Effects of Light Intensity on Plant Growth

Greetings, AFN members, OSP here. I’m a new AFN member moving in from another forum. After sneaking around a number of threads here looking for secret information, I’ve decided to start this thread. I want to evaluate the effects of light intensity on plant growth. More specifically, how lighting can be used to encourage or minimize plant stretch.
In the short time I’ve been a member here I’ve met a number of very knowledgeable growers, and I’m inviting each of you to participate or chime in as you see fit. Since I am new to AFN I’m sure I’ve missed a lot of interested parties. If you are reading this feel free to tag in anyone I’ve missed:
@fettled6 @912GreenSkell @bushmasterar15 @Waira @MedGrower @Son of Hobbes @Nosias @Screwauger @HemiSync @ChroToker @Need4Weed

I've grown photoperiods since forever under High Intensity Discharge (HID) lighting, and stretch has always been a thing to plan for. Several years ago I decided to experiment with an autoflower freebie, and since then I've completed (12) single-plant autoflower grows. To the point that I'm not doing photoperiods anymore. Maybe again one day. I have a Colombian Gold freebie that has brought back memories, but not today.
In the process of migrating from photoperiods to autoflowers, I also began a transition from HID to LED lighting. Over this period I began to see a pattern. With every one of my HID grows, all my autoflowers exhibited healthy stretch. It started quicker than photoperiods, but the overall effect was similar. Low Stress Training (LST) was effective, bud quality was very good and yield was very good to excellent. But with my LED grows, absolutely NONE of my autoflowers stretched. I had complete grows that never exceeded 10” in height.But with LED I can’t help but think much more is possible. Over 44+ years of growing I’ve seen well trained plants out-yield plants with no training every time. So I want the ability to encourage stretch in my plants.
For the sake of other AFN members, I believe the inverse of this stretch phenomena could be very beneficial to growers with a limited amount of grow space headroom. I want to prove or disprove, to some relative degree of certainty, that light intensity can be used to influence stretch when growing cannabis. But first I need to gather data on other growers’ experiences with plant stretch, and its association to light intensity during the plant’s lifecycle.

This is NOT an opinion piece of “is LED better than HID?” LED is certainly different, and in many respects (heat &efficiency) we all know it IS better. And this is NOT an attempt to compare LED lighting brands. There are numerous characteristics of LED lighting that determine light quality, and our most excellent site admin, @Son of Hobbes has started a thread on what parameters can be used to define those. His efforts may be reviewed here: https://www.autoflower.org/threads/what-should-be-on-a-grow-light-review.64857/ I’ve added a few well chosen thoughts on that topic - PAR watts, efficiency, most favored color spectrum, etc.. But I’m not smart enough to make that final differentiation so I’m happy to watch as SOH finishes that. The only facts I intend to present here are those I’ve experienced with my auto grows.

There are a number of other factors besides lighting that affect plant growth. In an effort to keep this thread focused on light intensity with no outside variables, I asked one of AFN’s most experienced members, MedGrower, for his input. His comments, and my follow up confirming those variables were addressed, can be found in his grow thread located at https://www.autoflower.org/threads/...-dwc-hs1-telos-0008.64718/page-2#post-1758834
In consideration to MedGrower, if you have any comments / questions, send them to me or post here. I don’t want to trash his grow thread with my conspiracy theory so I’m asking each of you to please share that consideration with me.

For the sake of this study I’d like to focus on the two main lighting factors that control intensity - light height throughout the grow cycle, and “power” of the light over the grow canopy; i.e. watts per sq.ft.. Light height is an easy factor to define as long as we document the variation during a plant’s growth cycle. Plant canopy area is an easy measure. Power consumption is an easy measure. I know, watts per sq.ft. is not the most meaningful measure of an LED’s efficiency. But until or if we ever reach consensus of an industry standard measure for all lighting types, I am using watts consumed at the wall, per square foot. No matter how much we insist this is not the best method (I agree), wattage consumed per square foot is the only readily available factor across all lighting types. And no matter how much we agree to disagree, it should provide a reasonable enough classification of small / medium / large lighting to support this study.

My light ratings are 62.5W/sq.ft. for HID and 65W.sq.ft. for LED. As to other influences on plant stretch, my grow techniques with HID and LED are as close to identical as one can get for environmental control and nutrient regimen. So enough intro, let’s kick this in the ass as I describe my experiences with autoflowers to date.

My starting system for HID is a 250W cooltube and batwing reflector with a metal halide bulb for veg and a high pressure sodium for bloom. The tent is a 4 sq. ft. system (2' X 2' X 5’3") by Secret Jardin. I configured it with (2) 4” 170CFM centrifugal fans, one for light cooling and the other for odor control through a 12” X 4” Phresh carbon filter). My nutrient regimen is General Hydroponics’ expert recirculating formula with some strength and slight ingredient tweaks. This regimen has not changed between HID and LED grows.
I grow hydroponically, and my system is configured for a single plant in a DIY 4 gallon Ebb ‘n Gro net pot with hydroton clay pebbles. The system floods automatically every two hours for 15 minutes. I call this DIY because I do not rely upon the complex valves and fittings normally associated with commercially available ebb and grow systems. Those systems rely upon multiple pumps, flow control valves and timers opening and closing with each flood cycle to deliver and recover nutrients to/from the plant. A strength of these commercial systems is they enable the reservoir to sit at the same height as the grow containers. Negatives are they are complex and expensive. My system relies upon a passive DIY manifold sitting on top of the reservoir, and the only moving part is an inexpensive and very reliable 170 gph hydro pump. Total ebb n’grow component cost with four net pot buckets was under $100. I bought four net pot buckets to simplify plant positioning changes throughout my grows, and to run parallel grows in separate tents. My DIY manifold does raise system height by the height of the reservoir, but the entire reservoir, tent and plant container system comes in under 7’ tall. It’s a quality system with all the right parts, and it fits in a closet if it has to (mine doesn’t).

I’m going to drift off topic for a moment as I’ve been known to do. I’ve used all types of hydro systems for many years and this is my favorite. It re-oxygenates the root zone after each flood every two hours. Supply to the net pot is positive pressure flow, while draining is passive / gravity, so aggressive root growth is pushed back into the net pot and will never cause a clog in the system’s hydro line. And even if a clog were to somehow mysteriously occur, overflow is not possible due to the design of the manifold. The system is fully automated - I recently took an eight day trip with no worries that the system would stay fully functional until I returned, and it did. A separate reservoir (I use 12 to 14 gallons) from the grow container makes nutrient changes and maintenance simple, and the added capacity gives me plenty of “headroom” in the nutrient mix as the plant drinks.
Here’s a pic of the original HID tent. The manifold is the white bucket to the left outside the tent. The ebb ‘n Gro bucket is slightly out of position on the shelf behind the tent:

IMG
 
I kinda done a comparison grow. Last grow was like 600 wall watts of 6000k and a 485 wall watt blurple kept about 36'' from canopy and never got any stretch. This grow is 80 wall watt 6000k and 350w 3200k cob and stretching like crazy compared to same height just different kelvins

I think the red in the 3200k cobs will induce stretch mate. Or so someone tried to explain to my little brain.
 
There is definitely something foundation about light color regardless of light source. (maybe that is part of the "kinetic" variable I mentioned?)

Genetics obviously are probably the biggest variable and a scientific study would be incredibly expensive/intensive.. lol

I have a sealed growlight OG hood for the 860w CMH.
og1.png


I can add any suitable filter to the glass, I guess that could manipulate plant development! (as a variable to that light system) not sure if applied in parallel there would be merit. (Assuming we are brainstorming, I thing it's worth a look at!)
 
Last edited:
I just read the first paragraph @Olde School Player

I'll take my time reading the rest of this discussion. But I wanted to ask this question right away.

You mention either encourage or minimize stretch with light intensity. Is the ideal amount of stretch something in the middle? I have always thought you want to have some stretch for sure so you can have long colas with lots of buds stacked on them. And the only time you would want to minimize it is if your space is not tall enough. If you have enough height you would want to encourage stretch all the way up right? Why limit it?

Yes, there are two sides to this. Minimizing stretch will be for low headroom grows; look at that last Blue Auto Mazar. That was to an extreme / too much. The buds are quality rock hard, but I fear a lack of stretch from the side branches affected my overall yield. Encouraging stretch all the way into early bloom; then increasing the light intensity to set big fat quality buds, is intended to improve yield, and to some extent improve bud quality. That BAM was so tight that everything under the end colas was pale green / almost white.
 
Thanks for the Rep, I need all the help I can get.

First sign of senility - you forget to zip your pants up.
Second sign of senility - you forget to zip your pants down.
:crying:
 
Hi. Cool thread.
The only thing I'm intelligent enough to even comment on is that you can't possibly use "LED" as a light type. The variation across the different forms of LED lighting is huge, and I personally believe that most of your answers can be found within that variation in LED type: diode wattage, colour, type (cob etc).
I don't think it's the difference between HID and LED, so much as the difference between all the various forms of light.
5w diodes for example. I believe they discourage stretch.
Then look at different colour temp cobs: the same technology or type of light emitter, yet the different spectrum cobs definitely promote or discourage stretch.
Maybe I am just missing something extremely obvious in the thread/disussion or I'm answering the wrong question, but to me you cannot possibly use LED as a light type. Well you can, but it seems meaningless to me.
Hope I don't sound like an arrogant twat because I know sod all basically, but have my own experience and that of others I watch grow.
Cheers :thumbsup:

Thanks for stopping by. I'm coming from a slightly different place than your thoughts, though. "LED" didn't invent light, it just goes about generating it in a different fashion than the sun, or HID, or other technologies. And absolutely, there are tons of variation in LED lighting. However I am of the opinion that much of that is marketing propaganda put forward to sell lights. Not necessarily false, and got no real problem with that. If you are in business you need a good story. But when it comes down to it, Cree and Epistar make the large majority of LED's on the market and the fundamental technology of how that light is made, is the same.

Yes, lens specs can intensify or widen the spread of the light beam, in much the same fashion that HID reflectors attempted to do. And the color of the LED can be changed in an attempt to match what the plant wants. For example, my LED has specs of LED's of 440nm, 630nm & 660 nanometers, combined in an attempt to present a light to the plant in the range of 2700k-3000 degrees kelvin. Then there are the vendors who argue their white (because white is full spectrum containing all colors) lighting is best. Not to EVEN try to get into those that claim infrared and other invisible spectrums add to effectiveness. A
t the end of the grow, it's the plant that decides what it likes.
Yes, all the other factors undoubtedly make minor differences in what they deliver to a plant canopy. But m
y more simplistic approach is that LED technology has not changed what light is or what the plant needs, it simply changes the delivery mechanism.
One factor I do
buy into is LED lens can be focused to increase intensity simply by narrowing the beam of focus.
And to a great extent any grower can accomplish the same thing with any light made by any vendor, simply by lowering or raising the light over the plant canopy.
That's what I'm chasing here.
 
my maths is shit today......i will do my HPS details tmrw if you want them

I appreciate the offer but I'll bet your HID results will mimic mine. All I've ever had to do to get stretch under HID has been to put weed under it!!!
 
Very very intresting ,,,, I doing some square ft grows which I hope too in part make use of this observation ,,, 9 per square ft,, that would make 11x9 for a total square ft of 11 using ave 38 watts per square ft ,,,ille let you know how it's working out ,,,

Thanks, H. Be sure to keep track of the light height throughout the various stages of your grow. That is where I think I'll find the magic, and I expect it to vary based upon power.
 
I kinda done a comparison grow. Last grow was like 600 wall watts of 6000k and a 485 wall watt blurple kept about 36'' from canopy and never got any stretch. This grow is 80 wall watt 6000k and 350w 3200k cob and stretching like crazy compared to same height just different kelvins

Help me understand - the 600 and 485 were together over the same canopy or two separate concurrent grows? And this grow - 80 and 350 - same question.
And what were the square footages of each grow?
 
This is what I was thinking too, but I'm such a newbie I didn't even want to reply to this thread after I read thru OSP's first few posts finally. I just dont have the experience to think about or add much value to this advanced growers topic.

I've read more than once that LED like COB's are way better than the cheap Chinese blurple lights. And therefore with COB (or other improved LED types) you can expect superior penetration and intensity and therefore the grow characteristics will be better. Like you'll get lots of stretch just like with olde school HID lighting. If OSP had started with COB lighting, would he even have started this discussion?

You're not that far off so please stay with us. My understanding of COB's is (a) they are more efficient and (b) can be focused more "intensely" because multiple LED's share the same lens. And smaller wattages by design cover a smaller area, but multiple light sources are more efficient. For example, if you hand a single lamp in the center of a tent, the light must travel further (and lose intensity) to reach the side of the tent. But put four COB's in the same footprint and intensity loss is less to get to the plant, or edge of its coverage area. That's exactly what I'm chasing. A more intense light (by focus or strength) can be expected to either be further away from the canopy to encourage stretch ( the light expands over a wider area thereby weakening the per-sq.ft. strength of coverage). Or it can be maintained closer to the plant canopy to encourage less stretch and more dense growth.
I don't know the science behind some of this - I recall reading somewhere, many years ago, that light intensity drops 50% per foot traveled. That's where multiple light sources totaling same strength will always outperform a single source light.
 

Test

Test
Back
Top