Re: setting sun's mini-greenhouse grow
If space is a big concern, then compressed CO2 may have an advantage over CO2 generation as you won't need a burner.
here's something an experienced grower on another forum posted as far as his experience with CO2:
"Unfortunatly, that method will cost the grower more in yeast & sugar than it will yield in increased bud.
To use CO2, it must be in a sealed environment and be administered above the plant (since CO2 is heavier than air).
You also should have a way to exhaust it during lights out when it's not needed.
There is a misconception of what CO2 does.
It doesn't mean bigger buds. In fact it shouldn't be used after the first 3 weeks of 12/12.
What CO2 does:
Let's say you veg your plants to 15" tall before flowering them.
Adding CO2 will get them from seedling or clone to 15" faster than without it.
How much faster?
If you have excellent flo-thru ventilation, 2 or 3 days.
That's it folks.
For the commercial grower, CO2 augmentation makes sense. You're growing successive crops and after awhile those extra days add up.
But for the average home grower, excellent flo-thru ventilation is more cost effective than CO2 augmentation.
Years ago, in an effort to maximize yield I spent nearly $1,000 for 2 tanks, regulator, emitter, atmospheric ppm meter (those meters cost $500.00), built an airtight growspace (a MUST) and bought extra timers and fans.
At first I was amazed at how much faster the CO2-enriched growspace grew my plants vs. my old space with CRAPPY ventilation (an open door).
Then I spent $30.00 to install flo-thru ventilation in my original growspace.
The CO2-enriched growspace got me buds approx. 4 or 5 days quicker than the space with excellent ventilation.
Not more buds, not bigger buds, not more potent buds.
Just a bit quicker.
And then there was the hassle of lugging those damn tanks to a welding shop every 2 weeks. Refills cost $18.00/tank.
It's also advisable to have a "cover story" if someone happens to talk to you about what you're using the tanks of CO2 for.
That's why I say excellent ventilation is more cost-effective than CO2 enrichment for the average non-commercial grower.
And I've also done cost analysis between using yeast & sugar-generated poorly administered CO2 enrichment in real-life instances and in 2 of the 3 instances the yeast & sugar cost more than the slight increase in yield.
P.S. I sold the tanks and ppm meter and the rest of the equip. sits in boxes in a corner of my garage.
There's no doubt that properly administered CO2 at correct levels is an advantage, especially vs. poor ventilation.
But is it worth the cost and hassle?"
It also appears that you may be suffering some chlorosis on the lower leaves especially the plant on the left. Link supplied for those of us still learning.
Not sure on cause. Initial guess always leans to a Mg def but the plant may just be stealing the Mg from the lower leaves as they are pretty shaded now. Something to keep a close eye on along with the white flys.
thanks for the heads-up munki. It's tough on this grow to know what's going on with the lower foliage because there is still some damage present from when they got burned outside. I'll keep an eye on it. The white flies seem to be history, but it took three good sprayings, along with removing them by hand to eradicate them.
Keep it up SS. The buds look great.
thanks munki! appreciate your visit, comments, and encouragement!
And btw thanks for keepin eye on my humble grow, brother
.
