Getting Confused With Gpw

[DragonsTail]

Ok....getting a little confused with the gpw calculation.
I got 24,740g dry on my last with 100 plants under 35 600w de giv. Am i wrong going off just the lights in the room at 24,740g/21,000= 1.1gpw or am i on gg4 lol.

Thanks

 

[JWM2]

So roughly 1/2 lb per plant? Very nice. Your calculations seem right. Grams per watt is an arbitrary calculation that means little to nothing at best. It can help you dial things in but it can’t be compared to someone else’s grow because your growing methods are probably different. If everything were the same then it would be more of a benchmark but otherwise it’s just a number. Kudos on your bountiful harvest! Pics please :-)

 

[Dirtbag]

I'm with JWM2. It's a pointless number. What you want to know for efficiency purposes is the total yield divided by the total kilowatt hours used for every piece of equipment for the entire grow cycle. That will tell you much more about where you can dial things in to become more profitable.

 

[Dan789]

I like to do a post-mortum after my grows, I calc up (excell spreadsheet) all the power used for lights, fans, pumps, dehumidifiers, humidifiers, ventilation and exhaust cost, any costs for nutrients and anything else that was used, then cost out the harvest on a dollars per ounce basis. That way it gives you some idea of the headroom inherent in the marketplace, not that I sell anything, just a reference going forward.
Last grow was $4.00 per dried/cured ounce...if you wanted to get serious you could amortize out all your tents, fans, lights and equipment too.
Now the real variable would be if you added some x value your time, then our hobby would really get expensive...Lol.

 

[JWM2]

I like to do a post-mortum after my grows, I calc up (excell spreadsheet) all the power used for lights, fans, pumps, dehumidifiers, humidifiers, ventilation and exhaust cost, any costs for nutrients and anything else that was used, then cost out the harvest on a dollars per ounce basis. That way it gives you some idea of the headroom inherent in the marketplace, not that I sell anything, just a reference going forward.
Last grow was $4.00 per dried/cured ounce...if you wanted to get serious you could amortize out all your tents, fans, lights and equipment too.
Now the real variable would be if you added some x value your time, then our hobby would really get expensive...Lol.

That’s good. I’m at about $6/oz right now all in costs running soil, which isn’t bad imo. Cost per ounce is definitely a more quantifiable metric imo.

 

[DragonsTail]

All great ideas thank a bunch guys......loving posting and getting ideas going and great answers thanks again....i would post pics but i dont have it on hand. I do have todays harvest though!!! Pics are up taking it down 2 weeks early.

 

[DragonsTail]

One more for good luck!!

 

[JWM2]

Very nice. Kudos!

 

[Dan789]

One more for good luck!!

Nice, what’s the strain?

 

[DragonsTail]

Rockstar!!!

 

[Kot]

Do you have a picture of only one whole plant?

 

[OldManRiver]

I'm with JWM2. It's a pointless number. What you want to know for efficiency purposes is the total yield divided by the total kilowatt hours used for every piece of equipment for the entire grow cycle. That will tell you much more about where you can dial things in to become more profitable.

I disagree. I think it's a pretty good metric for growing efficiency within a light regime. Only really relevant for like to like, but if a fella is getting .4gpw off of HPS, and another guy gets .8gpw, that tells the guy on the short end some important info.

 

[DragonsTail]

Do you have a picture of only one whole plant?

No just finished cutting them down but i will take a pic of the other ones i got in there when i get back to it

 

[Dirtbag]

I disagree. I think it's a pretty good metric for growing efficiency within a light regime. Only really relevant for like to like, but if a fella is getting .4gpw off of HPS, and another guy gets .8gpw, that tells the guy on the short end some important info.

I dont know, I think it's a well established fact that LED is gonna be more efficient. Im not arguing you will likely pull a higher gpw with them. But I still dont think numbers are everything.
Everyone seems to shit on HPS these days but I'm still a huge fan. And yeah I saw the video posted about HID vs LED, I'm still not convinced. The Video in that same thread from Just4growers brings up some excellent considerations IMHO.

 

[DragonsTail]

Foxed a bit but is what it is

 

[MIMedGrower]

I dont know, I think it's a well established fact that LED is gonna be more efficient. Im not arguing you will likely pull a higher gpw with them. But I still dont think numbers are everything.
Everyone seems to shit on HPS these days but I'm still a huge fan. And yeah I saw the video posted about HID vs LED, I'm still not convinced. The Video in that same thread from Just4growers brings up some excellent considerations IMHO.

That video while being scientifically accurate as far as i know is still leaning toward its purpose. Selling california light works (i think) lamps.

What the led argument never mentions is that plants transfer photosynthesis to the most intense frequencies.

Even in the old mh vs hps testing at the university of michigan the proven benefits of fuller spectrum with more blue was more compact and leafier plants. But for best growth and highest flower yield (on non weed plants then) hps was the clear winner. They said it was best as a sole light source for plant growth.

Now they test individual colored diodes and are determining more blue equals more compact and leafy plants and more red for stem growth and flowering.

And of course far red for flower initiation and uv a and b for resin producing and fruiting plants.

No where is the university using full spectrum “white” led as a main source.

So no cobs or boards or strips are going into studies major producers will base their purchases on.

The new blurples are the future. With specific spectrums for specific crops.

For now cmh has the most sunlight spectrum available and i feel that spectrum is too blue for our flowers so i like it combined with hps.

When a good led lamp with uva uvb and far red and a “white” appearance for a 4x4 area for under$600 i will change over.

But i only run a few lamps and have .11 per kwh electric. So the efficiency doesnt matter too much.

 

[Dirtbag]

That video while being scientifically accurate as far as i know is still leaning toward its purpose. Selling california light works (i think) lamps.

What the led argument never mentions is that plants transfer photosynthesis to the most intense frequencies.

Even in the old mh vs hps testing at the university of michigan the proven benefits of fuller spectrum with more blue was more compact and leafier plants. But for best growth and highest flower yield (on non weed plants then) hps was the clear winner. They said it was best as a sole light source for plant growth.

Now they test individual colored diodes and are determining more blue equals more compact and leafy plants and more red for stem growth and flowering.

And of course far red for flower initiation and uv a and b for resin producing and fruiting plants.

No where is the university using full spectrum “white” led as a main source.

So no cobs or boards or strips are going into studies major producers will base their purchases on.

The new blurples are the future. With specific spectrums for specific crops.

For now cmh has the most sunlight spectrum available and i feel that spectrum is too blue for our flowers so i like it combined with hps.

When a good led lamp with uva uvb and far red and a “white” appearance for a 4x4 area for under$600 i will change over.

But i only run a few lamps and have .11 per kwh electric. So the efficiency doesnt matter too much.

Fully agree.

 

[Kot]

Foxed a bit but is what it is

Thanks. There was a long vegetation I see.

btw I will change my HPS when I have the money with DE HPS. :D

 

[DragonsTail]

Hahaha it works just wish i had more plants.