposed to the CFL is a topped main branch.

Based on logic, the main branch SHOULD have a faster growth rate naturally than any other lower side branching. Now taking that into consideration, here are some photos.

These were all taken on 24/10/13

20131027_061331.jpg

20131027_061619_Richtone_HDR_.jpg


TWO days days later, notice that the CFL branch has grown 2 inches into the CFL and the HID branch has grown the same amount at over a foot away.

20131029_053719.jpg

20131029_053652.jpg

20131029_053823.jpg


Now on the 27th I had adjusted the HID 2 inches further away from the whole plant to induce an overall stretch. The main tops and the HID branch all grew nearly two more inches. But notice how the top-right area exposed to the CFL is significantly shorter in growth.

20131029_173806.jpg


Now these were taken today on the 29th. The Cfl branch (remember it was topped) acted against my predictions. One the the twin tops further away from the HID remained 3 inches away from the CFL. But the top that was closer to direct exposure to the HID seems to be ignoring the CFL and stretching towards the HID in the center.

20131030_050539.jpg

20131030_050454.jpg


These are the varying results I was hoping for in this experiment. I will continue to update this as I continue to expose the branches, and hopefully some more light would be shed on cannabis growth characteristics.

As I am going into flower tonight, I don't think that the results from the next few days will be viable since the plant will be going through a stretch period. I will still post the final results this weekend of this 7-day experiment.
 
are u leaving a dark period before flower? i find a 36 hour dark period speeds up the start of flowering by up to a week.
 
Plants are looking great AG and good luck with Flower. Quite the little experiment you got going on with your lighting. ;)
 
Looking so great, AG. It will be tough once the lights go out at 7pm, you won't get to play in there anymore :-)


What's this blue thing? A fan? If so, I would try to not let it blow directly on the top leaves. The top leaves take the most heat, and then the fan may dry them out (once vegetative growth is over). I've done it before, and the leaves will "taco", trying to conserve moisture, and eventually get crispy.

It's going to be a "Happy new year" for AG! Too bad your new year's resolution is going to be, "To quit smoking pot".

Oh wait, it's "To quit PAYING for pot." :rofl:

20131029_173720_1_.jpg
 
Excellent work AG! I am really feeling this topic a lot! Question, would varying periods of darkness during veg have a negative impact on the plant? What I really wanna know is can top light be diminished and side lighting (whatever side) be the primaries for a period? I know what I'm about to say means more spending, but table that for a moment to consider what gains (if any) can be had in plant growth times or other possible gains. What if CFLs were used for top lighting and smaller MH HIDs used dynamically to sway the plant to grow towards the HID? Do you think this might produce a more favorable result? Or even CFL if not HID is available, had your HID been turned off, do you think the CFLs would have earned a more favorable grade? I know nixing the HID would greatly reduce overall plant gains for the time period that light is off, but if the grower could gain control of several lights simultaneously, could s/he not have a better success rate for what s/he was trying to accomplish?
 
Back
Top Bottom