The lights are all just tools. Different situations require different tools.
I like hps because I duct the filtered exhaust under my living room in winter as supplemental heat at night during lights on.
It saves a whole tank of propane per year. About 425 gallons.
And the propane is much more expensive than the air conditioning is during the hot months for my small Grow.
I use single ended bulbs because I have a low ceiling.
I compared cmh and have determined it is best used as a supplemental lamp to the hps.
It just didn't have the footprint or intensity of the 600w
Hortilux super hps in my opinion. The mixed spectrum with 2 600's and 1 315 cmh gave me the best results in quality and yield.
The hps are in sealed air cooled
sun system blockbusters which are the highest par direct down 4x4 area reflectors I could afford.
And the cmh was in the
sun system remote open vertical reflector which is supposed to give highest par at 2.5' x 2.5' from 16".
The hps also should achieve its highest par at 16" but I ran both bulbs averaging 18" to avoid plant stress. The 600's cover 3.5' x 3.5' effectively. The 315 covered 3' x 3' at that height.
But I have switched back to hps only to test my own comparisons and the recent plants have been equally as frosty and more potent than ever.
Not only in my opinion but in everyone who has medicated. And they don't know what light I used.
I am sorry I don't have lab tests. We are not allowed to work with dispensaries anymore so I have no lab results only blind testing.
They are not turning colors as much under hps. But smell and taste seems unaffected. Each different plant is still well, different.
The leaf to bud ratio is better with hps. Cmh grew leafier shorter plants. Because of the fuller spectrum with more blue light. More red grows taller plants with more bud and less leaf from my observations. I also tested the
Hortilux blue mh in 400 and 600 watts. They have even more blue light in the spectrum.
This mirrors the university of michigans indoor light testing. They suggest more blue light for leafy greens and short crops and more red for flowering and fruiting.
Also plants transfer photosynthesis to the strongest wavelength available so the differences will always be minor. The U of M also chose hps over Mh as a single light flowering light source. Determining lumens or watts was a better indication of results than spectrum to begin with.
The popularity with de hps systems in all kinds of plant production is proof of the power and coverage being the main factor I think.
Maybe the old school ed rosenthal tests had something. He said wattage increased potency as well as yield. He didn't recommend using less than a 600 hps back then from extensive lab testing. It's in his book.
I also found that it is easier to keep the plants green through the cycle under fuller spectrum lighting. The university also says blue light promotes leaf health more than red.
So there are even more variables that would effect different growers with different rooms and plants such as genetics. The breeder that I got my present genetics from never used anything but hps. So will my results be better if I copy his style more closely?
I don't know. I'm just practicing and trying to get better at this stuff.
Sorry for the long post. Mrs. MMG's special chocolate nut muffins have me high as a kite tonight. :)
