Lighting UNDER CANOPY LIGHTS

[Antonio_DutchPassion]

I think I've seen some people mention that they use it here. I know some have done side lighting.
Logic would only ensue that it would help, but to what degree?
I kept having an under canopy light manufacturer pop up in my IG feed, but it definitely look cheesy to me and had no electrical certifications of any Sort.
I had a different one pop up in my feed the other day and it definitely seems to be a bit more legit.

Page not found - GROW PROS SOLUTIONS

wegrowpros.com

They definitely have some very interesting options for under canopy lighting!
They currently have two 4 foot models available, A full spectrum and an 80% Deep red.
Coming soon are two Models with basically the same spectrums but adjustable and dual channel.

I think it's something interesting to explore. Anybody with any experience doing this or this company, please provide your input.

I'm going to inquire a bit more with the company and to see if I can get any information that could be useful to us here on this forum.

Have you ever ran a simple scrog net? I'm not trying to shit on under canopy lighting; I just think there are ways to maximize your existing lighting without having to purchase additional lights and use extra electricity, when a simple trellis net (that is super cheap) could be be utilized instead?

Even better, combine the two!

I had to make a screenshot of the original picture because it was too big, but anyway, you get the picture.

This is actually an example of a 'lightbox' in a small 1m2 homegrown tent we started testing with almost 8-9 years ago. We've run multiple tests with bottom lights and I must say/admit, they do make a difference! Not only for increasing yield/the quality of the popcorn bud, but also the overall health of your canopy. The best thing in my opinion is the fact that you almost don't loose any more bottom leaves in a SCROG. And that the plants metabolism seems speeded up.

This is actually done with Sanlight lighting, the old S4W's on top, 3 of them, and 2x Flex20 at the bottom, these bottom lights are only 20watts per piece but really help. I would go as much as using 3-4 of them in a 100x100 or 1.20x1.20 (4 X 4).

I've tested several brands during the years, mostly during the time when we ran the LED company/distributor called Crazy Led's & More and after re-branding it to LED by Passion, which was a sister company of DP.

And I can definitely say, they all work, and gram/watt wise I could get the same results at the bottom of the net when not lollypopping/stripping it compared to what we were getting at the top part with the toplights (so between 1-1,5g/watt back then). So yes, definitely added extra value! It depends a bit on your grow style and setup too though, but to keep your plants in a happier place and still get some overall better quality, especially the bottom buds, I would say go for it.

But for this you don't need 150-200 watts as a bottom/interlight. I think 60 to 100 watts in bar form will be more than enough.

 

[WildBill]

Have you ever ran a simple scrog net? I'm not trying to shit on under canopy lighting; I just think there are ways to maximize your existing lighting without having to purchase additional lights and use extra electricity, when a simple trellis net (that is super cheap) could be be utilized instead?

Really, I've only used a net for training and support. I think one of the bigger reasons why I haven't used this style is because I never have the same strain throughout the tent. Today's 4x4 is the first time I've had the same strain throughout the tent.
I've used various methods to get more tops. I think one of the easier and very effective methods that I've used in the past is planting on one end of an Earthbox and just do a simple layover of the plant with no topping. The plants are usually not very tall and the canopy not very deep, so light does penetrate well to most of the buds.

In reality, this is just an experiment in effective production. I'm still going to train and I'm still going to lollipop, just not lolly popping as much as before. That means a little less labor, not that it really means much, we're only talking one tent. And I'm done with small pots in this tent. Fifteen gallons will be the minimum for 4 plants and 20 gallons for two plants. With that large of pots, I'm not worried about the lower buds taking away energy from top bud production.

The fact is, I have several needy Veterans that I give medicine to. My main goal in growing is quality, but a little extra production is always welcomed.

Best of all, it's a another method of growing that can be shown here on the site. It'll be fully documented as normal and people can see the results and see if it fits within their methods of growing. I think that's what we're all about here!

I appreciate your input sir!

 

[WildBill]

Even better, combine the two!

View attachment 1714674
I had to make a screenshot of the original picture because it was too big, but anyway, you get the picture.

This is actually an example of a 'lightbox' in a small 1m2 homegrown tent we started testing with almost 8-9 years ago. We've run multiple tests with bottom lights and I must say/admit, they do make a difference! Not only for increasing yield/the quality of the popcorn bud, but also the overall health of your canopy. The best thing in my opinion is the fact that you almost don't loose any more bottom leaves in a SCROG. And that the plants metabolism seems speeded up.

This is actually done with Sanlight lighting, the old S4W's on top, 3 of them, and 2x Flex20 at the bottom, these bottom lights are only 20watts per piece but really help. I would go as much as using 3-4 of them in a 100x100 or 1.20x1.20 (4 X 4).

I've tested several brands during the years, mostly during the time when we ran the LED company/distributor called Crazy Led's & More and after re-branding it to LED by Passion, which was a sister company of DP.

And I can definitely say, they all work, and gram/watt wise I could get the same results at the bottom of the net when not lollypopping/stripping it compared to what we were getting at the top part with the toplights (so between 1-1,5g/watt back then). So yes, definitely added extra value! It depends a bit on your grow style and setup too though, but to keep your plants in a happier place and still get some overall better quality, especially the bottom buds, I would say go for it.

But for this you don't need 150-200 watts as a bottom/interlight. I think 60 to 100 watts in bar form will be more than enough.

I definitely appreciate the first hand information Antonio!

Yeah I do think the wattage will be a bit of overkill and I will definitely have to ramp it in and play with the meter quite a bit. It's going to be a learning curve. I know it's part of their hype, but they suggest three of these 120 watt lights for a 4 by 4! Now that's pretty crazy!

Like the upcoming run we discussed with the 20 gallon pots. With two reasonably compatible girls, I can use the nets for training and support, since I'm not gonna move around 20 gallon pots, do less lollipoping and hopefully come out with Frosty firm buds throughout the Canopy with an overall increase of production. Like you said, the best of both worlds!

 

[Drownomatic]

I keep thinking back to the old vertical grow cabinets lined with vertical fluorescent bulbs.

Plants sense gravity with their fluid, and grow up, but they also grow towards the light by how the auxins effect growth. I'd think then that under light might tend to produce shorter bushier format.

 

[WildBill]

I keep thinking back to the old vertical grow cabinets lined with vertical fluorescent bulbs.

Plants sense gravity with their fluid, and grow up, but they also grow towards the light by how the auxins effect growth. I'd think then that under light might tend to produce shorter bushier format.

That's also kind of spectrum dependent. I don't think you'll get short squatty plants with this much red.

 

[WildBill]

A representative from fohse.com reply back to me about the fitment of their under canopy light .
He said that it would fit in a 4x4 tent and send a picture, but I don't see how.

It looks like the back of the tent is open to me!

 

[Delps8]

Have you ever ran a simple scrog net? I'm not trying to shit on under canopy lighting; I just think there are ways to maximize your existing lighting without having to purchase additional lights and use extra electricity, when a simple trellis net (that is super cheap) could be be utilized instead?

I think understand your perspective-make the best use of what you've got.

It's much easier and, arguably, more cost effective, just to spend $150, put lighting under the canopy, and pay the higher electric bill.

 

[WildBill]

I have settled on Craft Farmer's set up with the separate dimming power cord. I can run it with an adapter and the AC Infinity controller.

Craft Farmer UNDER CANOPY Lights MAKE YOU A BELIEVER PACKAGE!

LIMIT 1 PER CUSTOMER - This is a lighting package that includes shipping so you can experience firsthand how amazing these lights are! THIS PACKAGE INCLUDES V3 Undercanopy Lights. This limited special package includes the following: 2 - Undercanopy Lights 1 - Daisy chain 1 - Power cord -...

craft-farmer.com

While this is mainly just for quality, I definitely expect a boost in quantity.
It'll be interesting to see what an additional 240 watts can do.
890watts in a 4x4!

At least I won't have to push ppfd figures on the main light to get decent production and meet DLI.​

 

[Son of Hobbes]

I think understand your perspective-make the best use of what you've got.

It's much easier and, arguably, more cost effective, just to spend $150, put lighting under the canopy, and pay the higher electric bill.

How is spending money on something cost effective, versus training (that is free) and getting quite arguably the same results?

Call me a skeptic (because I'm skeptical,) but these grows making these claims would have had amazing harvest without said under canopy lighting. And growers have been attempting this for a long time, this isn't anything new.

 

[WildBill]

How is spending money on something cost effective, versus training (that is free) and getting quite arguably the same results?

Call me a skeptic (because I'm skeptical,) but these grows making these claims would have had amazing harvest without said under canopy lighting. And growers have been attempting this for a long time, this isn't anything new.

I guess we'll see, huh?

I will definitely document exactly what I do and everyone can make their decisions from there. Able to see it themselves first hand and not through some hype sales guy!