grams per watt makes perfect sense

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

And it does. It was started by jorge cervantes years ago after visiting many many grow rooms all across the globe. He saw growers using all kinds of factors to determine final weight harvest. Yields per table, per lamp, per plant, etc. There had to be a way growers could compare yields on a universal formula. And if u really look at it grams per watt of bloom (flowering) light every 30 days turns out to be the most fair way to judge a grow. Ive heard all kinds of ways farmers want to reject, manipulate, or disregard it. But if you think about it. He was right. The only variables that are constant are WATTS &TIME. Every other variable can be changed. Time in veg is one of the biggest arguments ive heard but if you really think about it that is a factor that can be changed to make a more efficient bloom (harvest).And the whole kilowatt thing is just ridiculous. Ive found that growers that reject the formula are almost always the ones that cant hit the numbers. Think about it. Grams per watt of 12-12 light makes perfect sense. To me it does anyways. Whats yer take?

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

Because alot of varieties arent mature in the ole 8 week dealy. Especially these days. The whole every 30 days was meant to gear a smart and efficient grower towards having a complete and seperate veg room always on 18 to 24 hours. And a bloom room always rocking a 12 hours on 12 hours off forced flowering set up. Its the most efficient way. And it throws out the whole extra crop per year if you grow sea of green argument out the window. Time of maturation per variety is what really determines how many crops per year if you have 2 rooms. Whether u grow s.o.g. or whatever way u grow. Think about it.

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

Add up them week to week perpetual harvests by a 30 day period and divide it by your final grams of trim, dry, cured final and get on it. Supposed mark of an efficient garden is 0.5 grams in that month. Its not easy and the majority of claimants are really not hitting it. At least the dozens of grow shows ive seen.

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

I know a few for real farmers that hit it and then some. The majority of said growers are vert bare bulb. And high plant count monocrops will get u there way easier in my experience. But there are exceptions.

midwestdensies · Jun 27, 2014

I definitely believe in this as well. I'm hoping to get 1 gpw right now will know really soon if that mark is hit. My last garden I was able to achieve this with 3 weeks veg from rooted.

Myco · Jun 27, 2014

Once I was really high and talking about GPW with a buddy, and developed an equation factoring plant count, veg time, and wattage to come up with a true universal way to factor yield efficiency. I think I even saved it on my laptop somewhere... hmm I'm going to try to find it lol.

Math is awesome.

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

Vegatative growth time should not factor in dry harvest weight when going by the wattage of artificial lighting used to force flowers

midwestdensies · Jun 27, 2014

Well it shouldn't but I grow in beds so they are in this house. I can cut down veg time some with clones in cups but I like from rooted.

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

2 rooms my holmes. 2 rooms. I know this isnt feasible for alot of cats but it still shouldnt change the gpw. Just your time.

Jalisco Kid · Jun 27, 2014

lightbulb/ weight, for how to compare does not really work unless it is just for industrial research. My girlfriends math was more relevant. After expenses how much does she have to burn. Gpw can not be used to compare growers because the rooms can be much better equipped with other things besides bulbs. l look at it the same way I just add expenses and more time. Some how sq. footage need to be in the equation to really dial it in.Someone who can take a 600w on 9 sq ft and pull 3 lbs should get more brownie points. I look at is the ratio of my overhead to the value pulled say over a year. The better I have gotten as a grower relates to that equation.My overhead has gone down and my flowers are more abundant. JK

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

Yeah but knowledge , better equipment, etc. All is subjective and malleable. I understand where ur coming from but it is what it is. Wattage and time. You have to admit. Cervantes had it right all along. We can all measure till the cows come home but its a constant. The only constants in a growroom is light wattage and time. Obvious and practical. You cannot grow marijuana totally indoors without the one underlying factor. And that is artificial lighting. Base that over time and thers you go. We all have to come to a standard. Wattage and time is quite the most prevalent factors. Yes most certainly grams per watt can be compared in a total artificial and indoor growing environment.

purpleberry · Jun 27, 2014

The more info you give the better someone can compare their results with yours.
Like say, I get at least 1gpw, at 50 watts per sqft, in a 12 week period, (2weeks veg, 10 weeks 12/12), At 4 plants per light, bare bulb, sealed room, ready grow and canna nutes.

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

And air conditioning, dehuey, varieties, type of lamp, air circualtion, watering method/system, etcetra etcetra. Think about it just fer a sec

connoisseurde420 · Jun 27, 2014

I look at my gpw in relation to my cost per gram. GPW is good but you need another factor

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

If your concerned about cost then that is whole another ball of wax. But No you do not need any other factors. I know it can suck but..............its kinda funny. My friends that all grow kick and scream too.

MysteryChild · Jun 27, 2014

Why am i confused :confused:

Can someone breakdown it down for me :)

shoestring · Jun 27, 2014

Take yer final weight harvest. Break it into grams. Divide it by your total wattage of bloom lighting ( 12-12). That will give you grams per watt. Break that number down to every 30 days. That will give u grams per flowering watt per month. Let me stress that high numbers (0.5 or more) is highly dependent on variety. It sounds wierd at first but it works. At least i think it does.

toquer · Jun 27, 2014

I agreed with this theory until a few weeks ago.. Today I changed my lights. Pictures coming soon. Bulbs and ballast are now Gavita 6/750 DE the new ones to be released at the end of September. Got a set of 4 replaced four 1000's. The light output of the new lights exceeds that's of my 1000's; so much so that my 16k flower room will be down to 9k by year end. It'll be a few months until I know if they've impacted weight. We harvest twice a month and run a perpetual cycle. Soil. We harvest close to 10# a month. So I've hit the 0.5g/month according to the outdated bible. But your math would take my harvest from all 16 flowering bulbs even though i harvest only half the room each month? What about when my lighting is 9k and I still have the 10#'s?

MysteryChild · Jun 28, 2014

shoestring said:
Take yer final weight harvest. Break it into grams. Divide it by your total wattage of bloom lighting ( 12-12). That will give you grams per watt. Break that number down to every 30 days. That will give u grams per flowering watt per month. Let me stress that high numbers (0.5 or more) is highly dependent on variety. It sounds wierd at first but it works. At least i think it does.

Thanks shoestring
I'm sitting around 0.4-0.5 per 30 days

slumdog80 · Jun 28, 2014

shoestring said:
Vegatative growth time should not factor in dry harvest weight when going by the wattage of artificial lighting used to force flowers

I am not following you on the not factoring in veg time bit.. gpw is a metric used solely to measure efficiency.

If you are hitting .80 gpw but, getting 6 rips a year from your garden. And I am hitting 1 gpw but, only getting 4.5 harvests a year. Your garden would be significantly more efficient then mine. On just a 10k you would be getting 6.6 more units a year.

grams per watt makes perfect sense

grams per watt makes perfect sense

shoestring

shoestring

shoestring

shoestring

midwestdensies

Myco

shoestring

midwestdensies

shoestring

Jalisco Kid

Guest

shoestring

purpleberry

shoestring

connoisseurde420

shoestring

MysteryChild

shoestring

toquer

MysteryChild

slumdog80

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency