-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
How the Big Boys Roll
- Thread starter mofeta
- Start date
Mia
Active member
What a strange statement.
If you notice, the second post in this thread I stated what you just repeated-that is, that Gw says in their manual that they handwater.
Mrwags strongly felt that they were ebb nflowin.
Hence my response.
Apparently normal discourse is alien to your underhanded method of conversation.
Mia
Active member
I don't think you were implying that at all.
I appreciate the honesty.
I was just trying to reconcile the discrepancy.
Good day to you as well
I don't think you were implying that at all.
I appreciate the honesty.
I was just trying to reconcile the discrepancy.
Good day to you as well
MIA you and I got it and had a nice friendly response to each others question. May it serve as a way to get answers without the needed banter.
Also if needed I furthered my point by saying it does not matter how they are watered since most will never have anything close and that was one hell of an operation plain and simple.
Good Point
Mr.Wags
That is what I have observed myself, too. Decreasing W/M² increases yield/Wattage but yields lower potency flowers AND more airy/leafy/stemmy flowers. I think that's a 2-fold decrease in potency - there's less crystal density on the calyxes and the smaller ratio of calyx to leaves/stems further decreases the total THC content of a bud.
I started adding 1 to 1 when I saw a friend growing stretchy big-ass plants and getting near the same yields with his 250W HPS. I have a 400W HPS. On paper, he was the better grower. When we compared bud density and potency/taste, the results were different.
It soon becomes apparent that G/W figures are worthless to compare if you can't compare the bud quality.
I started adding 1 to 1 when I saw a friend growing stretchy big-ass plants and getting near the same yields with his 250W HPS. I have a 400W HPS. On paper, he was the better grower. When we compared bud density and potency/taste, the results were different.
It soon becomes apparent that G/W figures are worthless to compare if you can't compare the bud quality.
there making an extract, with specificity bred plants for that purpose.
I think they use some sort of measurement of total cannabinoid by sq meter; i'm sure there is something to light intensity with that, but not to many growers are striving to do something similar as such.
I think they use some sort of measurement of total cannabinoid by sq meter; i'm sure there is something to light intensity with that, but not to many growers are striving to do something similar as such.
i wonder how the terpene contents differ with the different light intensities.
I agree with some of it, that sometimes you do get better yields with smaller lights, but its only comparing light from one reflection point. How optimized are the hoods for the lights etc?
Guess I should say that smaller lights are more efficient. So 4 250's would generally outperform 1 1k in a similar setup/comparison i would gather. Larger lights, mean more intensity but also cover more space.
I agree with some of it, that sometimes you do get better yields with smaller lights, but its only comparing light from one reflection point. How optimized are the hoods for the lights etc?
Guess I should say that smaller lights are more efficient. So 4 250's would generally outperform 1 1k in a similar setup/comparison i would gather. Larger lights, mean more intensity but also cover more space.
E
elmanito
knna
Member
All depends of your priorities and situation. If your priority is keeping costs as low as possible, and there is no space restrictions, using the lowest light intensity worth. Provided you are going to use a given wattage, if you spread it along a larger space you get higher total yield than using same wattage on a smaller space (given you manage to distribute it well). That is the concept which uses hoods as the adjust a wings.
On the other hand, if you are restricted on the grow area, using higher light density worths, as it increases yield for a given space.
If you consider all the costs of growing, using higher light density wont raise total cost significantly, but increases your yield.
Say you have a given setup using 270W/m2. Raising it to a light density of 400W/m2 means an increase of 130W/m2, that in 8 weeks of blooming at 12/12 (672h) are 87.36 KWh of increased electrical bill. Expected yield increase following study results is 75g of dry bud more, about 2 1/2 oz. The electrical cost would be, at for example 15 cent/KWh, 13.1$, about 5.25$/oz. Difficult to say using that increased light density dont worth.
Same happen for going from 400 to 600W/m2, but profit is lower, as the increase in yield in this scenario is smaller, 47g (>1 1/2 oz) for a larger increase in comsuption (200W/m2). But analyzing by cost, its 134.4 KWh, 20.16$ at 0.15$/KWh, or 12.8$ each aditional oz. Not a bad deal either.
The study found percentage of THC of either buds or leaves was constant, independent of light density used. What changed was the ratio of bud to leaves. While leaves mass was almost the same on the 3 treatments, bud weight increases as light increases. The jump from 270W/m2 to 400W/m2, the most significant, was from 1.93 to 2,28 (2.36 for 600W/m2).
Nothing we didnt know previously, but it is nice to see it confirmed on a controlled study. Rarely worths using irradiances below 500 micromols of photons per second in flowering per square meter. And using 800, up to 1000, serves to get the max of a given grow space, without raising electrical cost excessively, at least of the lighting itself.
E
elmanito
In Holland there was another company which had a license to grow legal for the pharmacies, but after they become critical against the medical marijuana office on the TV their license was not renewed.
Their critics was that only varieties was grown with THC without CBD.
Namaste
Their critics was that only varieties was grown with THC without CBD.
Namaste
In Holland there was another company which had a license to grow legal for the pharmacies, but after they become critical against the medical marijuana office on the TV their license was not renewed.
Their critics was that only varieties was grown with THC without CBD.
Namaste
Are you talking about Bedrocan BV? I thought all their stuff was indoor growrooms.
i recently watched a documetary with a part about these guys and the tables can be rolled apart to create a walk way. the guy turns some wheel and the table opens up one walk way and closes up the one that was just open. cool system!
the thing about light intensity etc is interesting, as i have found this is also strain dependent. i have had strains that did better not too close to the lamps, while others, indeed most seem to like being closer. but you do get exceptions.
the thing about light intensity etc is interesting, as i have found this is also strain dependent. i have had strains that did better not too close to the lamps, while others, indeed most seem to like being closer. but you do get exceptions.
i recently watched a documetary with a part about these guys and the tables can be rolled apart to create a walk way. the guy turns some wheel and the table opens up one walk way and closes up the one that was just open. cool system!
the thing about light intensity etc is interesting, as i have found this is also strain dependent. i have had strains that did better not too close to the lamps, while others, indeed most seem to like being closer. but you do get exceptions.
the thing about light intensity etc is interesting, as i have found this is also strain dependent. i have had strains that did better not too close to the lamps, while others, indeed most seem to like being closer. but you do get exceptions.
