Pigeons420's Re-Veg/Re-Generation of The Hog

I think its much like the great question as to whether or not to let your lights run 24/24 or 18/6. Its so easy to find threads upon threads of people arguing which is better.

But if you learn the science of plants, you learn that C3 Carbon Fixation and C4 carbon fixation is a huge factor in choosing to the leave the lights on 24/24.

Then you try to apply this to Cannabis, when you learn what C3 Carbon Fixation is, and also that Cannabis is a C3 plant, you come to the conclusion that if you can manage the rooms temperature and costs, Cannabis need not be in the dark during vegetative stage. It simply cannot preform photosynthesis, or stockpile CO2 at night time, and therefore will grow faster under 24 hour light, given the other factors are handled correctly.


I think if we looked into the science of the lights, and considered the biology of the plants, we can come up with a correct answer
 
I can appreciate your approach Greenley!

I have to agree. The science will tell all! And it's only a matter of time before its here

I have found top notch growers such as OG do some great things with (affordable) LEDs. So I can't deny they have an impact on the game. We can't disregard them.... I am also curious about the GRAMS PER WATT.. On my first real harvest with this 400W HPS I almost had the .5 GPW.

However, I think it's fair that we can all agree that we're all professionals of a skill, with much more to learn. I'm going to take the stand that there is much more involved in the process of growing cannabis then simply the lights. You can take the best lights in the world (which ever it is) and a grower with little skills and have horrible results. And vise versa. The least effective lights and the best grower applying the best knowledge and get fantastic results. I have so much more to learn before I can informatively defend for or argue against which light is better.

Let it be known! I have learned a lot of information during this litter discussion about a lot more then just lights. So, friendly conversation and aruement is always welcome!

Love and satisfaction to you all!:Namaste:
 
Greeley said:
I think its much like the great question as to whether or not to let your lights run 24/24 or 18/6. Its so easy to find threads upon threads of people arguing which is better.

But if you learn the science of plants, you learn that C3 Carbon Fixation and C4 carbon fixation is a huge factor in choosing to the leave the lights on 24/24.

Then you try to apply this to Cannabis, when you learn what C3 Carbon Fixation is, and also that Cannabis is a C3 plant, you come to the conclusion that if you can manage the rooms temperature and costs, Cannabis need not be in the dark during vegetative stage. It simply cannot preform photosynthesis, or stockpile CO2 at night time, and therefore will grow faster under 24 hour light, given the other factors are handled correctly.


I think if we looked into the science of the lights, and considered the biology of the plants, we can come up with a correct answer
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that 24h veg is faster for growth than 18/6? Interesting.
 
I won't say I'm an expert either. I learn a lot from here and other places on the web too. I learned about bud washing, back filling, and proper curing a from here.
I enjoy learning new techniques and info and it is nice to have people to talk with since in real life it is secret...
Keep up the good discussions 8-)
 
The other biggest internet debate ever is defoliation. I did this for years until I tried side by side and realized I was wasting my time, defoliation does not produce bigger yields with my plants, defoliation produced not quite as much at the expense of hours of my time.
 
I've always run a 24 hour light cycle for the first 8-10 week of veg. I stopped once I came here to this website anf tried something new. Since then I have gone back to 24 hour light from the moment I put them in soil. Takes 3 days to pop and a way we go.

I never defoil. I take the dead stuff off and that's really about it. I let her go. I tuck big fan leaves in if they are blocking some light. But that's it.
 
OttawaGreen said:
So you are suggesting that 24h veg is faster for growth than 18/6? Interesting.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be a dick when I say this, but it is not a suggestion, it is a scientific fact.

C3 Plants cannot fixate CO2 at night, and they can't stockpile it until morning, so they wait for the lights to come on to preform photosynthesis. If the light is always on, the plant is always preforming photosynthesis, and therefore creating the energy it uses to grow.

Cannabis is a C3 plant, as are over 80% of the worlds plant mass.

Cannabis is not a person and doesn't have to "sleep", complete myth, rumour, personification, whatever you'd like to call it.
 
Greeley said:
I am not trying to be a dick when I say this, but it is not a suggestion, it is a scientific fact.

C3 Plants cannot fixate CO2 at night, and they can't stockpile it until morning, so they wait for the lights to come on to preform photosynthesis. If the light is always on, the plant is always preforming photosynthesis, and therefore creating the energy it uses to grow.

Cannabis is a C3 plant, as are over 80% of the worlds plant mass.

Cannabis is not a person and doesn't have to "sleep", complete myth, rumour, personification, whatever you'd like to call it.
Click to expand...

LMAO! This is not true at all.. I have busted this myth over and over with science data with side by side comparison's... Plants grow faster with a rest period, period..... This is why this site sucks... so much bad information on here...
 
Just got a new magazine from my local Hydro Store. Its called "Garden Culture" it is issue #5 of 2015.

There is an article by Theo Tekstra and he makes an excellent point regarding LED's

Here are some excerpts from this article I find will add to the conversations about LED's

"PPF VS PPFD
Let's look at the output specifications first, forgetting lumens, because we're using grow lights. Lumens are for humans - not plants. So, what defines the total output of a fixture is the total output of photons in the PAR region (400-700 nm), measured in micromoles per second (photons per second). This is also called the photosynthetic photon flux, or PPF.

Light intensity on a PAR spectrum is called PPFD. Now there is only one "D" difference from PPF, but that makes a big difference. PPFD is intensity, measured in micromoles per second, per meter squared (µmol s-1 m-2)! So, remember: PPF is total output. PPFD is intensity at a certain spot, and depends on where you measure it under the fixture.

If you have a lamp with a PPF of 1000 µmol s-1, and you spread this light over two square meters, you would get an average of 500µmol s-1 m-2 intensity on that surface (total light divided by surface) Its like Lumen and Lux, but for PAR spectrum and measured in photons. Lumens is the total output of a lamp, Lux is the intensity at a certain distance from that lamp, with the light spread over a certain surface (Lux is Lumens per square meter).

Measuring Total Output of a Lamp
To measure the total output of a lamp or fixture, we use an integrating sphere or photogoniometer. These (calibrated!) instruments integrate all of the light, and give you an accurate measurement of the total output of a lamp or fixture. Measuring the light under the fixture on a grid, and integrating the values is very accurate, specifically with a low number of measurements on a small surface.

Now lets take an HPS lamp as an example. The double ended HPS lamp does let's say 2000 µmol out of the reflector in total. So spread over a 2 square meter surface I would get about 1000 µmol per second, per square meter intensity. Easy, right? But now I hold a light meter about 40cm away from the lamp, and I measure more than 4000 µmol s-1 m-2. How is that possible? That is twice the PPF of the lamp?

No, it isn't. 2000 µmol s-1 concentrated over just half a square meter gives you that intensity (ppf/surface) So a measurement under a lamp at a certain distance, specifically if it is a deep lamp with a concentrated beam (as in lensed LED's) say nothing (at all!) about that light or fixture.

PPFD at 30CM
Now look at the (Chinese) LED specifications. Some actually say PPFD of x at y cm from the fixture (which you know now is absolutely rubbish information), but some even go as far as to call this PPF (in a footnote they say @ 30cm from fixture)

So with my 270W plasma light I measure 3000 µmol s-1 m-2 close to the glass, so it replaces 1.5 1000W HPS fixture, right? Wrong. You fell for the hype again.

How Do I Compare?
You need about as much LED light as you need HPS light to get the same yields. As LED is not twice as efficient as HPS (equal to, or at most a little better in a limited spectrum) these fixtures do not replace a 1000W HPS lamp at just 40% of the power. When you want to replace 1000W HPS with LED fixtures, you need 1000W LED. Then look at the difference in price.

LED fixture manufacturers that specify the output by the PPFD at a distance don't know anything about lighting, or do know, but want to fool you. Either way, you shouldn't trust them. A 400W LED fixture uses 60% less energy than a 1000W HID lamp. So does a 400W CFL or a 400W incandescent lamp. 60% less energy? Yes. But I also promise you 60% less yield in a high intensity lighting production room.

Don't just go for the hype, keep thinking!"
 
Your type of person the reason I am disliking this site. You overlook science that has been proven time and time again, by doing side-by-side comparisons in your backyard/garage/basement. you need to grow in a highly monitored laboratory environment to prove anything. I doubt you have, or else you would have mentioned doing so.

Just learn the biology of plants, and you'll change your mind. Don't understand it? Then I'd suggest don't spew crap and confuse people.

HunterNitro said:
LMAO! This is not true at all.. I have busted this myth over and over with science data with side by side comparison's... Plants grow faster with a rest period, period..... This is why this site sucks... so much bad information on here...
Click to expand...
 
HunterNitro said:
LMAO! This is not true at all.. I have busted this myth over and over with science data with side by side comparison's... Plants grow faster with a rest period, period..... This is why this site sucks... so much bad information on here...
Click to expand...

Before you jump to a conclusion about this website... Ed Rosenthal answered this question in "The Best of Ask Ed", pages 177 and 178. 24 hours vegging will grow plants 25% faster in comparison to 18/6 because, like Greeley said, being a C3 plant photosynthesis will occur as long as they are supplied enough fresh air, water and nutrients.

Not discrediting your knowledge but Rosenthal is just.... Rosenthal..


You can Google the book if you'd like too. (For anyone interested it's a really good read)
 
It is not a question of whether it can photosynthesise or not, it's about cirrcadian rhythm, ethylene production, PGR production, phytochrome light receptors and a host of other things that are related to or wholly dependent on a dark cycle. Your data is FALSE MY FRIEND
 
To try to keep up with your big words, doctor, I did a little research to understand what you're getting at.

Phytochrome light receptors seem to be for flower in all plants that flower, as I can't find any information on it during the vegetative state on the pages I dug through.
Circadian Rhythm seems to have been a variable that's been bred out, excluding actual land race strains that would need an area mimicking the region it came from.
Ethylene production would be if you're growing a non-feminized seed, from what it appears, and for guys who want to use non-feminized and maintain a higher success rate of females.


At the end of the day it's wild how the majority of these plant based tests are not done on an actual cannabis plant. I'm just curious where you got your information from or to at least present your information to claim that Ed Rosenthal is the incorrect one. It's not every day you hear someone shoot down one of the most knowledgeable people in the industry. (In case you've forgotten, his multiple strains, books and information people seek in and out every second of the day). But he must be the idiot along with Cervantes, K from Trichome Technologies and all the other cannabis gurus.

You find what works for you and you do it. Roll on with 18/6 if you would like but don't bash everyone else for saying they have better luck on 24/0. Who knows, there may even be a better grower out there than you, holy art thou'. :laughtwo:
 
I agree that we cannot blame the website for peoples misunderstanding of information. This website has done wonders for me and others just like me. In fact, I feel that most of what I know is in part because of this website. And the willingness of others to share their info. I came to the 420 magazine to share my own experiences and help those that are in the same shoes I was in. I learned real fast that I'm in no position to give advice. I simply don't know enough. However, what I did learn was that, yes, maybe there is some info out there that is misguided or not fully understood or flat out erroneous. But there is more information out there that is useful and fruitful. And the people that participate with this magazine make it their goal to help steer people in the right direction. And I am truly thankful. It's these people that have helped me learn so much. And I'm forever thankful. So, let's not blame the website about some misguided information. Let helps share the right information. (Just look at Wikipedia, not all the information there is correct or accurate either. It's constantly populated with information from anyone. But we understand that there are people out there (moderators) that work hard to ensure we get the right information. Same thing happens here. Except the erroneous information gets tried and tested to be determine inaccurate. LETS KEEP THIS PROCESS GOING!!

Ok ok anyways, folks just to break the debate for a moment. Need to check in on the girls and make sure all is well!
Growth is unbelievable. I have a few low spots on the SCROG that probably aren't getting the full light. But all in all it looks good. What do ya think?
image24210.jpg
image24213.jpg
image24214.jpg
image24209.jpg
 
Lots of good info here thanks for that l, discussions are good. I like to learn new things.

I was surprised to see that replacing two 400w hps lights with two Chinese 260w LEDs made significantly more yield for me. So I found the crazy claims of replacing bigger lights to be true. My lights use over 40% less power while producing more yield of better quality than I got with hps. I am sold because of my real experience. But you guys can keep using whatever you like. I will enjoy growing more with less power and heat...
 
I'm so torn between what to do next with my lights. At the end of the day I'm interested in saving money and producing quality Meds. What to do what to do?
 
I was the same way, and I was very nervous ordering from the other side of the world from a company unknown to me but figured I would take the risk and am very happy with it. I was nervous between when I spent the money until i started to see great results though. I kept telling my gf "I hope these lights produce at least as much as my hps did or I have wasted a lot of money" then the 260w lights blew away the 400hps (450w with ballasts) lights yield so it worked out for really well for me. Good luck with your decision. I hope you are happy with good results whichever way you go.
 
Back
Top Bottom