Fast Buds Is this the biggest Chemdawg ever?

[DoobieGrows]

So I got forced into a semi super crop bend kinda deal. When I lifted the plant back up after it fell the fawk over. The top cola was touching the led. So I gently squeezed the stem were it was bendy and not stiff and I didn't really crush it or here a pop or anything I just gently massaged it and bent it over. Then I tied it off with a plant tie . I hope it doesn't mess it up too much. The plant looks horrible to me. It went downhill so fast. Hopefully it will recover and still yield something big. Also I put a piece of tape on the spot were it bent is that ok?

 

[Delps8]

Yea I wanted to do some lst but since it was my first time I was hesitant. Now it is way to late. Next grow I am definitely going to train them. I don't really care for these big bushy plants. The GG4 I got going Next to the Chemdawg is so easy to manage I didn't have to remove a single fan leaf. The plant is almost too perfect lol. But the Chemdawg and Hubba/ livers they needed alot of defoliation.

Got a laugh out of the first sentence - it's almost word for word how thing went for me in my first grow! Welcome to the club.
I did top mine but just didn't totally dropped the ball on the LST piece. Soil growers have lot of options for the different LST techniques. Check out the "How to" threads and find something that works for you.
I've done two GG grows. Great strain. In fact, I started growing (2017) because my eternal fiancee smoked it when she visited her brother in Colorado. She raved about so much and weed is at least $300 per ounce here in CA so I figured I"ve never grown anything before, why not try it?!

That makes sense with the Rspec and the stretching. I didn't even think about with so much going on. I can't afford another Hlg light or any light atm. I found a few other sources but I didn't feel like listing all that. All you have to do is Google what ppfd for Autoflowers and you will see a few different options

HLG makes the B spec but, IIRC, it's in the same price range as the R spec. One grow here on AFN, a moderator, uses the a Chilled Growcraft X3 which is a red-heavy light light the R spec. His solution is to run a Rapid LED Royal Blue puck with the X3. I used a puck for veg, in concert with a Mars SP 3000, and I think it helped. The LED + the lens + the mount will run about $50 so it's not a capital expense.

One thing about your HLG - unless hang height is really high, there's a "hot spot" in the middle. That's what your apical cola is reacting to now. However, if you top your plant, you remove the apical cola and the secondary branches grow taller. All well and good.

Where topping really works out in this situation is that topping the plant means that the plant will have a "hole" in the center of the plant canopy because you're removed the apical cola. That makes it much easier to get uniform light levels across the entire canopy.

 

[Delps8]

I just opened up my tent and the big plant fell over at some point and was crushing my gg4 smh. Idk why it fell over I guess it just got top heavy. I had to use plant ties to secure it to the corner tent poll. This sux. Every time I think I got this on cruise control something happens...I would have took a picture bit I just acted and picked her up.

I'm trying to find a problem having top heavy ladies…

I use a red heavy light (a Growcraft X3) and it tends to produce tall plants. The colas get so heavy that branches were falling over. I made the wrong decision to not set up a trellis so the only thing I could do was tie the colas to the cross pieces that hold up the tent. It looked weird but it did the job. Subsequent to that, I learned about "light yoyo's". They're inexpensive and work really well.

 

[DoobieGrows]

I'm trying to find a problem having top heavy ladies…

I use a red heavy light (a Growcraft X3) and it tends to produce tall plants. The colas get so heavy that branches were falling over. I made the wrong decision to not set up a trellis so the only thing I could do was tie the colas to the cross pieces that hold up the tent. It looked weird but it did the job. Subsequent to that, I learned about "light yoyo's". They're inexpensive and work really well.

Yea I hade to secure the gg with plant ties the buds are so heavy the branches were falling over. Thanks for taking the time to write these well thought out replies, I really appreciate it.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

 

[DoobieGrows]

Feed me Seymour!

 

[DoobieGrows]

I had a stoner moment the other day I couldn't think of my sources for auto ppfd range. I got my info from Shane at Migro, Dr Mj Coco on Coco for Cannabis and the Fastbuds website. They all say pretty much the same thing. I think Shane said you can give 800 with autos on some cultivars.

 

[Delps8]

I had a stoner moment the other day I couldn't think of my sources for auto ppfd range. I got my info from Shane at Migro, Dr Mj Coco on Coco for Cannabis and the Fastbuds website. They all say pretty much the same thing. I think Shane said you can give 800 with autos on some cultivars.

I just caught his "How much grow light do you need? Grow tent size | number of plants | yield per watt" and there's some good info.

I copied the text from the transcript and reformatted it a bit. Here's one place where he mentions autos:

14:41 um etc etc so trying to
14:44 uh
14:45 target the grow light size to give you
14:48 the optimum setup
14:51 for your growth space
14:52 uh by default
14:54 now this
14:55 you'd be argued that the 800 micro miles
14:57 is a little bit too high for autoflowers
15:00 because you have the lights on all day
15:02 they're getting this intensity right
15:04 through a long day
15:05 um
15:06 and
15:07 you could argue that you need reduced so
15:09 down to around five or six hundred
15:11 micromoles or less wattage for area
15:14 um
15:15 but i think if you're buying a light
15:17 that you want the capacity to do
15:18 anything that hits you so what you're
15:20 doing photos or autos so this is what
15:22 i'd recommend in terms of wattage
15:25 grow light wattage


A PPFD of 800 @ 18 is 38 mols which, to me, is very low. On the other hand, his recommendation for a light fixture for a 2' x 4' tent is something like 240 watts whereas I'm a 320 watt light that Chilled recommends for a 2' x 4' space.

What did shed some light on Shane's recommendations were his anticipated yield values. I think where he's going is that if you provide his recommended levels of light and grow tent space, those are the rough ranges of yield that you should reasonably expect to get. Can't knock that approach.

 

[Delps8]

I had a stoner moment the other day I couldn't think of my sources for auto ppfd range. I got my info from Shane at Migro, Dr Mj Coco on Coco for Cannabis and the Fastbuds website. They all say pretty much the same thing. I think Shane said you can give 800 with autos on some cultivars.

I was thinking about the…friction that popped up between us and I've got an idea about how it came about. One is that I can be an obnoxious prick and I try to be very careful with my words. That's personality, work history (Army officer then programmer), and training but the bottom line is that I didn't "consider the audience". Mea culpa for that.

Perhaps the crux of the issue is "research". Reading pages on the internet and watching YouTubes can be considered "researcH" but what Shane is saying is not research. He's making recommendations and the recommendations that he makes are based on an unknowable set of factors. Given that, my perspective, is to accept that every recommendation you will come across is biased. I realize that to be inherent in human the human condition and that's why my preference for decision making is research rather than recommendations.

A couple of points - the folks at growlightmeter.com have improved their site quite a bit. I appreciate you sending that link re. autos. The last time I was in touch with the programmer, I asked him about the "new" graphic - the one that's there now - and told him that it was geared for photos but asked if he had a recommendation for autos. His answer was 45 mols across the board. When I asked if he had references for that, he said it was only the footnotes that were listed on the site.

OK, that's not research. He's passing along what it often bandied about in the industry and it cannot be cited as a hard fact because there is no research that can substantiate a claim that more than 38 mols is harmful. Will things work out really well eat 38? Absolutely. People have grown a lot of weed at 38 or 45 mols. There's no arguing that.

My take - show me the data! Below is a graphic from yet another Bugbee video. That's very powerful to me. In addition to showing yield, it answers a question that I had about flower vs the rest of "inflorescence". Specifically, "Harvest index" being the ratio of flower to inflorescence and that's a valuable metric re. crop quality. And is has pictures of colas that illustrate the how they tend to change as light levels vary. That info is data, not opinion.

Shane is not going to disagree with this study, which is just one of many sets of published research, but it's perfectly understandable that Shane will make a recommendation to grow cannabis at 38 mols because, per above, you can grow a shitton of weed at 38 mols - growers prove it every day - and, at that level, you have essentially a zero chance of having a problem.

On the other hand, I have incorporated data such as shown below and have jumped on the "high light" train. A mistake that I made was twisting your arm too hard in trying to get you on board. Sorry about that, amigo.

 

[DoobieGrows]

I was thinking about the…friction that popped up between us and I've got an idea about how it came about. One is that I can be an obnoxious prick and I try to be very careful with my words. That's personality, work history (Army officer then programmer), and training but the bottom line is that I didn't "consider the audience". Mea culpa for that.

Perhaps the crux of the issue is "research". Reading pages on the internet and watching YouTubes can be considered "researcH" but what Shane is saying is not research. He's making recommendations and the recommendations that he makes are based on an unknowable set of factors. Given that, my perspective, is to accept that every recommendation you will come across is biased. I realize that to be inherent in human the human condition and that's why my preference for decision making is research rather than recommendations.

A couple of points - the folks at growlightmeter.com have improved their site quite a bit. I appreciate you sending that link re. autos. The last time I was in touch with the programmer, I asked him about the "new" graphic - the one that's there now - and told him that it was geared for photos but asked if he had a recommendation for autos. His answer was 45 mols across the board. When I asked if he had references for that, he said it was only the footnotes that were listed on the site.

OK, that's not research. He's passing along what it often bandied about in the industry and it cannot be cited as a hard fact because there is no research that can substantiate a claim that more than 38 mols is harmful. Will things work out really well eat 38? Absolutely. People have grown a lot of weed at 38 or 45 mols. There's no arguing that.

My take - show me the data! Below is a graphic from yet another Bugbee video. That's very powerful to me. In addition to showing yield, it answers a question that I had about flower vs the rest of "inflorescence". Specifically, "Harvest index" being the ratio of flower to inflorescence and that's a valuable metric re. crop quality. And is has pictures of colas that illustrate the how they tend to change as light levels vary. That info is data, not opinion.

Shane is not going to disagree with this study, which is just one of many sets of published research, but it's perfectly understandable that Shane will make a recommendation to grow cannabis at 38 mols because, per above, you can grow a shitton of weed at 38 mols - growers prove it every day - and, at that level, you have essentially a zero chance of having a problem.

On the other hand, I have incorporated data such as shown below and have jumped on the "high light" train. A mistake that I made was twisting your arm too hard in trying to get you on board. Sorry about that, amigo.


View attachment 1508736

Bro it's all good I take everything with a grain of salt anyway. We're good now my Growmie. Thanks for the intricate response and the data to back it up. I am just a lil to lazy to do that sort of stuff. But I really enjoy your posts and comments. Cheers 420