Can I veg photoperiod for 24/0?

[Mr.GreenthumbOG]

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.

That’s fair. I truly don’t care about others operations regardless. Commercial masters around me running 18/6.
I’ve Tried 24-0. Not as healthy for the girls, or the bills.

 

[Aqua Man]

Go to 23 min... and see they have not gone over 60 but up close to.

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.

Give me a DLI spots in my eyes mean nothing to me.

 

[lvstealth]

i think i get it, and it makes sense. i like the math! everything is interdependent, which makes it more complex, but still math!

 

[MIMedGrower]

Also he did not make that statement on 24/0 AFAIK... also AFAIK he does not grow under 24/0 either.

I’m not sure about that. But it doesn’t matter. C-3 plants like cannabis need no night period to veg.


how we prefer to grow is the only argument here.

 

[Mr.GreenthumbOG]

I’m not sure about that. But it doesn’t matter. C-3 plants like cannabis need no night period to veg.


how we prefer to grow is the only argument here.

I prefer to grow the way the plants prefer to grow optimally. Not 24-0.

 

[Aqua Man]

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.

Just because the watts and intensity at 1 foot is more means absolutely nothing... its the intensity at the surface of the leaves not from the light.

 

[Aqua Man]

I’m not sure about that. But it doesn’t matter. C-3 plants like cannabis need no night period to veg.


how we prefer to grow is the only argument here.

I disagree... so your saying the plant performs all processes equally in both light and dark?

I 100% disagree with this.

 

[MIMedGrower]

Go to 23 min... and see they have not gone over 60 but up close to.



Give me a DLI spots in my eyes mean nothing to me.

He also says that the limit will be much higher than they thought. And yeah the spots are less than scientific meter. Lol

And even if you can reach their limit they just rest regardless and resume growing a bit later. But not usually 6 hours from what I have seen. If you can keep up 24 hr. Veg is much faster. Weeks faster ime.

 

[Aqua Man]

He also says that the limit will be much higher than they thought. And yeah the spots are less than scientific meter. Lol

And even if you can reach their limit they just rest regardless and resume growing a bit later. But not usually 6 hours from what I have seen. If you can keep up 24 hr. Veg is much faster. Weeks faster ime.

No not true there are plenty of studies that show the closer you get to saturation of either the less efficient the plant is at photosynthesis. It's doesn't just rest in light... the light does not let it rest.

 

[MIMedGrower]

I disagree... so your saying the plant performs all processes equally in both light and dark?

I 100% disagree with this.

no I didn’t say that at all. But most of the weed I smoked since the late 80’s was grown 24 hrs and flipped to 12/12.


I get the science. But the plant doesn’t really seem to follow it. Why does a full hydro plant need dark down time?

I like 18/6 because it was easier to keep plants happy and that’s my ultimate goal. Not speed of turnover.

 

[MIMedGrower]

No not true there are plenty of studies that show the closer you get to saturation of either the less efficient the plant is at photosynthesis. It's doesn't just rest in light... the light does not let it rest.

you can see the plants go into a resting mode and perk up again later. It was commonly done for like 40 years and still is. If your argument stuck growers would do it with a dark period. But that costs them money.

 

[Aqua Man]

you can see the plants go into a resting mode and perk up again later. It was commonly done for like 40 years and still is. If your argument stuck growers would do it with a dark period. But that costs them money.

Again like I said 24/0 is absolutely fine... but only if the intensity is adequate... im not saying it cannot be done or should not be done.

Only saying there are benefits to provide a more intense light for a shorter period and some dark time. But by no means is 24/0 a bad thing I just feel there is more benefit to using a more intense light for shorter period...

but I disagree that it costs them money or that there is no evidence that plants do not benefit (not need but benefit) from a dark period. There is plenty of evidence for plants of all species.

And when growers run 24/0 With less intensity than can be run for shorter there is no difference as long as the plants can keep up with the photosynthetic rates. Hell Bruce bugbee doesn't discuss dli for no reason.... DLI is exactly that intensity over time. There would be no point in him discussing it if 24/0 it would just be intensity period not over a time

 

[growsince79]

Again like I said 24/0 is absolutely fine... but only if the intensity is adequate... im not saying it cannot be done or should not be done.

Only saying there are benefits to provide a more intense light for a shorter period and some dark time. But by no means is 24/0 a bad thing I just feel there is more benefit to using a more intense light for shorter period...

but I disagree that it costs them money or that there is no evidence that plants do not benefit (not need but benefit) from a dark period. There is plenty of evidence for plants of all species.

And when growers run 24/0 With less intensity than can be run for shorter there is no difference as long as the plants can keep up with the photosynthetic rates. Hell Bruce bugbee doesn't discuss dli for no reason.... DLI is exactly that intensity over time. There would be no point in him discussing it if 24/0 it would just be intensity period not over a time

Based on what I remember, MH worked best at 24-0. Vegging under HPS the plants stretched way too much. 18-6 with hps helped a bit, but still too much stretch for some strains. Now with the new leds, I don't think more hours of light would help at all.

 

[Aqua Man]

Based on what I remember, MH worked best at 24-0. Vegging under HPS the plants stretched way too much. 18-6 with hps helped a bit, but still too much stretch for some strains. Now with the new leds, I don't think more hours of light would help at all.

Yeah mh and hps are not only different in spectrum but photons produced per watt so also very different in intensity at equal heights. This was shown in the form that HPS under same height and wattage as MH would produce bigger buds and was directly related to the amount of photons

 

[MIMedGrower]

Again like I said 24/0 is absolutely fine... but only if the intensity is adequate... im not saying it cannot be done or should not be done.

Only saying there are benefits to provide a more intense light for a shorter period and some dark time. But by no means is 24/0 a bad thing I just feel there is more benefit to using a more intense light for shorter period...

but I disagree that it costs them money or that there is no evidence that plants do not benefit (not need but benefit) from a dark period. There is plenty of evidence for plants of all species.

And when growers run 24/0 With less intensity than can be run for shorter there is no difference as long as the plants can keep up with the photosynthetic rates. Hell Bruce bugbee doesn't discuss dli for no reason.... DLI is exactly that intensity over time. There would be no point in him discussing it if 24/0 it would just be intensity period not over a time

you are stuck in a loop my friend. The light intensity is maxed out. It’s as much as they could get with the tech they had. They grow 24 hrs with as much light as they can cram into the room. Watts are yield. You are bringing up a compromise that they don’t notice. They yield higher and faster with the method. 1000 w mh a couple feet apart covering the whole room and then a flower room with hps set up the same way. Or they actually change the bulbs.

I am telling you I can see them recover and start processing in only a couple or few hours rather than a 6 hour dark period.

Whether this is all best for the plant is hardly a commercial growers concern. It’s best for yield and turnover. That’s the goals.

 

[MIMedGrower]

Based on what I remember, MH worked best at 24-0. Vegging under HPS the plants stretched way too much. 18-6 with hps helped a bit, but still too much stretch for some strains. Now with the new leds, I don't think more hours of light would help at all.

good input here. A lot of it was because of the tools available and their pros and cons. But I believe you can still do it with led. The big rooms already have the most light you can cram in. They would just match it with bars or boards and get to enjoy the power savings. Led doesn’t really grow more weed than de hps. Just less heat per watt. In fact if they are using under 700 watts of led per table the 1000de is more intense and has the reds for better growth.

 

[growsince79]

Yeah mh and hps are not only different in spectrum but photons produced per watt so also very different in intensity at equal heights. This was shown in the form that HPS under same height and wattage as MH would produce bigger buds and was directly related to the amount of photons

good input here. A lot of it was because of the tools available and their pros and cons. But I believe you can still do it with led. The big rooms already have the most light you can cram in. They would just match it with bars or boards and get to enjoy the power savings. Led doesn’t really grow more weed than de hps. Just less heat per watt. In fact if they are using under 700 watts of led per table the 1000de is more intense and has the reds for better growth.

In my experience, max yield is controlled by the strain and space available more than the type of light. There's a limit to what can be done in any given space. HPS and led are both able to reach that max imho. For some it might work. For me, I wouldn't use either to veg 24-0. I like to grow little plants with big buds.

 

[Aqua Man]

you are stuck in a loop my friend. The light intensity is maxed out. It’s as much as they could get with the tech they had. They grow 24 hrs with as much light as they can cram into the room. Watts are yield. You are bringing up a compromise that they don’t notice. They yield higher and faster with the method. 1000 w mh a couple feet apart covering the whole room and then a flower room with hps set up the same way. Or they actually change the bulbs.

I am telling you I can see them recover and start processing in only a couple or few hours rather than a 6 hour dark period.

Whether this is all best for the plant is hardly a commercial growers concern. It’s best for yield and turnover. That’s the goals.

I'm missing what your saying somehow... watts don't equal yield, not even close. Photons equal yield. If that were the case HID would absolutely murder LED.

By cram as much light as possible I'm not sure what you mean? Enough to indice photorespiration? Photosaturation?

And I absolutely agree with you a commercial grower could care less in most cases.

Photosaturation, photorespiration and light stress are all real factors we can't deny. I don't disagree that a 2 hr dark period may be enough hell maybe an hr for all I know. What I'm getting at is not that it can't be done but that there are benefits to a dark period and many many growers report no significant difference in some reduction of photoperiod. I would explain that by saying the light intensity and the duration will equal the DLI (amount of photons delivered) needed to maximize growth.

So we can provide a more intense light for a shorter duration as long as photorespiration is not occurring and reducing the plants efficiency to convert it to energy

 

[MIMedGrower]

In my experience, max yield is controlled by the strain and space available more than the type of light. There's a limit to what can be done in any given space. HPS and led are both able to reach that max imho. For some it might work. For me, I wouldn't use either to veg 24-0. I like to grow little plants with big buds.

Sure I don’t grow like a commercial grower at all either. We grow for our needs likes and space and environment. I am specifically talking about medium to large fully packed rooms. And old school commercial set up and grow style.

And yeah they max the light out for sure. I have seen top hat reflectors almost touching all across the canopy. Led or hid there is no room for more light.

 

[Aqua Man]

good input here. A lot of it was because of the tools available and their pros and cons. But I believe you can still do it with led. The big rooms already have the most light you can cram in. They would just match it with bars or boards and get to enjoy the power savings. Led doesn’t really grow more weed than de hps. Just less heat per watt. In fact if they are using under 700 watts of led per table the 1000de is more intense and has the reds for better growth.

No the less heat per watt is because it produces more photons per watt... therefore less energy is wasted producing heat. The more efficient a light uses a watt the less heat it produces as a byproduct.