Another reason to move away from HPS

So seventh, what are you talking about? We are on subject, but it seems you want to change the subject to...genetics vs enviornment? I agree with the genetics being the cornerstone, and you can't get quality from crap...but it's not the only factor. Any gardener can screw-up a garden, regardless of the quality of the genetics you start off with.

I think y'all are underestimating the cannabis plant. Not only has it lasted many thousands of years, it has seen shitloads of different climates, CO2 levels, earthquakes, droughts, floods, terrain elevation changes...and all we have to do is keep it's conditions in a certain range. (not like orchids, that demand a hot, humid envirornment for example) Even the femming process shows the determination of the cannabis plant to survive extreme conditions. If not, we wouldn't be able to stress nanners into the females, and calyx's in the males. It's a latent expression of emergency reproduction, being forced-forward to an overt expression.

Things to ponder while you're dicking with spectrums...
Is shifting light spectrum in one direction or another a benefit, or is there another price to pay for this shift? (growth habits, disease resistance, stress tolerance...) Especially during the growth phase. How much of a shift works or doesn't work? How many specific wavelengths are there between ultra violet, and infra red? Are all these wavelengths covered when using LED's? If not, is it a benefit, or a curse? Does shifting the spectrum have any genetic repercussions long-term? Should you go with something that's been proven, or keep looking for a non-existant "better option"?

How many different wavelengths do LED's come in? How many of those are affordable? Which combination(s) are most beneficial during growth phase? How about for flowering? How about for seed-set and seed maturation? How do you know the LED's are perfectly within advertised range?

Is there a "sweet spot" of spectrum combinations...? Yup. It's called the sun. Add or subtract from that, and your plants will adapt, but at what cost? (if any)

I'm not at all saying it's bad to experiment. I do it often. If you have the time, money, growrooms, time, knowledge, money and time to pull it off and find the "perfect" LED combination...have at it. It's worthwhile if you can successfully pull it off, and likely you'll get some positive rep points for your efforts. :cool:
But quite frankly, I'll stick with a proven winner (HPS) till the industry comes-up with a better mousetrap.

In adding UV light late in flower I know the exposure risks, (to my eyes and skin) but I also know the effects on my plants, and welcome them. Were I to listen to the PSII paper, I'd be talking out of my ass touting "proof" of photodamage, and I wouldn't be enjoying the benefits, and I wouldn't have the hands-on experience with the UV spectrum that I have. Experiment away (safely)...but keep plant biology and physiology in mind, or you are likely wasting your time.

even though the OP said' I am simply presenting new evidence for the this-light-vs.-that-light argument" the PDF he links to states that certain wavelengths damage plants which to me raises the question "is this damage good or bad?" not "what bulb has more/less of these wavelengths?". that UV causes damage is well known as is the fact that many growers consider this to be a good thing and add it to their HPS growroom that subject is already been covered in countless threads .so... how will the addition/removel of this yellow spectrum affect growth ?Rusty i'm glad ur happy with ur HPS/UV setup . i'm happy with my HPS/MH setup . a few decades back i was happy with my 20 bulb eight foot fluorescent setup but out of curiosity i gave those streetlights a try........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Things to ponder while you're dicking with spectrums...
Is shifting light spectrum in one direction or another a benefit, or is there another price to pay for this shift? (growth habits, disease resistance, stress tolerance...) Especially during the growth phase. How much of a shift works or doesn't work? How many specific wavelengths are there between ultra violet, and infra red? Are all these wavelengths covered when using LED's? If not, is it a benefit, or a curse? Does shifting the spectrum have any genetic repercussions long-term? Should you go with something that's been proven, or keep looking for a non-existant "better option"?



Is there a "sweet spot" of spectrum combinations...? Yup. It's called the sun. Add or subtract from that, and your plants will adapt, but at what cost? (if any)

---

did you really ponder these things when you dicked with your HPS spectrum by adding UV ?many growers feel that UV is a non-existant better option . UV light has been scientifically proven to damage living tissue do you have some links to scientific data that say this is a good thing or is it just your opinion ? i am not opposed to adding UV but it seems to me that your being a little ANAL about this little ol thing.after all we are farmers not scientists .

Actually, I thought long and hard before attempting the use of UV, which is knowledge I gained from Marijuana Man quite a few years ago. (8 years ago...on pot-tv...The Grow Show) His video's are still available online for those that wish to witness the effects of UV, the degradation of CBD to CBN, the interraction of terpines and cannabinoids, and stupid unreasonable shit like that. Not a scholarly paper, but I'll follow his lead much sooner than an abstract on a single non-cannabis example.
Perhaps you should contact Marijuana Man himself, and let him know he's wrong. I'll be the one behind you pointing and laughing at your inability to learn and unwillingness think for yourself. And wallah...another parrot is born, and apparently his job is to parrot other's bullshit forever. If you had first-hand experience, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Listen...I have first-hand experience with the UV you folks seem to want to keep pushing as a detriment to our gardens. Whatever. You can keep your data sheet, you can keep your "facts" and you can keep your ignorance. Good luck with that tactic. :jointsmile:

But if you want to learn why it's used, look-up the Marijuana Mans Grow Show, watch his video's from 2001-2003, and get back to me. Because till now...you guys have been shooting blanks in the usable information shoot-out.

Aloha, Y'all

Re UV:

"Light is also used for information transfer within the plant. Photoreceptors on plant leaves send signals that control many physiological and morphological responses inside the plant. In fact, there may be as yet undiscovered plant responses to light. These sorts of complex interactions between light and various functions within plants has led scientists to consider how we can further improve and influence plant growth by manipulating or filtering light to achieve better responses from crops. For example, UV light is not a significant part of the radiation spectrum in terms of photosynthesis. However, research indicates that it could be a factor in the development of flavors, colors and fragrances in some plant species. So in the future boosting such desirable characteristics as color or aroma in cut flowers or other active compounds in certain plants with use of UV wavelengths may become possible."


For the article:

The Growing Edge Magazine - Rays of Life

Good info on the saturation point as well.

Love dat google.
Weeze

Nice find. I skimmed over it, and it seemed well written, but I've only got a few minutes before wife gets back. Will most definitely chek it out though. :thumbsup:
WTG Weez...:thumbsup:

a very good article WEEZARD , relevant and on topic. heres a copy and paste from it " Plants respond to light in ways that are more complex than most growers first realize. What's more, each plant species seems to have its own individual response to light-day length, spectral quality, duration, intensity. Further, research into light-plant interactions continues to uncover previously unknown details about the effect light has on plant growth and development." I sometimes forget that what seems obvious to me is unseen by others so i shall repeat myself "I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE USE OF UV LIGHT" arguing its pros/cons is beating a dead horse.RUSTY put down the stick and stop being such a hypocrite.when growers found how well hid's produced flour's were discarded.........this is the same fate that will befall HPS/MH in time...it is the LED user that can research the effects of different light combos does yellow increase calyx size? does orange change thc/cbn ratios ? is it red or far red that increases bud size the most ?this is what interest me .IMHO the op titled his thread wrong and got this discussion off to a bad start.after reading the PDF he linked to the only question i have is "WHAT AFFECT DOES USING/REMOVING THE YELLOW SPECTRUM HAVE ON CANNABIS"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

RUSTY put down the stick and stop being such a hypocrite.when growers found how well hid's produced flour's were discarded.........this is the same fate that will befall HPS/MH in time...

---

Hmm...a hypocrite...?

The first lighting I remember seeing in an indoor op were mercury vapor, but that was back in the IDK...mid 70's?. Didn't even hear of fluoro lighting till the 90's, which, for your information, fluoro's are still used to this day in many forms.

I have always kept an open mind when watching the development of the LED's, which I repeat, are not there yet. Yield, initial cash outlay and spectral inadequacies are often cited as problematic. So if you have to purchase an HPS to suppliment the LED's 'more compact' yield, why would I recommend anyone to spend all that cash for something that can't quite finish the job?

If this steps on somebody's LED-nazi approach, oh well. But most in here don't have the cash nor experience to be risking their meds on an unproven and unperfected piece of equipment. In other words, I will not recommend the LED's over the HID's.

The best I'll go, is yes. You can grow cannabis using some brands of LED's. If they are the correct spectrum, and you have enough cash to outlay, and if yield isn't a primary concern.

I can appreciate your intensity, but what is your goal? 1% more THC? 2% more CBD's? 8% more trichomes? 4% more CBN's? Since you are apparently experienced enough to play around, I say go for it. Perhaps you'll someday get out of cannabis that which you are seeking. Personally, I'm more than satisfied with what I grow and how I grow it. Another satisfied HID customer.

For the general membership, I recommend a watch and see approach.

I believe the yellow spectrum is absorbed and converted by the chlorophyll B pigments, but would have to double-check.

Fun read. :rolleyes:

I am gonna have to back rusty on this... Seems that paan can't come up with any reason to move away from HPS, just throws up charts with bs saying the light damages photosynthesis... Really now? I guess the plant's love to get damaged because my plants are greener and bigger everyday, and smell very nice, so to me that is a reason to stay with HPS...

Another thing, the paan, you never mention a better alternative. Why, I am guessing because there isin't one short of using natural sunlight.

My firm belief is you came here to start bs and argue points that don't even make any sense whatsoever.


And seventhchild, the topic is geared toward why we should drop HPS... Not about which lighting source is outdated and whatnot, Rusty is using valid points and people keep trying to change the topic somehow. Stay on topic, why should we away from HPS???

Seems to me this entire thread has no good points to move to any other light source. I will stick with my HPS and you can use your arguments to grow your plants.