Im sorry I just couldnt disagree more. Respectfully, its NEVER about the number of plants when it comes to increasing yield. You can get an equal amount out of one trained plant vs 100 under a single light. Its about canopy space and the density of your canopy. Furthermore, if you expand you canopy, you need adequate lighting, you cant just keep expanding canopy hoping to increase yield. Co2 is a cardinal parameter for growth. When increased it supercharges photosynthesis in a way that is absurd to not utilize for the time/expense. A 30% increase in yield to carry a few tanks around and pay like 15$ for refills. Sending some perforated tubing around a room attached to a regulator is also fairly inexpensive and quick to install. At the end of the day co2 drives photosynthesis second in line to lighting itself. Boosting it is important at all times. It has nothing to do with any given space or limitations. This is why nearly all commercial facilities run by true science increase co2 to 1200ppm or often higher.It really depends. CO2 certainly helps if the limiting factor is space...so it's a maximizing what you have tool, but the effort required to supplement with CO2 correctly and consistently, near sealed room (to do it right), controller, gas generator (best) or tanks (way more effort to refill + cost) etc is often not worth it if you can add additional canopy area with the money instead. So if you're absolutely limited on space and can't expand the size of your cannopy and you've done everything else and there is no other improvement to your grow with everything perfectly dialed...then yeah it's worth it, but personally having done it I don't think it's worth it in situations where additional canopy area can be added instead. Personally if I wasn't yielding enough...I'd just spend the money on a couple of extra plants and save myself the headache of the complexity. This is not to say thats it's not fun to do, sort of unique and interesting as a hobby and you can tell and show your buddies...but in practical financial and effort terms I'd say that no it's not worth it.
They like it when you ash out your bowl onto their soil tooAlong with singing to your plants.
Im sorry I just couldnt disagree more. Respectfully, its NEVER about the number of plants when it comes to increasing yield. You can get an equal amount out of one trained plant vs 100 under a single light. Its about canopy space and the density of your canopy. Furthermore, if you expand you canopy, you need adequate lighting, you cant just keep expanding canopy hoping to increase yield. Co2 is a cardinal parameter for growth. When increased it supercharges photosynthesis in a way that is absurd to not utilize for the time/expense. A 30% increase in yield to carry a few tanks around and pay like 15$ for refills. Sending some perforated tubing around a room attached to a regulator is also fairly inexpensive and quick to install. At the end of the day co2 drives photosynthesis second in line to lighting itself. Boosting it is important at all times. It has nothing to do with any given space or limitations. This is why nearly all commercial facilities run by true science increase co2 to 1200ppm or often higher.
Training will bring you much more benefit than co2, even in the 30% dream scenario. Efficient use of space is everything. Look at Bugbee, he is working commercially, where intensive care isn't given. So he is using 1200ppm to get yields you can do without it.So this is what I decided to add for CO2. The bag said to use for 4'x4' but another guy said it would be enough for 4'x8' too. I might get another bag tomorrow if they still have them. One hydro store was out of them. Does anyone have experience with this product?
View attachment 18873084
Exactly CO2 will mostly simply let you run fewer plants to cover the same canopy area as they will grow larger but you’re unlikely to pull significantly more weight off it as you correctly point out you’re still limited primarily by surface area. Now expand that area by 30% and I guarantee you you will pull extra weight. When they market 30% bigger yield to consumers from co2 enrichment they assume you’re growing one plant in a 10x10 room that winds up yielding 30% more because it’s 30% larger by harvest and doesn’t run up against canopy area limit, but if you fill the room edge to edge with plant canopy you’ve hit a limit and additional CO2 is not going to have near the impact people assume it will in that scenario though it will still have some.Training will bring you much more benefit than co2, even in the 30% dream scenario. Efficient use of space is everything. Look at Bugbee, he is working commercially, where intensive care isn't given. So he is using 1200ppm to get yields you can do without it.
You can cram so much bud in a space without it, that there isn't really room for any more. Big buds need individual buds cutting out their sides, to get air in. Or they just rot. They can only get so big. Making individual christmas tree's in the 80s a poor analogue of what we are doing.
That is bad advice. If I am there in the proximity, then I am making CO2. smoking is bad for plants, you don't want any of it in a grow room.Smoking in the grow room is a good way to add CO2 to the environment
Thanks for your reply.Plenty of people will buy sativa, few people grow it for sale. A hybrid will put out a larger yield in half the time.
Yes about nutrient strength.
yes, photosynthesis and limiting factors. I probably over-fertilized a bit and got brown leaf margins all under fairly intense light. So the plants had the light and nutes really too much. If I would have had CO2 earlier, would the leaves not have burned?The main driver of plant metabolism is light. As you raise light intensity you need to increase nutrient uptake. After a certain point co2 becomes the limiting factor.
In its most basic explanation plants through a quantum mechanical process use photons to turn water and co2 into sugar. As a byproduct oxygen is created. In fact before animal life developed, plant based life increased oxygen levels so high they were toxic.
Yes, but your theory ignores those who are maxed out light-wise. I'm running very efficient Vipar's latest arrays 2x 500watts and the plants are limited by CO2.The money you spent on CO2 refills per year alone could have been spent on adding extra lights and expanding your canopy permanently increasing your production. Which again brings up the fact that unless you're limited by space it's always better to just add a light. The time and hassle swapping tanks and running them to get refilled...well you'll never get that back. In fact I bet you could have added a few lights for the cost of CO2 refills alone and again without the added complexity or CO2 equipment. In 20 years of growing I've always been fascinated by what people think is "worth it"whether is was Cannabis Specific nutrients over generics, sealed glass hoods, fancy controllers....nah bro...exposed vertically hung bulbs with winged reflectors and plenty of airflow is all you ever needed and if what that produced wasn't enough...you just drop another bulb down. As with most grow gear its usually the hydro shop owner that benefits while the grower tries to justify the expense.
It would be interesting to see these leaves. Burnt margins doesn't suggest over feed, as much as it suggests K problems. K problems that co2 will increase, as more co2 doesn't lead to more water use, it decreases water use. In turn, you must increase feed or run harder into deficiencies. Ones regarding water movement like K and Ca quite immediately.yes, photosynthesis and limiting factors. I probably over-fertilized a bit and got brown leaf margins all under fairly intense light. So the plants had the light and nutes really too much. If I would have had CO2 earlier, would the leaves not have burned?
Right now the CO2 was limited theoretically, and mitigated as practically as I could. If I can't use all the lights, I'm going to turn them down until I can has to be the way to go. No sense burning electricity for nothing.
So I will monitor how much the plants respond to this adjustment of CO2 by seeing their water/nute uptake (if it's more). Also, how they respond morphologically by lifting leaves, appearance, and bulk.
This is a natural kind of thing with these mycelium bags, and therefore, somewhat different. Also, you are not seeing the whole grow in that picture as I was just fitting the bag in a central area and moving things around. I also grow sativas as that works for my several medical conditions and those are not the same as running quick clones repeatedly. I believe I found an elegant solution with the bags, but only time will tell.I don't think I have any more to odd. Essentially, this grow needs training to get better. I'm concerned co2 is going to highlight other problems, and would like to see the bad leaves to settle this idea in my mind.
Yes, but your theory ignores those who are maxed out light-wise. I'm running very efficient Vipar's latest arrays 2x 500watts and the plants are limited by CO2.