Amount of light?

No, at least not in my experience. 1ft tall mother plant vs a 6ft tall plant still benefits from the same DLI. All the biomass deemed non productive, weak/thin branches get removed in veg and flower. In my previous example, light saturation occurred at just over 25 DLI with 800ppms of c02 despite it being a room full of 6-8ft tall plants.

From seed to harvest without c02, DLI goes between 3-40 or 70-900ppfd. Without the right conditions as ambient c02 is around 400ppms, only so much growth is achievable compared to running 1000ppms and having that DLI be 25-50(no extra c02 pre veg) or 300-1100ppfd.

Another consideration is the optics of the grow lights. Cobs/boards/hid have more intense but smaller light patterns compared to strips. The former suits large plants much better than the latter which works better in vertical close proximity situations.

Outdoors, plants only get so large and the intensity does not remain constant as the sun rises/sets. The equator reaches 2000ppfd with a lot of factors influencing the DLI, even in the tropics, the average DLI is between 20-40. Again, ambient c02 is only 400ppms.

Ultimately, we're playing a game of diminishing returns past a certain point.


I think the only solution where "more" light would be a benefit in a large plant is by adding 20% more lighting to the sides of a plant - 480w+100w of side lighting that focuses on the areas where the light cannot penetrate as well from above.

I'm in a group that has been testing grow cabinets and with side lighting of 50w and top lighting of 250w - 13-18oz have been achieved in a 2x2 with only 20% more light filling the gaps that the top can't reach. Nearly double of what I see normally achievable(50-75g per sqft)

The way I imagine that is rain coming down but the edges being weak so the center of the plant and canopy receive more light than the sides and lower branches outside of the optimal range of the top lighting.

With strip lighting I typically saw between 12-18 inches of penetration vs 1000w DE getting ~36".
I've seen other postings where you publish those numbers and I'm surprised at how low the values are. There's no arguing with success.

"I'm in a group that has been testing grow cabinets and with side lighting of 50w and top lighting of 250w - 13-18oz have been achieved in a 2x2 with only 20% more light filling the gaps that the top can't reach. Nearly double of what I see normally achievable(50-75g per sqft)"
That's superb. If you are at liberty to discuss the details, that would be really good reading.

I have a spare light - a Mars SP 3000 - that I'd like to put to work but I can only access the front and one end. I do have a little Viper Spectra XS -1500 that I call my sidecar light. It's being used to feed two branches that kept falling out of the tent. It's running at 100 watts (500-700'ish µmols) so, at 30¢ per KwH (I'm guessing) that light would use about $60 of electricity (100 watts @ 18/day for 110 days). Retail cannabis runs $50 to $85 an eight here in SoCal so I figure I'm ahead of the game.


IMG_7283.jpeg
 
I've seen other postings where you publish those numbers and I'm surprised at how low the values are. There's no arguing with success.

"I'm in a group that has been testing grow cabinets and with side lighting of 50w and top lighting of 250w - 13-18oz have been achieved in a 2x2 with only 20% more light filling the gaps that the top can't reach. Nearly double of what I see normally achievable(50-75g per sqft)"
That's superb. If you are at liberty to discuss the details, that would be really good reading.

I have a spare light - a Mars SP 3000 - that I'd like to put to work but I can only access the front and one end. I do have a little Viper Spectra XS -1500 that I call my sidecar light. It's being used to feed two branches that kept falling out of the tent. It's running at 100 watts (500-700'ish µmols) so, at 30¢ per KwH (I'm guessing) that light would use about $60 of electricity (100 watts @ 18/day for 110 days). Retail cannabis runs $50 to $85 an eight here in SoCal so I figure I'm ahead of the game.


View attachment 1480105

There was a podcast by the head grower of OutCo a few years ago where she stated the upper limit of cannabis was 1200ppfd with c02 on a 12/12 cycle. I vibed with that finding and it matched what a few others said.

When I was finally able to work commercially, I witnessed how excess levels impacted every phase of growth. YMMV from cultivar to cultivar but not in the traditional sense that a "sativa" or "indica" will have significantly different needs.

It's the BLOOM cabinets from Botanicare. You'd have to dig through the forums yourself over there but their results parallel what my friend in AU said about side lighting. He claims a 15%+ increase in yield using side lighting but they were hitting nearly 100%. BLOOM uses spore bags for increased c02 but I find that dubious as their extraction system pulls too frequently to maintain high levels of c02 that can't even be controlled.
 
No, at least not in my experience. 1ft tall mother plant vs a 6ft tall plant still benefits from the same DLI. All the biomass deemed non productive, weak/thin branches get removed in veg and flower. In my previous example, light saturation occurred at just over 25 DLI with 800ppms of c02 despite it being a room full of 6-8ft tall plants.
think the only solution where "more" light would be a benefit in a large plant is by adding 20% more lighting to the sides of a plant - 480w+100w of side lighting that focuses on the areas where the light cannot penetrate as well from above.

I'm in a group that has been testing grow cabinets and with side lighting of 50w and top lighting of 250w - 13-18oz have been achieved in a 2x2 with only 20% more light filling the gaps that the top can't reach. Nearly double of what I see normally achievable(50-75g per sqft)
But by adding more light (via sidelights or intracanopy lights) into a given area you don't increase the DLI?
But arrive at a significant higher harvest?

I've came over many different Light-Saturation Points for Cannabis from 780-1500 (or even 1800 IIRC) but I'm not sure it touches on the physiological needs a plant has for its demand in sugar. I mean you could measure high photosynthesis rates at an individual leaf on a 2 weeks old plant. But it would be too much to give that amount of ppfd for 18h straight, isn't it?
 
But by adding more light (via sidelights or intracanopy lights) into a given area you don't increase the DLI?
But arrive at a significant higher harvest?

I've came over many different Light-Saturation Points for Cannabis from 780-1500 (or even 1800 IIRC) but I'm not sure it touches on the physiological needs a plant has for its demand in sugar. I mean you could measure high photosynthesis rates at an individual leaf on a 2 weeks old plant. But it would be too much to give that amount of ppfd for 18h straight, isn't it?

How much of a 4x4x4 plant do you imagine is getting even and consistent lighting from the top? How deeply into the canopy? How about the sides? I consider it fill lighting that hits areas that are sub ideal levels of ppfd.

Explain that second point more please
 
Explain that second point more please
It's my impression the science behind DLI is based on plant physiological mechanisms that grossly reflect its need for sugar. That is, the max photosynthesis rate isn't even aimed at with 150-400ppfd in early veg. Once plant is saturated in sugar, its interest in doing photosynthesis drops. Otherwise you could just throw a max ppfd = LSP at it and its growth would be way better. But that is not what DLI advises.

It seems intuitive that as the plant gets bigger it will need more light to sustain that growthrate and expand in all directions. There's studies showing that subcanopy-lighting is effective, diffuse-light is effective as it reaches deeper, and altogether higher ppfd create more biomass even when the tops bleach but the gain for the middle structures may offset that.

So it seems that at some point the DLI metric, that just takes top canopy ppfd and area into consideration, is insufficient to deliver all the maximum needed light. Yet it recognizes this mechanism with little or small plant but fails with the opposite extreme.
It is this correlation of 'plantmass - daily sugar needed' where I'm trying to find informations.

Usually plant growth is exponential, not linear - as each daily growth allows for more growth every day. But a growlight in a tent just releases the same amount of light each second. Over time there is a mismatch between the needs & the offer. Thus, wattage should increase continously the more the plant grows bigger.

Space may be limiting to the sides but still it will grow vertically. Now the preferred method is to just remove the lower underdeveloped parts thereby shrinking the need for more energy. This can sometimes take on absurd forms, where what is gained at the top is removed from below so there is zero further acquisition of biomass. Though paying electricity day by day "to achieve" this.
But putting light there, if possible, will generate more mass.

Here, DLI fails, it misses out on an important relationship.
 
My experiences with side lighting was a doubling of the harvest. BUT that was in a tent with just one plant so it was easy enough for me to accomplish. My usual route is to use a Samsung Sunboard that I cut down in half or thirds depending on what I am trying to accomplish.
IMG_20220122_185808_kindlephoto-1511950566.jpg
It truly is amazing to see the lower buds grow to nearly match the size of buds close to the top of the plant.

I helped a friend with his grow(photos) and added 4 Sunboards and a driver into his 4x8 tent and his plants also exploded with bud growth.
 
Last edited:
It's my impression the science behind DLI is based on plant physiological mechanisms that grossly reflect its need for sugar. That is, the max photosynthesis rate isn't even aimed at with 150-400ppfd in early veg. Once plant is saturated in sugar, its interest in doing photosynthesis drops. Otherwise you could just throw a max ppfd = LSP at it and its growth would be way better. But that is not what DLI advises.

It seems intuitive that as the plant gets bigger it will need more light to sustain that growthrate and expand in all directions. There's studies showing that subcanopy-lighting is effective, diffuse-light is effective as it reaches deeper, and altogether higher ppfd create more biomass even when the tops bleach but the gain for the middle structures may offset that.

So it seems that at some point the DLI metric, that just takes top canopy ppfd and area into consideration, is insufficient to deliver all the maximum needed light. Yet it recognizes this mechanism with little or small plant but fails with the opposite extreme.
It is this correlation of 'plantmass - daily sugar needed' where I'm trying to find informations.

Usually plant growth is exponential, not linear - as each daily growth allows for more growth every day. But a growlight in a tent just releases the same amount of light each second. Over time there is a mismatch between the needs & the offer. Thus, wattage should increase continously the more the plant grows bigger.

Space may be limiting to the sides but still it will grow vertically. Now the preferred method is to just remove the lower underdeveloped parts thereby shrinking the need for more energy. This can sometimes take on absurd forms, where what is gained at the top is removed from below so there is zero further acquisition of biomass. Though paying electricity day by day "to achieve" this.
But putting light there, if possible, will generate more mass.

Here, DLI fails, it misses out on an important relationship.


I shared that link on photosynthesis because it spoke about the relationship of sugars and how light interacts with the pigments. They can only take in so much energy before sharing it with other pigments.

I think of trees, they receive light in an arcing pattern for years but at some point they only get so tall, only produce so much biomass. Why don't they continue to get larger in every way even after 100's of years?

Imo, we're still dealing with diminishing returns. Give a plant an even ppfd above, side, and intra - you aren't increasing the DLI perse but evening it out across the entire plant. What we're accustomed to seeing is a certain amount of DLI being beneficial for biomass from the top but as I previously stated, no form of lighting fully penetrates with weakness at the sides and diminishing strength the further the distance from the light.

I don't believe that a 3m plant in flower needs more than 50~ DLI with c02 compared to a plant that is 1m in the same environment - rather they would both benefit from the same amount because they can only take in so much. You can't force feed light, at some point the leaves through heliotropism are going to why away because more isn't necessary. Only so much ATP will be produced, only so much sugar, etc.

In a tent, the DLI metrics will still apply. By the time flower occurs, a grower should have adjusted their light to reach the desired ppfd values that would satisfy the growth phase.

I don't think DLI is incorrect in this especially since these standards have been established in other plants even before cannabis.

I still think we're playing with diminishing returns. A human body will only take in so much to build so much despite the fact that our cells are constantly dying. Plants only need so much sugar, hormones, etc. and with the symbiosis of microbes and the rhizosphere, we're dealing with intelligent organism that can communicate/regulate/move.
 
@Death The Cultivator @Delps8

I originally wrote this for the owner of my last commercial farm, and it was shared with a scientist from the University of California, Berkeley who also reviewed it, then shared out in multiple cannabis groups I moderate/admin for to get some ideas and feedback on (which the copy-and-paste here is more of an adaptation from where it went to the growers.)

The idea behind this wasn't to say "hey look at the guide I personally wrote," but instead "hey, there is a lot of information generally accepted to be true and here's the science behind the suggestions."

Would you guys be willing to look through this and see if you have anything to add/offer/critique to help make it more clear, or perhaps if some statements are too rigid, ways to properly explain without seeming too biased?

It's missing information about spectrum and individual effects, and I purposely didn't include some of the updated rhetoric from Bugbee (trying to have a better grasp myself.)

---------------------------------------


Good morning growers!

Let's talk LIGHTING!

PAR, PPFD, DLI (oh my!)


I want to talk to you about some of the most important aspects of lighting, whether it's the sun or a grow light, and that is intensity (how many actual photons are hitting the plant over a period of time) and spectrum (the electromagnetic wavelengths of light produced by a light source to promote plant growth.)

In cultivation, this is defined by PAR light.

PAR (which stands for Photosynthetically Active Radiation) is light of wavelengths 400-700 nm and is the portion of the light spectrum utilized by plants for photosynthesis.

1656772521493.png


We quantify (or to put in a measurable form) PAR light using PPFD (Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density), which is defined as the photon flux density of PAR.

PPFD is measured in micro-mols per second (umol/m^2/s ), indicating how many photons in this spectral range fall on the plant each second.

You've likely seen maps of PPFD on descriptions of grow lights. These are generally square diagrams showing PPFD calculations of the light at different fixed heights (like 12" over the canopy, 24" over the canopy, etc) over an area (like 2 foot x 2 foot, 4 foot x 4 foot, etc.) These are very important, because it helps show the area of intensity coverage of your grow light. Many traditional grow lights are very intense in the center and tend to lose intensity towards the edges (much of this is in the design of the individual light.) This helps us plan our canopy space (and to make sure our plants on the edge of our space aren't being under lit.)

DLI (which stands for Daily Light Integral,) is by definition the number of photosynthetically active photons (individual particles of light in the 400-700 nm range) that are delivered to a specific area over a 24-hour period.

Instead of sticking to the old "status quo" of 18/6, 20/4, or 24/0 (traditional lighting schedules for autoflowers, or keeping photos in veg,) DLI can help us make more calculated determinations for how much light to shoot for in a 24 hour period.

There are some generally recommended guidelines for how much light intensity cannabis plants should have for optimal growth in different stages of their life (you will see some variation between these recommendations depending on the source, but they are generally very similar.)

IN SEEDLING, 100 TO 300 PPFD (6 TO 19 DLI)
IN CUTTINGS (CLONES,) 75-150 PPFD (5 TO 10 DLI)
IN VEGETATIVE, 300-600 PPFD (19 DLI TO 39 DLI)
IN FLOWER, 600+ PPFD (26+ DLI MINIMUM)


Cannabis in different from typical greenhouse plants in how it thrives under high-intensity light. It's one of the few plants which flourishes growth in full bloom with more than 900 to 1200 PPFD (38 to 52 DLI.)

However, as light intensity (PPFD) increases, photosynthetic rates also increase until a saturation point is reached. Every plant species has a light saturation point where photosynthetic levels plateau. Light saturation normally occurs when some other factor (normally CO2) is limited.

I've included a chart in the attached images that was produced by the engineers from Fluence Bioengineering, a very reputable lighting company in the cannabis industry, from their guide on Photobiology showing the percentage of relative photosynthesis based on average atmospheric CO2 levels in the air (around 400 ppm.) Photosynthesis plateaus in efficiency around 500 PPFD.

1656772766091.png


So without augmenting the CO2 levels in your grow environment, photosynthesis reaches a plateau at a certain light intensity threshold. This gives us a guideline for determining how much light is simply "too much light" based on the environment, as well as "how much is not enough." There is literally a point where you're just pushing photons against a plant that can withstand them, but not utilize them.

It's important to note that if temperature, humidity, CO2, nutrients, or even the moisture level of the grow medium are outside the optimum range for cannabis, these attribute to the limitations of photosynthesis.

OUTDOOR & GREENHOUSE LIGHTING

For outdoor growers, Jim Faust, a professor of Floriculture from Clemson University in South Carolina, developed a well known DLI map of the United States showing average DLI for every month of the year, which greenhouse and outdoor growers use as a guideline.

1656772549601.png


As an example outdoors (living in Colorado,) in the month of January we averaged around 15-20 DLI from the sun. By comparison, in June we'll see around 50-55 DLI average (which is the most light intense month of the year in the state.) Please note that these are outdoor values for DLI; there is light transmission loss between the the outdoor and indoors from the barriers the greenhouse material creates (which can be calculated.)

So in the winter months here, we're providing only about 1/3 of the actual light intensity the plants would normally receive during the summer months by relying on the sun only (which is why our plants get so much bigger in the summer vs winter months without supplemental lighting.)

This is also in part due to there being less light hours available during the day until winter solstice (the shortest day of the year in December.) In Denver in the month of January, the sunrise occurred around 7:20 am and will set around 4:53 pm. That's a total of 9 hours 33 minutes of lighting. Complicating matters further, during this period of lighting there are only around 4-5 hours of actual intense light (higher PPFD) that support optimal photosynthesis (intensity drops off rapidly in the afternoon until dusk.)

Conversely in the summer time (using June as our example,) the sun rises around 5:30 am and sets around 8:20 pm. That gives 14-15 hours of actual day lighting per day.

In august, the daylight hours drops to about 14, then 13 in September, to 12 hours in October (which helps correlate how photoperiods flower outdoor in our season.)

Photoperiod versus Autoflower

Photoperiods are considered a short-day flowering plant.

Photoperiodism is the physiological reaction of organisms to the length of night or a dark period. Photoperiod cannabis doesn't flower in response to the amount of light receives, but rather the amount of darkness it receives. So the amount of daylight hours versus darkness photoperiods receive, whether artificial or natural, is absolutely critical.

Autoflowers are considered day-neutral flowering plants.

Day-neutral plants do not depend upon the amount of darkness or daylight hours, but instead flower out as a response to aging. As the plant matures, it begins to bloom. While genetics have the most influence on the timing of this, stress and environmental factors can have an impact on this mechanism.

Within these plants, there exists a further division that puts some plants into qualitative and quantitative groups that require specific conditions to perform certain biological tasks, or will still carry out tasks, but sub optimally until conditions are met.

Whether it's a photoperiod or autoflower, the type and quality of light you're giving the plant is very important during different stages of growth. I hope this helps explain things when you're looking at or considering grow lights, or maybe helps understand your own existing setups better!

Appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top