Lighting Recipes & Usage

[Death The Cultivator]

Dunno mate, your guess may be as good as mine.

FWIW, my approach in future will be to start seedlings on 24/0 until at least a couple sets of real leaves are out, then ramp over to 20/4 for the rest of the grow.

As to spectrum, with my screw ins, all my plants have tended to the squat side when I biased spectrum toward the 5500K bulbs, so I am beginning to think that they need more red early to stretch a bit more. In the last two grows, I have used mostly the 5500K bulbs until flowering, and then for flowering ramped over to mostly 2700K which have a lot more red. In future grows, I may start out ~50/50 of the two spectra, and then finish off with more of the 2700K during flowering. In the last grow, I added UVB bulbs for the last couple weeks. No idea whether it made any difference, but it may have, and there is room for the extra bulbs, so I will continue to add the UV in late flowering unless my information changes. I don't fuss with extra red, the 2700K bulbs have lots of it.

I now have a par meter, so I will be setting up to do DLI somewhere in the neighborhood of 45-60 mols/m2/d

Maybe you can interpret something useful from how I am using my screw ins, maybe not, but good luck with it either way.

I don't think an accurate answer will really be likely without a spectrometer so you can get an accurate spectral distribution reading. It would let you see the CRI so you could adjust your ratios. Sekonic has a few good ones BUT these are 1800+ units. They can be rented but I think you'd have to be a masochist(I must be) to willing drop that much money.

 

[Olderfart]

I don't think an accurate answer will really be likely without a spectrometer so you can get an accurate spectral distribution reading. It would let you see the CRI so you could adjust your ratios. Sekonic has a few good ones BUT these are 1800+ units. They can be rented but I think you'd have to be a masochist(I must be) to willing drop that much money.

Nope, my cheapish PAR meter is my limit in the light measuring department, and even that was likely a bit silly. From here, the plants will advise. Not enough stretch, more 2700K. Too much, more 5500K. Great theory, but we know how those often go.

 

[Death The Cultivator]

Nope, my cheapish PAR meter is my limit in the light measuring department, and even that was likely a bit silly. From here, the plants will advise. Not enough stretch, more 2700K. Too much, more 5500K. Great theory, but we know how those often go.

All that 5500k would be great for some sativas lol

 

[Olderfart]

All that 5500k would be great for some sativas lol

Watch this station next winter.

The cq that I grew last winter was sativa -ish, and it didn’t get tall. Mind you, I topped her. I top them all, pretty much.

 

[Growtogrow]

Dunno mate, your guess may be as good as mine.

FWIW, my approach in future will be to start seedlings on 24/0 until at least a couple sets of real leaves are out, then ramp over to 20/4 for the rest of the grow.

As to spectrum, with my screw ins, all my plants have tended to the squat side when I biased spectrum toward the 5500K bulbs, so I am beginning to think that they need more red early to stretch a bit more. In the last two grows, I have used mostly the 5500K bulbs until flowering, and then for flowering ramped over to mostly 2700K which have a lot more red. In future grows, I may start out ~50/50 of the two spectra, and then finish off with more of the 2700K during flowering. In the last grow, I added UVB bulbs for the last couple weeks. No idea whether it made any difference, but it may have, and there is room for the extra bulbs, so I will continue to add the UV in late flowering unless my information changes. I don't fuss with extra red, the 2700K bulbs have lots of it.

I now have a par meter, so I will be setting up to do DLI somewhere in the neighborhood of 45-60 mols/m2/d

Maybe you can interpret something useful from how I am using my screw ins, maybe not, but good luck with it either way.

Fuzzing is why this thread exist. Obsessing over light is why we're here.

The 32k is a flowering or ( more red ) side of full spectrum. And the 42k or 41k are on the more blue side.
So you're doing exactly the same thing as what I stated except for your using 24 / 0 lighting time.
As where I understand that plants need a rest... at least 4 hours out of 24. I've read many success rates using the 20 / 4 lighting. The plant is seems to be less stressed with larger yields.

But that's why we're here to figure these things out.

But in all reality the only problem is.
Is trying to figure out an auto plant versus a photo clone. Mmmm
An auto comes up from seed every single time and is never the same plant... hardly ever..They may have some of the same characteristics but they're never exactly the same plant.
So tests with auto's... I'm not so sure about how conclusive those could be. And they seem to be unlikely in my opinion to be conclusive... may get better results knowing more about it but as far as to say I can cookie cutter that plant every time by using this recipe. I believe is to be very unlikely.

Unlike a clone from the exact same photo mother. That they can be replicated over and over and over again. Resulting in very many different types of tests that can be done.
Then eventually after many test you'll find the right recipe for a dialed in plant....

 

[Death The Cultivator]

Fuzzing is why this thread exist. Obsessing over light is why we're here.

The 32k is a flowering or ( more red ) side of full spectrum. And the 42k or 41k are on the more blue side.
So you're doing exactly the same thing as what I stated except for your using 24 / 0 lighting time.
As where I understand that plants need a rest... at least 4 hours out of 24. I've read many success rates using the 20 / 4 lighting. The plant is seems to be less stressed with larger yields.

But that's why we're here to figure these things out.

But in all reality the only problem is.
Is trying to figure out an auto plant versus a photo clone. Mmmm
An auto comes up from seed every single time and is never the same plant... hardly ever..They may have some of the same characteristics but they're never exactly the same plant.
So tests with auto's... I'm not so sure about how conclusive those could be. And they seem to be unlikely in my opinion to be conclusive... may get better results knowing more about it but as far as to say I can cookie cutter that plant every time by using this recipe. I believe is to be very unlikely.

Unlike a clone from the exact same photo mother. That they can be replicated over and over and over again. Resulting in very many different types of tests that can be done.
Then eventually after many test you'll find the right recipe for a dialed in plant....

To me it looks like for the most part with an Auto, adjusting the ratio of blue in say a 3000k by a small percentage may mitigate stretch to some degree. As you say, it's going to be a game of reading your plants more than anything.

The real challenge is getting lighting throughout the plant rather than just to the canopy. How much change in photobiology is there between a large plant receiving 600-800umols from top to bottom vs typical methods.

 

[Growtogrow]

To me it looks like for the most part with an Auto, adjusting the ratio of blue in say a 3000k by a small percentage may mitigate stretch to some degree. As you say, it's going to be a game of reading your plants more than anything.

The real challenge is getting lighting throughout the plant rather than just to the canopy. How much change in photobiology is there between a large plant receiving 600-800umols from top to bottom vs typical methods.

Yup something like this set up I did 3 winter ago.

 

[Growtogrow]

I stumbled over this simple light chart and snapped here.

Thought it would be a good base to view light from.
Then all that view this thread are on the same page.

 

[Death The Cultivator]

@Growtogrow

From the GrowlightAustralia company who makes the Highlights with 3.0umols/j, waterproofing, 390-800nm spectrum, etc

Below 390nm appears to be inefficient. There's more to it but I found it impressive and enlightening.

These are the latest results from our ongoing cannabinoid testing into UVA vs UVB light. The most interesting thing is the results are pretty much the same as the other tests we've done: UVA beats UVB

This might surprise some people but this is our third round of testing in two years with 13 different samples and every test we've done so far has shown a small amount of UVA and near-UV (<420nm) for 12 hours a day seems to be more effective at increasing cannabinoids (especially THC) than up to 12 hours of UVB and UVA combined.



This time we tested the same Afghan Skunk variety that we have used in previous tests, however we added a Cheesecake strain to the mix to see if the results would be similar and they were.

Here are the results. It is important to note that the testing facility did not know which strains were which and what had been grown under each lighting system. I will post the lighting setups and explain the samples below.


SAMPLE.........CBDA...........CBD...........CBGa...........CBG...........CBN...........d9THC...........THCa

A..........................................0.13%.............................0.80%...........................5.94%...........19.34%


A1................................................................................0.39%...........................3.47%...........15.38%


A4........................................0.15%.............................1.05%...........................6.28%...........18.58%


C1...............................................................................1.88%........0.10%.........3.32%...........23.88%


C4...............................................................................1.76%........0.98%.........3.45%...........24.12%



A.jpg

A1.jpg

A4.jpg

C1.jpg

C4.jpg
Last edited: Sunday at 6:27 AM
ReplyReport
LikeLoveWow Reactions:Scuzzman, brazzik25, cobshopgrow and 9 others
Grow Lights Australia
Grow Lights Australia
Well-Known Member Rollitup Advertiser
Sunday at 3:23 AM
Add bookmark
#2
Sample A
Afghan Skunk variety grown under a single Grow Lights Australia "High Light 420" board averaging 1000 PPFD. Coco run-to-waste, Canna nutrients. Here is the spectrum.
Speccy.jpg


Sample A1
Afghan Skunk variety grown under four Grow Lights Australia "High Red" boards with 2x Arcadia 6/30% UVB/UVA lamps running 4 hours a day (12/12 cycle) averaging 1000 PPFD. Coco run-to-waste, Canna nutrients. Here is the spectrum.

Please note that UVB does not show up in this spectograph. A spectograph of the Arcadia 6/30% UVB/UVA reptile bulb is posted below this image. Note the 550nm and 400nm peaks – they represent the proportion of light added to the High Red boards by the reptile bulbs.
Screen Shot 2019-06-16 at 21.44.13.png
1619338866013.png


Sample A4
Afghan Skunk variety grown under four Grow Lights Australia "High Light 420" boards averaging 1000 PPFD. Coco run-to-waste, Canna nutrients. Spectrum is same as Sample A.


Sample C1
Cheesecake variety grown under four Grow Lights Australia "High Red" boards with 2x Arcadia 6/30% UVB/UVA lamps running 4 hours a day (12/12 cycle) averaging 1000 PPFD. Coco run-to-waste, Canna nutrients. Spectrum is same as Sample A1.


Sample C4
Cheesecake variety grown under four Grow Lights Australia "High Light 420" boards averaging 1000 PPFD. Coco run-to-waste, Canna nutrients. Spectrum is same as Sample A.

Explanation "A" samples
All "A" samples were the same Afghan Skunk variety.

Sample "A" was grown by @Prawn Connery and was the first test grow for the new High Light 420 boards.

Sample "A4" was grown by another grower using the same techniques (High Light 420 boards, coco run-to-waste, Canna nutrients).

The cannabinoid content of the two samples above was almost identical (26.21% vs 26.05%) which shows just how close the two growers were. This is quite remarkable considering they were grown in different places by different growers at slightly different times.

Sample "A1" was grown by the second grower (who wishes to remain anonymous) and represents the sample grown under the old High Red boards with added reptile bulbs. The cannabinoid count is quite a bit lower (19.24%) and especially hard hit were the THC and CBD levels. In fact there was no recorded CBD in the sample. Remember that this strain is exactly the same Afghan Skunk as the two other "A" samples above.


Explanation "C" samples
These were the Cheescake samples.

Sample C1 was grown by the second grower at the same time as the A1 sample under the High Red plus UVB light souces. This time the cannabinoid count was much closer.

The "C4" sample was also grown by the second grower at the same time as the "A1", "A4" and "C1" samples. It was grown under the new High Light 420 boards with no supplemental light. The 420 boards beat out the UVB sample by a small amount: 29.43% vs 29.19% total cannabinoids.

This is obviously a kick-arse strain that recorded almost 30% cannabinoid levels including 27% THC! The differences in samples are small enough to be in the margin of error, but however you look at it the UVA in the High Light 420 boards not only beat the UVB sample there was certainly no advantage to running UVB.

The last note is to point out that the reptile bulbs also have a small spectrum spike at around 365nm which is a common UVA supplement in LED lighting. However it did not seem to make much difference when compared to the 395nm+ of the High Light 420 board.

All our testing so far has shown that high UVA and near-UV from 395nm-420nm is equal to or better than UVB and UVA <395nm at increasing cannabinoid levels. What's more, high UVA and near-UV are cheaper to produce and potentially less damaging to plants and growers working underneath these lights.

These tests were conducted by an independent lab here in Australia that also conducted our last round of testing here: