Amount of light?

[Death The Cultivator]

@Butrod

I don't see how you have more work by just ramping up lighting power in comparison to install another bloom room or tent.
The former is obviously more easy to pull off with way less work, space- & hardwarecosts associated.
Then there's also the question if that is even feasable in any situation.

This is from a commercial perspective. Higher light intensity is more c02, more biomass to be pruned/processed/destroyed, more water, more fertilizer, energy and more overall labor for maybe ~15% increase in yield.

For home cultivation, the scale is so small I don't think it matters too much as long as you can control your environmental parameters. I'd personally prefer another bloom tent but I still find 15% negligible unless we're talking side lighting... Maybe. I don't find it enough to matter as I'm satisfied hitting 60+ grams/ft2 and adding another harvest or two would be impactful than pulling that 15%.

Depends on how you grow and how much work you're willing to put in.

Another growtent would require space that isn't really there, require a full new setup plus increasingly more time. There's more plants then so the high-irradiance option is way less work and hardware costs. And no real approach to maximize what I already got here since even if I decide to enlarge my growarea would then also consider to pump as much light as possible to increase harvest.

So for me it's about to maximize what I already got and anything that leads to more harvest will pay heavily out as I do black market stuff. That's a way different story than official commercial big grow ops, although if I were to have to build a new facility from scratch, like the few that have an official state license, saving on space will mean nnn.nnn€ saved in buildcost, fees and else.
Everything is associated with a cost, can't just think of theoretical endless free expansion.

It would take seven spaces running with 30% more light to equate to one harvest. I'd prefer another space if it was possible but I find the extra 15% negligible. Ideally, running aeroponics with high yielding genetics would be the sure route to maximizing yield in any space while reducing resources overall.

The most crucial point for me is if more light actually really translates into more harvest.
A few pages ago we were at the light-saturation point at 680umol/s PPFD which is grossly a 600 HPS in a 4x4. At that, I'd say YES of course, as experience showed the same clones run under double the light (300W LED 3x3) bucked up way faster, and much more dense/heavy. The HPS severely lacked light in the corners, with 15k lux there's not much sellable to be gained...

I think you are spot on with SOGs and these are also highly space-effective. The long veg-time with absurd tall plants kills so many calculations but that goes unnoticed due to "grams per watt" instead of "grams per killowatthour".

As important as I know light to be, I think it's the simplest aspect even using far Red initiation/uv. Genetics, water, air, medium/method, nutrients and optimization of space are far more important imo.

Commercially, we were at less than 25DLI for veg/mother for 14 days. 40 harvest a year for around 40k lbs of quality bud and oh so much in trim and larf. I'd love to see volume of cubic squared feed as I've seen vertical grows with SOG hit 150g with aeroponics.

 

[Butrod]

15% increase in yield.

The study cited suggests a linear increase not diminished and is now the 3rd to do so.
I'll be trying to maximize irradiance but not within summer now. The alternative (new tent) is just more cost + higher workload.

But one thing that remains is to keep plants happy and prevent botrytis which is a common problem here that starts in dense colas