UV necessary ? Vote

  • Thread starter MarsHydroLED
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None

Do you think it is necessary to add UV chips to the LED grow light?


  • Total voters
    31
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Plants use sunlight for photosynthesis and are exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation that is present in sunlight. UV radiation is divided into 3 classes: UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C. The Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) region of the UV spectrum includes wavelengths below 280 nm; these highly energetic wavelengths are absorbed by ozone and are not present in the sunlight at the earth's surface. Under normal growing conditions, effects of UV-C light are not seen on plants. This research examined the effects of the application of ultraviolet-C irradiation (UV-C) on greenhouse ornamental plants and demonstrated very promising uses of UV-C as a treatment to increase branching and reduce the height of plants, and in some situations, affect the rate of flowering. Several conclusions have been made from this research that are consistent with multiple plant species. First, the amount of UV-C light that a greenhouse plant receives is critical to its response. The proper weekly dosage, for as little at 15 min a week, will control a plant's growth response. In addition, too high a dosage of UV-C irradiation will burn plants and too low will have no effect. Second, proper applications of UV-C light decreases final plant height. Several plant species have responded to applications of UV-C light by growing shorter than the control plants that receive normal greenhouse lighting. Third, UV-C light increases branching of greenhouse plants. At appropriate dosage rates, UV-C light increases branching on some species and increases the number of flowers that are produced. This avoids the need to pinch plants and to apply plant growth regulators. Fourth, the application of UV-C light can affect flowering time. The application of UV-C irradiation can either delay flowering or cause earlier flowering depending on plant species and dosage rate. In some cases, the increased branching is accompanied by delayed flowering.
Yeah but intensity is going to be absolutely key.
 
CannasaurusR

CannasaurusR

166
43
20-30 % increase in thc with the only change being addition of UV light? Complete and utter B.S.
 
ozarkgrey

ozarkgrey

Supporter
620
93
No it's not safe... You can easily cause damage you your eyes and skin depending on UV source and exposure time

i didn't assume it would be a tanning bed. i was asking more as in how would it be made safe for plants? i had guessed the amount we would receive would lull in comparison a sunny day outside. i already have skin cancer by the way so, let's talk about yield and thc content. 🤣
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
i didn't assume it would be a tanning bed. i was asking more as in how would it be made safe for plants? i had guessed the amount we would receive would lull in comparison a sunny day outside. i already have skin cancer by the way so, let's talk about yield and thc content. 🤣
Sorry to hear that bro. I'm really not up on all the info. But there are tests done with various intensities for various durations this is where I don't feel we know exactly what ratio of UVA to UVB and intensity/duration is optimal. At least I don't. Something like 90-120w per M2 for 90 min a day. I would have to dig back into so don't take that as fact... Then there is what time of day is best or intervals. If you google it I'm sure you will find a a fair bit on it.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
If you read that link I gave it will include reference literature for UVA and UVB on the increased THCA production provide. I have no personal experience with it. I feel there is merit to it but not enough info as a whole yet. I should say not enough independent info on it yet
 
CannasaurusR

CannasaurusR

166
43
!8% thc plant 20% increase is an additional 3.6% giving a total of 21.6 % thc from the addition of a non-specified amount of additional uva b c (doesn't really matter the uv increase #'s . If that is acceptable to by and of. Then yes, It is an opinion and my opinion is, it is utter bullshit. I am not debating I am rejecting the original info, not meaning to insult, just reiterate a completely different opinion.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
!8% thc plant 20% increase is an additional 3.6% giving a total of 21.6 % thc from the addition of a non-specified amount of additional uva b c (doesn't really matter the uv increase #'s . If that is acceptable to by and of. Then yes, It is an opinion and my opinion is, it is utter bullshit. I am not debating I am rejecting the original info, not meaning to insult, just reiterate a completely different opinion.
I gave my numbers on best case 30% if you care to recheck my math. Again you are misinterpreting my info and my math now.

It's pretty clear here that your statement was assuming an increase BY 20-30%. As you stated.

20-30 % increase in thc with the only change being addition of UV light? Complete and utter B.S.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to. I believe the study by university of Maryland in the 80's showed 28% with only UVB although there was some question about the possibility of UVA being leaked also. If you have a strain that is averaging 27% and a 28% increase that's a jump to 34.56% that's kinda huge imo. There has been a lot of discussion over the years about how CMH grows seemed to yield frostier and better quality bud than the same strain under other lights. This could be attributed to the amount of UV given off by CMH over HPS.

I'm not saying the numbers are all 100% accurate but there is some evidence so I wouldn't call it complete and utter bullshit. But yeah there is not enough info imo.

And there are specified times and intensity I just don't remember them
 
Last edited:
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
Well if it only increases costs by the corresponding % then I'm in. U of Maryland from the 80's aww you win I'm not googling that...
I'm not advocating it but I cannot discount it and I feel there is merit to it. The number are debatable... I don't feel there is enough independent studies done.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
UVA alone does not provide the same results. The best results have been a combination but from what I have researched UVB is the most important. That's not to say UVA is not beneficial


There are no uvb led diodes. So they are adding what they can and marketing from limited tests. It is supposed to add flavor. But we know sulfer is most responsible for smell and flavor. UVB is what increases thc for sure and no uva is needed for that. Of course like you said a balanced spectrum would be most beneficial.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

17,190
438
!8% thc plant 20% increase is an additional 3.6% giving a total of 21.6 % thc from the addition of a non-specified amount of additional uva b c (doesn't really matter the uv increase #'s . If that is acceptable to by and of. Then yes, It is an opinion and my opinion is, it is utter bullshit. I am not debating I am rejecting the original info, not meaning to insult, just reiterate a completely different opinion.


There have been many tests showing that adding uvb (i dont remember the percentage of total light but solis tech makes a 10k mh bulb specifically for this purpose) for the last 2-3 weeks of ripening showing an increase of up to 4%. Ie: 18% without/ 22% with. The 20% quote is for marketing and is the total weight of thc increase. Just tricky math.

Even read this in Ed Rosenthals growers handbook from the 90’s.
 
Dbear180

Dbear180

1,297
263
I've read some of the led guys on here swear by their new supplement lighting uv strips. Only run them for like 5 minutes or something like that per day. I personally have no exp with them tho.
 
ozarkgrey

ozarkgrey

Supporter
620
93
Sorry to hear that bro. I'm really not up on all the info. But there are tests done with various intensities for various durations this is where I don't feel we know exactly what ratio of UVA to UVB and intensity/duration is optimal. At least I don't. Something like 90-120w per M2 for 90 min a day. I would have to dig back into so don't take that as fact... Then there is what time of day is best or intervals. If you google it I'm sure you will find a a fair bit on it.

oh no troubles it's' the good kind', super slow and they burn em off. i spent some time in hot sunny places as a young man.
 
basscaptain

basscaptain

5,275
313
I've read some of the led guys on here swear by their new supplement lighting uv strips. Only run them for like 5 minutes or something like that per day. I personally have no exp with them tho.
I"m running mine the whole light cycle
so I guess I should spend hrs reading up on this...... Oh I can't read really... so that's not going to happen..................


so by hands on and 1st time with indoor growing but my plants like it.....................................
Even mine cheap blulight has uv in it................... Part of the reason I Think it works so good.......................................
I have a QB with it also and there made to run when you went it on......
I do run that for about a hr a day...... But my extra red runs the whole light cycle
 
basscaptain

basscaptain

5,275
313
i have troubles with reading too 🤪
lol for me it's called no schooling and working full time since I was 12.................................
I'm good to get by but reading and spelling is not best skill set........
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and Adding We have NO Problems with LOL :) good morning all>>>>>>>
 
basscaptain

basscaptain

5,275
313
I got to vent here for a min......... cause........................ and this not to anyone.................................

but why would you only run a extra red strip for only a few hrs...?
THE Sun is not on a timer with it's spec....... so in my mind .....................>>>>>>>>>> it should run the same as the other light............
Guess this maybe wrong by books.....
But there's a lot of WRONG Info in Books............................ In my world HANDS on is Best......
 
Top Bottom