THCFarmer.com
121,305 Members Log In Register
Log In Register

Can I veg photoperiod for 24/0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ironside
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Can I veg photoperiod for 24/0?

ironside 126 Replies 25,391 Views
Page 2 of 7 · Replies 21–40 of 127
#21
ironside said:
Well with autos that's what I do. So I was wondering if I could do the same with photo's during veg in an attempt to speed up growth in the early stage and then flip to 12/12 for flower.
Again I've never grown photo's hence the question.
Click to expand...
Even your autos will perform better on 18/6 you will be happier with end product
 
#22
growsince79 said:
I agree. I try to hit the sweet spot at 16 hrs though.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think many have shown this to be achievable and very effective. Healthy plants can do this and handle a high light intensity and imo at 16-18hr light is a good place to be for overall healthy veg and happy plants.
 
#23
lvstealth said:
I'm just asking about it mathematically. A plant can take x light before shriveling up and dying. If you spread x out over whatever hours, it's still x. So you have a light that is said to produce that x over y hours at z power, so to keep x you have to turn down z if you turn up y, you can't have x +1, that's death.
Click to expand...
Not really, you can grow plants for years so X calculation doesn't work X in Auto's No X in Photo's
 
#25
I like 20-4 in my winter climate for veg. Good for the heat, After week 4 I go 18-6.
no lights are designed to run around the clock. Hard on equipment, and electric waste. Plus the girls respond best with a 4-6 hour rest.
 
#26
Aqua Man said:
Like I was saying the plants perform different functions in light on and off. Part of which is included in this video. Yes it works and yes you may see more growth but only if your not hitting a good DLI. This is why in flower we need such intense lighting to hit the DLI while in veg we need less. For that reason if you have med to low lighting your probably going to do better with auto's because your able to provide a higher DLI.


Click to expand...

Well she doesn't say how long a period is needed and she's talking 24hrs through the entire veg period. She agrees that it helps growth by 20% and for a few weeks once the plant is established and healthy extending the light cycle for a few weeks to 20 -24 will give more growth and not harm her if I go back to 18 / 6 a few weeks before I flip.

I saw a YT clip showing 18/6 was the light dark cycle with the best results compared to any other, .....Everyone is an expert on YT so I take it all with a grain of salt.
 
#27
Mr.GreenthumbOG said:
I like 20-4 in my winter climate for veg. Good for the heat, After week 4 I go 18-6.
no lights are designed to run around the clock. Hard on equipment, and electric waste. Plus the girls respond best with a 4-6 hour rest.
Click to expand...
I'll only partly agree with that. I was in the lighting biz for years & lights that get turned on and off burn out faster. Some old stairwell lights will last 20 years without being turned off they just get dimmer and get funky colors to them. The damage gets done in the heating up and cooling down. I'm no nothing of this new led / cob lighting but ballast's , tubes and transformers last a long time without burning out running 24/7
 
#28
PipeCarver said:
Well she doesn't say how long a period is needed and she's talking 24hrs through the entire veg period. She agrees that it helps growth by 20% and for a few weeks once the plant is established and healthy extending the light cycle for a few weeks to 20 -24 will give more growth and not harm her if I go back to 18 / 6 a few weeks before I flip.

I saw a YT clip showing 18/6 was the light dark cycle with the best results compared to any other, .....Everyone is an expert on YT so I take it all with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt say she agrees but she doesn't dispute it... again it about the DLI and photosaturation points. You can't just make a blanket statement of hrs of light without including the intensity of that light... thats why she didn't dispute it. It MAY produce more growth but that's dependent on the intensity given. If you increase the intensity over a shorter period to achieve the SAME DLI then you definitely not going to see a 20% increase to growth.
 
#29
PipeCarver said:
I'll only partly agree with that. I was in the lighting biz for years & lights that get turned on and off burn out faster. Some old stairwell lights will last 20 years without being turned off they just get dimmer and get funky colors to them. The damage gets done in the heating up and cooling down. I'm no nothing of this new led / cob lighting but ballast's , tubes and transformers last a long time without burning out running 24/7
Click to expand...
I promise you if you give a plant 24/0 of my intensity in flower you will cook your plants.. its not as simple as hrs on or off. It MUST be taking intensity into account as well as duration
 
#30
A good example is UV you can give short bursts of high amounts and the plants are able to handle it. Or long duration of low intensity but you are unable to give high intensityfor a long duration as the plant are not able to handle it. This is due to the photorecptors ability to convert this light into other compounds or energy. Same with any light spectrum.

But like I said previously there are other benefits to the Calvin cycle not just a plants ability to convert light energy into sugars and starches that the plants use.
 
#31
PipeCarver said:
I'll only partly agree with that. I was in the lighting biz for years & lights that get turned on and off burn out faster. Some old stairwell lights will last 20 years without being turned off they just get dimmer and get funky colors to them. The damage gets done in the heating up and cooling down. I'm no nothing of this new led / cob lighting but ballast's , tubes and transformers last a long time without burning out running 24/7
Click to expand...
Ive never had or seen a light of any kind
Last 20years running 24-7.
I also don't live on the moon.
can you veg around the clock. Sure.
try it for yourself, Many have. Most pros settle on 18-6 for various reasons.
 
#33
One drop said:
Power Bill as said ......
Click to expand...
Yup that's one reason.... but again if you have to run more power to run a lower light on time are you saving?

I think many ppl found a 16hr on time to work the same as 18hr on time. That to me tells me that they could have reduced the intensity or lower the lights on time and either way they would see the same result.

Pretty much we want to get the plants as much light as possible but as we get closer to maxing out either the photosynthetic rates or the light saturation point we start to see diminishing returns and that's where the cost vs gain factors in to the power.
 
#34
Aqua Man said:
I promise you if you give a plant 24/0 of my intensity in flower you will cook your plants.. its not as simple as hrs on or off. It MUST be taking intensity into account as well as duration
Click to expand...


I disagree. I have seen big grows with ceilings covered in 1000w metal halides vegging 24/0 with big healthy plants and fan leaves that could cover your head.

those rooms have more light than your one led lamp.

And dr. Bugby said in his videos that he has not reached the max intensity or dli for cannabis and with co2 they can take even more than the high powered new led.
 
#35
Mr.GreenthumbOG said:
Ive never had or seen a light of any kind
Last 20years running 24-7.
I also don't live on the moon.
can you veg around the clock. Sure.
try it for yourself, Many have. Most pros settle on 18-6 for various reasons.
Click to expand...


maybe last few years but almost all commercial growers I have met in over 30 years veg 24 hrs. Faster crop turnover equals more profit.
 
#36
MIMedGrower said:
I disagree. I have seen big grows with ceilings covered in 1000w metal halides vegging 24/0 with big healthy plants and fan leaves that could cover your head.

those rooms have more light than your one led lamp.

And dr. Bugby said in his videos that he has not reached the max intensity or dli for cannabis and with co2 they can take even more than the high powered new led
Click to expand...
Exactly... higher the light the less intensity.. move those lights a foot away and see how they respond...

Well there is some evidence showing around 65DLI.

But there is a difference in light saturation point and photosynthetic rate saturation and 100% studies to show that as we get closer the photosynthetic rates diminish
 
#38
Aqua Man said:
Exactly... higher the light the less intensity.. move those lights a foot away and see how they respond...

Well there is some evidence showing around 65DLI.

But there is a difference in light saturation point and photosynthetic rate saturation and 100% studies to show that as we get closer the photosynthetic rates diminish
Click to expand...
Also he did not make that statement on 24/0 AFAIK... also AFAIK he does not grow under 24/0 either.
 
#39
Aqua Man said:
Exactly... higher the light the less intensity.. move those lights a foot away and see how they respond...

Well there is some evidence showing around 65DLI.

But there is a difference in light saturation point and photosynthetic rate saturation and 100% studies to show that as we get closer the photosynthetic rates diminish
Click to expand...


you aren’t listening. The big metal halide rooms are set up for the highest light intensity. Your led is no where near the intensity of a room full of say 48 1000 watters. And I didn’t say the lights were hung high. They were always on chains to be as close as they could get.

you see spots for a while when you leave those rooms.

The hard part isn’t that the plants can’t take the light. And you do see them droop and perk back up like they take naps. The hard part is keeping up with nutrition and media management. Probably why I mostly saw recirculating old style pvc and net pot hydro tubes. Basically old school undercurrent tech. Those growers went through a ton of nutrients. Pallets of bags of peters and stuff.
 
Page 2 of 7 · Replies 21–40 of 127
Back
Top Bottom