Is talking about grams per watts absolutely rediculous?

[FarmerGreen]

Ok, so this is something I have struggled with for a long time now, and I know it's a fairly controversial topic, mainly due to bragging, vagueries and differing opinions, but really, when you talk about grams per watt, surely it should be grams per watt per month/year/whatever.

I'm sure I could grow 1, hell even 2 or 3 grams per watt if I just left it veging for weeks and weeks on end and got a giant plant. But meanwhile the dude who is cranking out multiple .5 grams per watt grows in the same amount of time as my one grow has got more weed at the end of it all.

So a true measurement should be some sort of average like gram/watt/month, or whatever.

And I just stoned and over thinking, or are other peeps thinking this stuff too?

 

[meltybubble]

From my expierance the g per watt helps folk reach for more and lets them dail a strain in etc.
A guide,is light getting wasted,etc.
I see what you mean and it can also be viewed in the same way.
G per watt is for the cycle,ie at the end so longer veg more gpw,
all things considered,food,bulbs,extracton,temps,etc.
So in essence it is for the plants life.

 

[metadoneth]

I think G/W is an excellent way for people to gauge progress with a specific strain or in general... honestly I think Gram/watt/month is getting to the point of rediculous... but that is just me...

Gram per watt is also a great way to see how well you are utilizing your energy consumption. And just becasue you veg long doesnt mean a high GPW average... I know plenty of folks who have very short veg and higher plant #s that get a gram per watt consistently... now take that same space and put half the number of plants and yes you will have to increase plant size and veg time to have the same size canopy and achieve the same GPW average...

 

[jayjayfrank]

GPW is a metric and it is generally used in two ways. the non commerical head stash grower can measure the progress they make in 'dialing' in a strain. the commerical minded people get into a high cost analyst to begin with and are not concerned with a 'general gpw' but gram per killawatt hour(per month even).

while i have only one 600w i think if i have two 600w(in two areas, flip-flop) and grow 600 grams per month with 8 week clones and no veg = 1 gpw. i don't consider my one 600w doing 600 grams to be a 'true 1 gpw' over an 8 week period. i am growing sativas perpetual so i just never considered trying to calculate grams per watt.

container size, veg time, watts per sf, environment and proper nutrition for you genetics. i think a lot of it is bragging and some of it is guys really going hard because you see several metrics but usually vague background info. "3 pounds per light" "1 pound per plant" "8oz from 3 gallons".

cannabis has only been growing indoors for 40 years now. and some guys say outdoor buds ruin the market and can never compare to indoor... but... fields, fields and fuckin fields. i wish i had a greenhouse. smoke hash.

 

[hippydan]

container size, veg time, watts per sf, environment and proper nutrition

This! There was an abstract from a scientific research paper linked to ICMAG a few days ago and they ran 3 side by sides. All identical except wattage. There was a 260w/m2, 400w/m2, and 600w/m2. The 260w/m2 got 1.6g/w. The 600w/m2 only did 0.9g/w. Obviously having evenly distributed light coverage is better than 1 big light in the middle of your grow.

I will still use g/w for myself to track how well or poorly my grows are compared to one another since the most likely thing to change between grows is what strain I'm running.

 

[jayjayfrank]

There was a 260w/m2, 400w/m2, and 600w/m2. The 260w/m2 got 1.6g/w. The 600w/m2 only did 0.9g/w.

at first i was thinking "how can that be!" but it makes sense. its not saying you yield less. 260w x 1.6 gpw = 416g. 600w x 0.9 gpw = 540g. its expressing efficiency.


somewhere is a graph with humidity vs temperature and how depending on each is an optimal zone for growth. wish i could find it, has a name.

 

[Shcrews]

Gpw is a shitty measurement, doesnt account for varying lengths of the veg and flowering cycle.

It makes more sense to measure grams per kilowatt-hours used from start to finish.

 

[meltybubble]

And just becasue you veg long doesnt mean a high GPW average... I know plenty of folks who have very short veg and higher plant #s that get a gram per watt consistently... now take that same space and put half the number of plants and yes you will have to increase plant size and veg time to have the same size canopy and achieve the same GPW average...

Thus a good way to see if your set-up,feeding regime is up to par.

 

[paulo73]

GPW in my opinion is mostly trophy hunter mentality.
Of course that is good to keep track of plant performance in order to maximize our efforts.
Sadly i see GPW being used mostly to sell seeds, nutes and growing gear.
Just a very simple tool to feed any cannabis related hype.

 

[Ground Up]

The second i start keeping track.... I'm doing it for the wronge reason!!

 

[DHF]

Yeah Groundie.....lotta folks grow for different reasons and I feel yas on not caring.....but....

Guys.....GPW`s have to be measured in per cycle , per month , per yr......and....

As Shcrews pointed out , nobody takes into consideration veg times before the flip to 12/12 , as well as how long it takes to finish each individual variety......but....

Production growers run flip rooms a month+/-behind each other in age to insure perpetual harvey`s that equals more crops per month , per yr to achieve said gpw`s without worrying about grams per "kilowatt" hrs used to achieve 1 room`s finished product using the same room to veg and flower in....

My flip rooms ran on and off every 12 hrs 24/7/365 with separate pre-veg , clone , and mom plant cabinets/areas so there was a place for everything and everything in it`s place , in it`s own time frame gettin ready for the next runs without interfering with the bloom rooms.........

When I pulled a room , I had fully rooted , pre-vegged cuts waitin to go back in without missin a stroke the same day.......so.....

Yeah ....folks brag about this and that , but .....bottom line is how committed you are to producing and efficiency , or not.....

Everyone has different goals and limitations , and gpw`s are a good way to measure your efficiency at growin more with less.....and that....raises gpw`s....

Perpetual rule`s the day with flip rooms and production month in and yr out.....Gpw`s are all relative to how far yas take things to worry about finished product on a timely basis where it`s always available and never runs out from the benefits of perpetual setups....

Peace....DHF..........

 

[tgif]

I suppose GPW is a good way of indicating a result per electrical power consumed. But it is subjective from an efficiency perspective, considering variables like the growing conditions, genetics, equipment ..

 

[yortbogey]

too me it'z simple.....Did U yield enuff too cover ALL needs until next harvest.....????
if U answer Yes, then U done good enuff....
if U answer NO, then U HAVE_NOT done good enuff, and better get crAck'ing on improvements of sum sort.....
otherwise U'r just pissing in the wind w/ it blowing back in U'r face.....and chasing other peoples dreams.....

 

[Iron_Lion]

The second i start keeping track.... I'm doing it for the wronge reason!!

This t is stupid, every grower can benefit from knowing how much they are pulling based on the light used. Im sure even the guy running a cfl in a box could benefit from knowing how much he is pulling from grow to grow.


GPW seems pretty good to me, you are either doing really good, mediocre or just plain shitty. If you are pulling X amount per light, per cycle who cares how you got there. If you are pulling high numbers you've got a secret that works well for you. This may not be the best to prove you're over all efficiency but it still tells you if you are doing good or not.

 

[Mr.Fastcast]

I'm more concerned about quality then quantity.Also enough till next harvest.

 

[krest]

somewhere is a graph with humidity vs temperature and how depending on each is an optimal zone for growth. wish i could find it, has a name.

The name of the measurement is VPD (Vapor Pressure Deficit): https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=195058

 

[supermanlives]

if you take into account veg time. alot of people who claim higher yields veg longer.

 

[jayjayfrank]

The name of the measurement is VPD (Vapor Pressure Deficit): https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=195058

thanks!

i was thinking about this graph specifically
http://urbangardenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/VPD.jpg

 

[FarmerGreen]

thanks!

i was thinking about this graph specifically
http://urbangardenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/VPD.jpg

View Image

that is a fantastic chart. I'm totally going to try and stick to that next time round

 

[FarmerGreen]

if you take into account veg time. alot of people who claim higher yields veg longer.

that's why I've always been dubious of GPW.

I'm thinking what will be a more sensible measurement would be kiloWatts per hour per gram. Ie, amount of kWh (or however they write it on your electrical bill) used to get the amount of weed you end up with, divided by that weight. Sounds complex, but its not if you think about it.
That way it takes into account all the veg time and is a true measurement of efficiency.
Then use straight up weight to gauge volume