how to prevent the 'light from one side' look

[Zen Master]

the nugs are just fine overall, they have great potency and trichome coverage. The difference is in the pistil coloration, the amount of amber trichomes on the lit side vs no direct light ever side, as well as any color that happens to show up. (Not 100% clear trichs, just a little less mature looking than the light side; looks like a week variance at most) This is purely a cosmetic bag appeal issue however it has kept me from running the Coli for a few years now because fortunately or unfortunately looks matter.

I had a strain that threw just a little purple, however when half the nug has purple and theres clearly one half that was on the 'dark side' that has significantly less color if any at all, very noticeable to me when I didn't have any reflective backing material to get even quality indirect light. (Last time that happened in the coli I was running mixed spectrum and the UV from MH bulbs could have influenced the coloring though, the single HPS last run didn't have any purple strains)

Your nugs now aren't close enough to maturity to have the 'dark side' look, when that time comes, without rotating that nug at all in the growing process, compare the sides of that one nugget getting direct light vs the other side getting no direct light.

 

[DHF]

Ok...Now I get what you`re sayin ZM , and here`s the thing....Strains that`re bred to be purple do so from the lumens blastin their ass ta bring out the anthocyanin for the purple colors are different from strains that`ll color up from lights off temps dropped for the last few weeks to assist in killin chlorophyll for the anthocyanin ta show up and be more pronounced by end of cycle....so......

You`ve answered your own question once again in that if yas wrap everything behind the plants in the coli with reflectix , then the lumens will be more evenly dispersed all around , up and down so the nugz behind the bulbs will color up like the front sides facin the bulbs on the strains bred for colors....simple....babyshit....but.....

The other varieties won`t perform the same way without decreased lights off temps so.....anyways....

Good luck Bro....DHF.........

 

[catman]

Most of my grow experience is from a 150w vertical HPS in a 18x18x26 INCH space and it made it really easy to see differences regarding reflective walls, distance from bulb to wall, leaving plants alone, and just letting them keep doing there things.

No matter what ya, they just are going to look different as you know. So, maybe try throwing some additional top lighting and/or angling bulbs. Ya want light to reflect back from the walls, but it's best used if them direct rays beaming straight into the bud so you I'm sure you could improve looks if ya wanted to sacrifice yield.

I won't forget this plant I had from my first grow which got me thinking, haha. Also remember not only to embrace the donut-lean, but to prepare for it and tie them bitches up.

 

[gingerale]

Didnt read every post but had to jump to the end. I have tried various methods in my hanging garden and have decided it's best to rotate the plants, and there is a certain ideal way to do it for best results.

1) The most critical time to be rotating is during early flower, when the plant is budding out and still growing vegetatively. This is when the maximum potential yield of individual branches is determined. Those branches which are exposed to enough light at this time, will yield well. Those which remain in shadow will yield popcorn.

2) If you wait too long to rotate after the plant has already established its pattern, you're screwed with most strains because the plant is locked in and won't be as willing (or able, due to lignification) to grow out those small branches and buds to bigger size, even if you blast them with light. In my limited experience sativa strains seem to be more likely to grow out of this condition, especially if you don't wait too long to rotate, but yield is definitely affected.

3) My recommendation is to wait until the plant has put out its first full flush of mature white pistils, to where it's really starting to look like it's in flower and you're just seeing the signs of certain branches on the back side wanting to remain small and diminuitive.......then do a 180* rotation.

4) From then on keep your rotations spaced a minimum of 4-7 days apart. If you rotate too frequently, each individual bud doesn't get the full exposure to bright light for a period of several days that it really needs to trigger new pistil formation. Once the buds on the sunlight side start putting out a new flush of pistils, you know it's safe to rotate. If you wait too long, there is an increasing possibility that growth will stall in the shadowed buds. Really only 2-3 total rotations are necessary for a typical under 12 week strain, fewer and more frequent for shorter strains.

If you do things this way.....you will have NO problem getting massive yield out of the whole plant. See, the key to it is really in #4, ensuring the plant gets lots of sunlight on one side for several days in a row, making those buds nice and happy, then rotate it around. The buds on the back side don't mind staying in shadow if it's just for a few days and this won't halt their growth. But if you are constantly rotating the plant every day, it goes light->shadow->light->shadow and it basically averages out to where the whole plant "feels" it's only getting half the light, so therefore stretchiness, weak overall yield, etc results.

Sorry, I don't have any pictures to offer at the moment......this is something I just became clued into myself. Trust me, the plant turns out way better than if you just let it develop popcorn on one side, or worse yet spend all your labor hours trimming useless branches (aka wasted growth)......resulting in many cases in a floppy plant which wants to tip and fall over! I prefer plants which support themselves because they're evenly balanced and developed.

 

[gingerale]

BTW--using multiple lights, in a row (aka ye olde stadium), is key to all of this. Sorry, vertical stacks of bulbs (coliseum) or single bulbs (donuts) need not apply to the highest efficiency/most happy plant club. If you want the full benefits of vertical growing, you need multiple bulbs in a line, or box configuration. This is because each individual plant in this setup will receive more light across a wider angle, from its own perspective. With this setup the plant will naturally be much less disposed to a) stretch and b) develop weak ass popcorn nugs. Combine that with proper rotation and your uneven development problems are solved.

 

[gingerale]

One more thing......I also rotate during vegetative growth as well, doing it same way for the same reason, for encouraging the plant to develop evenly. It's much easier to keep things even in the flower room if you are doing it in the veg room too. I don't really rotate the plant a fixed amount since my veg room has a more free-form layout, but instead just try to keep the smaller/weaker side exposed to the light as much as possible to encourage its growth. I don't obsess over perfection, I just try to ensure that all matching pairs of branches (one on this side, its match on the opposite side) stay more or less equally-sized.

As the plant ages--regardless of actual growth rate--each branch slowly lignifies (turns to wood) and becomes more resistant to change and growth. (This is why old moms eventually become worn out and need to be replaced.) This occurs during both veg and flower so it's important to not let any branch be small and runty for too long, or it will stay that way. With proper rotation you generally only end up having to trim a few tiny worthless branches off the bottom, with 90%+ of the rest of the plant growing naturally. I like not having to waste all that space ($$$) and trimming labor ($$$.)

Again, only a few rotations are necessary during flower after the plant has ceased vertical growth and is putting its energy into buds. As long as a given bud receives a blast of sunlight for a few days in a row, occasionally, that's all it needs to keep growing. It really only takes one well timed rotation in flower to turn every single one of those popcorn buds on the back into something real and worth selling/smoking.

 

[Zen Master]

well I'm not sure what posts you DID decide to read but if you read any of mine you know I cannot turn plants whatsoever so thats a non factor in my grow really. Also I have zero issues with getting good quality sized and dense nugs, that is not the issue I brought up in the OP, rather a visual bag appeal factor on each (most) individual nugget(s) and not a question regarding actual production of a good cola itself.

a few posts above yours was a discussion about what you just posted, but thanks for checkin the thread out.

 

[Bonzo]

 

[gingerale]

well I'm not sure what posts you DID decide to read but if you read any of mine you know I cannot turn plants whatsoever so thats a non factor in my grow really. Also I have zero issues with getting good quality sized and dense nugs, that is not the issue I brought up in the OP, rather a visual bag appeal factor on each (most) individual nugget(s) and not a question regarding actual production of a good cola itself.

This thread isn't just about you and your setup...

a few posts above yours was a discussion about what you just posted, but thanks for checkin the thread out.

I just read the discussion.....nothing was posted which contradicts anything I've said.

But thanks for your snarky attitude.

 

[gingerale]

Not doubting that you do.

With less (i.e., none) rotating and proper pruning of the backside of the plant, you'd have more.

Sure, and I can spend a year intricately weaving together the baddest V-SCROG setup known to man, and get 100 pounds off a single plant if I worked at it long and hard enough.

But at what cost?

If you're running a 3k, or a 10k, yeah, it might be worth your time to spend all that extra labor trimming and carefully guiding branches to maximize yield per plant.....but if you're planning to do this in any situation where overall efficiency really matters (you know...in business when you're trying to be as competitive as possible), that small amount of labor per plant is multiplied by 1,000, or 10,000, or 100,000, and suddenly it's not quite so small any more.

Personally, I like getting the most bang for my buck, and the most output for my time and effort possible. This means I do as little trimming as possible, and I rotate plants so as to increase the number of usable nugs. My weight certainly isn't suffering. I estimate I'm hovering around 1 gpw right now, and my setup is nowhere close to being fully dialed in. I am always discovering new ways to make things better and better. When I finish getting these blumats set up I'll damn near have this thing on autopilot, freeing up time for me to work on more important tasks.....like breeding.....or reading and learning......or anything but walking around with a pair of trimmers and carrying buckets of water around. My time and labor is far too valuable to be spent doing such trivial things if there is a way to automate or simplify.

 

[Zen Master]

This thread isn't just about you and your setup...

actually it is. if you would like to start a thread on a new topic go right ahead

I just read the discussion.....nothing was posted which contradicts anything I've said.

But thanks for your snarky attitude.

pretty sure multiple posts do, try reading a few. Turning plants in a vert setup doesn't increase yield or quality.

if you have some great new fandangle way of growing and would love to show it off I'm all ears and would love to check out your thread.

pix?

 

[catalyte]

now this is a good discussion, nothing ventured nothing gained, so i don't see why not be open to the possibility that this method may work as well or better than not rotating...

i personally value all the input in here...

i just strongly disagree with the concept that plants bending to light is wasted energy just because canna has evolved outdoors 2 get light from 180 different degrees everyday( with full sun exposure) so how could this be less productive than a stationary canopy which is 2d in effect not 3d like an big outdoor plant with full exposure to the sun?? I'm fairly certain that there is more surface area of potential bud sites on big tall plants with vert lighting as compared to a v-scrog.

 

[Anti]

i just strongly disagree with the concept that plants bending to light is wasted energy just because canna has evolved outdoors 2 get light from 180 different degrees everyday( with full sun exposure) so how could this be less productive than a stationary canopy which is 2d in effect not 3d like an big outdoor plant with full exposure to the sun?? I'm fairly certain that there is more surface area of potential bud sites on big tall plants with vert lighting as compared to a v-scrog.

They arent' saying that plants are inefficient with their energy expenditure.

They're saying that if you have only so much gas in your gas tank and you want to get the most out of your gas mileage, you don't do a bunch of donuts in the parking lot on the way.

 

[TommyTwoColas]

Sure, and I can spend a year intricately weaving together the baddest V-SCROG setup known to man, and get 100 pounds off a single plant if I worked at it long and hard enough.

But at what cost?

If you're running a 3k, or a 10k, yeah, it might be worth your time to spend all that extra labor trimming and carefully guiding branches to maximize yield per plant.....but if you're planning to do this in any situation where overall efficiency really matters (you know...in business when you're trying to be as competitive as possible), that small amount of labor per plant is multiplied by 1,000, or 10,000, or 100,000, and suddenly it's not quite so small any more.

Personally, I like getting the most bang for my buck, and the most output for my time and effort possible. This means I do as little trimming as possible, and I rotate plants so as to increase the number of usable nugs. My weight certainly isn't suffering. I estimate I'm hovering around 1 gpw right now, and my setup is nowhere close to being fully dialed in. I am always discovering new ways to make things better and better. When I finish getting these blumats set up I'll damn near have this thing on autopilot, freeing up time for me to work on more important tasks.....like breeding.....or reading and learning......or anything but walking around with a pair of trimmers and carrying buckets of water around. My time and labor is far too valuable to be spent doing such trivial things if there is a way to automate or simplify.

I run VSOGs (90 plants in a DIY Coliseum, which you would've known had you read the earlier posts in the thread), and spend zero time working on my plants (save for plucking leaves) and still get good (most would say excellent) harvests.

Rotating plants in a vert setup (assuming maximum yield relative to time is the goal) = FAIL.

Coming into someone else's thread about a specific topic and using that as a soapbox to preach your (admittedly novice) views about growing is poor form, IMO.

Anti, your metaphor is perfect

EDIT: Mr. Clean Cut, we're not talking about "potential", we're talking about real world results. I'm sorry that you can't understand how there's only so much light to go around and that anything that the plant has to do to adjust to that light is "wasted" (think taxes from economics)............I'd highly recommend running an experiment yourself and seeing which method yields more.

 

[catalyte]

wow, are you guys for real?


Can someone prove that a flat canopy has more bud site potential than 3d plants from rotating properly? Can't see there being less on a 3d plant than a 2d canopy.....

 

[gingerale]

I run VSOGs (90 plants in a DIY Coliseum, which you would've known had you read the earlier posts in the thread), and spend zero time working on my plants (save for plucking leaves) and still get good (most would say excellent) harvests.

Wow! Someone's feeling a bit overly defensive....

Rotating plants in a vert setup (assuming maximum yield relative to time is the goal) = FAIL.

That's your assertion...

And also assuming that "maximum yield relative to time" is the end-all be-all, ONLY possible way to judge the success of a grow...

One more monkey wrench: All pounds are NOT created equal.

Coming into someone else's thread about a specific topic and using that as a soapbox to preach your (admittedly novice) views about growing is poor form, IMO.

1) I don't know where you learned yer forumin', boy, but where I come from when you start a thread titled "how to prevent the light from one side look", all views relevant to that problem (such as mine, for instance) are automatically welcome.

2) Only morons call for censorship because of thread "ownership." This is a community. This isn't "your" thread any more than those are your "ideas" floating around in your skull. So buzz off with that.

3) There's nothing "novice" about my growing views. This is what I do for a living. This is what I plan to also continue doing for a living after it becomes legal. Therefore, you can imagine that efficiency as well as bud quality are both items I'm highly concerned with.

DIT: Mr. Clean Cut, we're not talking about "potential", we're talking about real world results. I'm sorry that you can't understand how there's only so much light to go around and that anything that the plant has to do to adjust to that light is "wasted" (think taxes from economics)

This is a perfect example of "penny wise, pound foolish" thinking.

You really think it costs the plant significant energy expenditure to slowly reorient its branches over the course of days?

Have you EVER watched a time-lapse video of a plant growing in NATURE?

(Hint: It tracks the sun, every day, ALL DAY LONG! OMG, all that wasted energy....!)

Please--go educate yourself with the most basic of Google/Youtube searches at least, before embarassing yourself any further spouting this nonsense.

The goddamn plant is going to expend energy in growth no matter what you do; that's what growth is.

............I'd highly recommend running an experiment yourself and seeing which method yields more.

I did. I shared my results. Any time you're ready to start debating, feel free.

The point you're missing is that it isn't just about yield. Other factors are important too, especially when you scale up. Which is better from an overall efficiency standpoint -- 10,000 big lopsided plants that are floppy and want to tip over, requiring bracing, or 10,000 big plants which require no special treatment whatsoever?

 

[Anti]

You really think it costs the plant significant energy expenditure to slowly reorient its branches over the course of days?
i]The goddamn plant is going to expend energy in growth no matter what you do; that's what growth is

Nobody is arguing that plants aren't going to expend energy. The argument being presented is that energy spent reorienting could be better spent producing roots or nodes or flowers.

It seems reasonable to me, but I haven't done a side by side.

Can we take the anger down a notch?

Lots of horizontal growers lollipop to eliminate larf. This is essentially the same thing.

 

[dramamine]

Damn, Gingerale..at it again. Spitting all your pet theories, like how rotating plants yields better("maximum potential yield of individual branches is determined") and how coliseums are inefficient setups (more efficient for you is more wattage?).

Then you backtrack..."well, yield isn't everything." "try trimming the backs off a hundred thousand plants"....blah blah blah.

Deja vu is annoying, so to be succinct....trim the backside of plants as they veg, thus wasting very little growth. This shouldn't take hours and hours. In any case, how much time would it take to fucking rotate a hundred thousand plants? Asinine, dude. I asked you all this stuff in your thread awhile back and don't remember getting any solid answers.....probably why I sound semi-annoyed right now. You have every right to your own style, but if you're serving it up as gospel, peeps will definitely let you know what they think.

Anti has the most concise and telling statement above, IMO. "Lots of horizontal growers lollipop to eliminate larf. This is essentially the same thing." That's exactly right...very simple. All this crap about your plant being too front heavy, etc. is just rationalization.

Also, even in top-lit gardens, the uppermost buds will usually be more mature than the lowers. Kind of the same thing in vert, just a different canopy area.

 

[Zen Master]

1) I don't know where you learned yer forumin', boy, but where I come from when you start a thread titled "how to prevent the light from one side look", all views relevant to that problem (such as mine, for instance) are automatically welcome.

2) Only morons call for censorship because of thread "ownership." This is a community. This isn't "your" thread any more than those are your "ideas" floating around in your skull. So buzz off with that.

well if you actually comprehend the posts you've 'read' you'd realize we aren't talking about a plant growing towards the light like what you are referencing, rather a completely different issue all together.

nobody called for your posts to be 'censored' but rather that the contributions you are making have been debunked by people I, along with others, consider knowledgeable. If you really want to prove us all wrong, I'm eagerly awaiting your 'proof'.

You posted your superior results? where? I seem to be missing them.

If you feel you're billy badass grower on the block, go ahead and post up your warehouse with these rotated plants. I love learning.

I myself learned a long time ago that thinking I know everything and that I'm the shit with everything I do is for stupid highschool kids and the fuckin' birds.


....still waiting for those pix...

 

[catman]

we aren't talking about a plant growing towards the light like what you are referencing, rather a completely different issue all together.

What if those are the same two things tho? I mean if having a fixed position light caused plant structure to lean towards it and also makes the buds do what they do.

It could hardly be any easier for someone to understand this "energy conservation" idea by observing a seedling as you move a bulb around it. In other stages of growth it increases lengths between nodes in my experiences by not having a fixed position.

I've seen some recent talk that is a long the lines of what gingerale is saying he does, but way different because of time. DHF could probably tell us more about it.. Basically it's called the 4 light theory or something in which one uses a single ballast to power 4 bulbs positioned around the plant. Each bulb only being on for 3 hours at a time to create a "3D" effect." I find it interesting and maybe there is some application to it regarding energy efficiency or shape of the buds. I would imagine there is little discussion on it, because it was no miracle. If all 4 bulbs are on for a full 12 then it can really make things interesting and this doesn't have to be a huge waste of power depending on how it is done.

Only other thing I can think of Zen is maybe the Coli's diameter is too tight for the strain or ya bulb is too bright, haha.