Boo’s Perpetual Grow Journal

Okay. While I look, any of you smart people out there know what this is?
2020-11-6 11-1-46.jpg

Is it a gnat of some sort?

?perhaps a tiny parasitic wasp - friendly I believe (if that’s what it is...)
 
maybe Shed will help me out with that?

Need to figure out what that means.
Sorry, here now! But MrS got you where you needed to be with the RQS info (link to the page is here), and was very brave to post to a non-sponsor light page with this:
And then you can go here, which is where you were I think, to completely confuse the snot out of anyone.
You really only need to calculate the PPFD if you want to go down the road of calculating your daily light intergral. Working with the numbers from the Royal Queen Seeds website and sticking with lux will work just fine!
 
Sorry, here now! But MrS got you where you needed to be with the RQS info (link to the page is here), and was very brave to post to a non-sponsor light page with this:

You really only need to calculate the PPFD if you want to go down the road of calculating your daily light intergral. Working with the numbers from the Royal Queen Seeds website and sticking with lux will work just fine!
Thanks Shed. I did look at the RQS article when you were helping me learn to post. What I’m confused about is RQS says this:
  • seedlings: 5,000–7,000 lux
  • Vegetative growth: 15,000–50,000 lux
  • Flowering: 45,000–65,000 lux
  • Maximum recommended amount of light: 75,000 lux
Based on the readings I showed earlier (180, 277, & 238) none of them are putting out the proper lux for flower. Am I reading that wrong? :hmmmm:
 
You are indeed! If you look at the bottom right of your display it says x100, which means that your 180 gets two extra 0's, making it 18,000. And so on.

Pressing the Range button will change that multiplier because the meter can only display so many numbers. Outside, if the sun is at 130,000 lux, your display might show 0 until you hit the Range button a few times.
Okay. That what I thought I was reading - 18,000, 27,700, and 23,800. None of those are high enough for flowering according to the RQS site. I know I’m confused about something because (with the exception of the SMD) I’ve got pretty good lights in the tent. I’m gonna go back and redo. I feel like a dolt. :cheesygrinsmiley:
 
Okay. So at 6” away from the light I am at 65,000 lux. At 10 inches away from the light I am 45,000. Right now the tops are right around 16 -17” away.

Zkittles has been getting “frowny” towards the end of the day lately. Just a little droop going on and it’s not because she’s dry. In the morning she is a happy camper. She also has very Sativa-ish new growth that is very thin and sometimes will have a little twist to it. That is what is making me look at the lights - just to be safe, since the other one I grew outside in 90+ temperatures and she didn’t struggle with it at all.

Totally new question. ULH and Z are both at 4.5 g/gal of MC and have a very slight burn at the tips. They’ve been fed at that level 3 times and it doesn’t seem to be getting worse (on the new growth). I believe this means I should hold there and wait to see - or should I back off 1/2 gram, or up it 1/2 gram! Lol. Berry Ryder does not like the nutes so I backed her off after the continued tip burn and she seems to be happy with that (3.5 g/gal) I know it’s low, but she seems to prefer it and has great color soooo?

All three are only getting MC. I received a Gallon of Terpinator from a very generous grower here, think I should add it into the routine or leave well enough alone for now? :thanks:
 
Zkittles has been getting “frowny” towards the end of the day lately.
That usually means it's had enough light for the day and is resting. It doesn't harm it though to keep it under the lights if the other plants look fine with the same number of hours.
Okay. So at 6” away from the light I am at 65,000 lux. At 10 inches away from the light I am 45,000. Right now the tops are right around 16 -17” away.
If you wanted to get more lux to the tops, you could slowly lower the lights over a week [assuming the plants aren't still growing into the lights!] and see how the tops react. Maybe an inch a day. Take pics of the tops from the same angle every day so you have an actual visual comparison rather than trying to remember what each top looked like the previous day!
That is what is making me look at the lights - just to be safe, since the other one I grew outside in 90+ temperatures and she didn’t struggle with it at all.
Indoor and outdoor really don't relate to each other. The sun at noon by me puts out 132,000 lux, which would fry any plant in a tent. And even seedlings thrive in it. Temps are the same way, at least for more mature plants.
I believe this means I should hold there
I believe the same thing. They grow into need for more. And I don't see any need for additives in flower even though I have 12.5 gallons of Terpinator that sit out all year. It didn't have any effect on my grows.
 
That usually means it's had enough light for the day and is resting. It doesn't harm it though to keep it under the lights if the other plants look fine with the same number of hours.

If you wanted to get more lux to the tops, you could slowly lower the lights over a week [assuming the plants aren't still growing into the lights!] and see how the tops react. Maybe an inch a day. Take pics of the tops from the same angle every day so you have an actual visual comparison rather than trying to remember what each top looked like the previous day!

Indoor and outdoor really don't relate to each other. The sun at noon by me puts out 132,000 lux, which would fry any plant in a tent. And even seedlings thrive in it. Temps are the same way, at least for more mature plants.

I believe the same thing. They grow into need for more. And I don't see any need for additives in flower even though I have 12.5 gallons of Terpinator that sit out all year. It didn't have any effect on my grows.
Awesome. Thanks Shed! :hugs:
 
Boo look in the deficiency and pest problem in my signature, it has one in there that looks the same calcium deficiency. Other than that the girls look great .
 
Back
Top Bottom