using more watts in veg and reducing watts in flowering = better yield?

[glockdoc]

i ve seen grows where people have reduce that watts in flowering and yielded just as much as they would of using X amount of watts the whole time...and coming to think of it isnt it kind of natural seeing the sun gets farther and less intense during winter times?!? what do u guys think?

 

[LexLuthor]

I think its possible if you veg longer when reducing watts in flower but if its the same veg time, strain, and all other factors the exact same I don't see how less watts gives you more yield.

 

[glockdoc]

ill see if i can dig up a link of someone who tried it in there cab and seen better yield. and im saying as push more then the recommended 50w per sq ft and push 100 then reduce to the 50-70w. it will save electricity too

 

[outwest]

I think it also depends on how much you reduce the wattage.

outwest

 

[glockdoc]

im thinking the plant and its flowers will stretch for the light intensity that was once there = bigger plant and buds. a plant does its vegging during spring and/or summer when the sun is most intense then flowers in fall when sun is least intense. this isnt all that true for pure sativa strains seeing the sun is pretty much the same intensity year round at the equator just dry and wet seasons hence why they are so photoperiod sensitive. just my guess or thought of it.

 

[LexLuthor]

It would be a good experiment for someone to undertake if they have the time. I think the veg time has alot to do with it because the bigger the plant the more watts it can take. Do you understand what I'm sayin? if a plant canopy is 1 sq.ft. then you don't need 600w, but if you vegged longer and got a 3 sq.ft. canopy then the 600w would be of better use, so I don't know exactly but there is alot of factors that would have to be tested.

 

[squiggly]

If you're going to experiment you should be speaking in light intensities rather than wattages.

If we were to plot out a photon utilization graph (how many photons are absorbed by the plant per minute)--we'd find that the number is not a constant, nor is the relationship linear. The graph will have varied rates of change and the result will look something like peaks and valleys. During certain parts of the day photosynthesis will be going full swing--and these periods of high activity will be followed by periods of relatively low (or no) activity.

The photosynthetic pathway is a regulated biological pathway which means that it only works when:

A.) All of the necessary inputs are present in the cell in the proper concentrations (light, CO2, various proteins and cofactors)

B.) Cellular conditions promote formation of products (i.e. the products are immediately needed).

Most of these processes will be follow an equilibrium where the limiting factor (in this case) is the ability to diffuse photosynthetic products from their respective photosynthetic cells to the rest of the plant. Once a certain concentration of products is reached--photosynthesis will stop until the concentration of products falls back below the cutoff point.

Glucose and Sucrose actually do what is call feedback inhibition. This occurs when product in a metabolic chain inhibits a reaction catalyzed by an enzyme earlier in the chain (usually several steps back, in this case it's all the way back to the beginning of the chain).

 

[nebulius]

i ve seen grows where people have reduce that watts in flowering and yielded just as much as they would of using X amount of watts the whole time...and coming to think of it isnt it kind of natural seeing the sun gets farther and less intense during winter times?!? what do u guys think?

Lol, didn't read your thread and just started a similar one except my goal isn't to save electricity it's to more closely mimic mother nature by dialing down the light intensity % the last 4wks of flower to simulate the changing of the seasons. Anyone with experience or knowledge on this please reply to my thread . Click here

Sorry Glockdoc for the similar thread.

 

[LexLuthor]

If you're going to experiment you should be speaking in light intensities rather than wattages.

If we were to plot out a photon utilization graph (how many photons are absorbed by the plant per minute)--we'd find that the number is not a constant, nor is the relationship linear. The graph will have varied rates of change and the result will look something like peaks and valleys. During certain parts of the day photosynthesis will be going full swing--and these periods of high activity will be followed by periods of relatively low (or no) activity.

The photosynthetic pathway is a regulated biological pathway which means that it only works when:

A.) All of the necessary inputs are present in the cell in the proper concentrations (light, CO2, various proteins and cofactors)

B.) Cellular conditions promote formation of products (i.e. the products are immediately needed).

Most of these processes will be follow an equilibrium where the limiting factor (in this case) is the ability to diffuse photosynthetic products from their respective photosynthetic cells to the rest of the plant. Once a certain concentration of products is reached--photosynthesis will stop until the concentration of products falls back below the cutoff point.

Glucose and Sucrose actually do what is call feedback inhibition. This occurs when product in a metabolic chain inhibits a reaction catalyzed by an enzyme earlier in the chain (usually several steps back, in this case it's all the way back to the beginning of the chain).

Actually we should NOT be talking about light intensity. You are getting all scientific but completely off subject, glockdoc is talking about using a lower wattage light during flowering without sacrificing yield while saving electricity. A 1000w HPS has more intensity than a 600w HPS therefore less watts has less intensity. I'm not an expert on light and you are correct but I think you are missing the point of this conversation. Talking about "photons" and "equilibrium" is something the people that made grow lights already took care of so someone who does an experiment about using less light during flowering does not have to worry about those factors. They can simply use the same type of light they used in veg just a lower wattage which would decrease the intensity of the light.

 

[kushtrees]

thats not necessarily true that a 600w is less intense then a 1000w. A 600w 6 inches away from a plant is much more intense than a 1000w at 3 feet away. You should be talking about intensity and not wattage because wattage is just electricity and plants dont respond to watts

 

[LexLuthor]

Ok bro, you are pointing out the obvious...but with proper ventilation and cooling you can easily get a 1000w close enough to be more intense then a 600w. Now you are acting like squiggly and getting completely off subject, we are talking about lowering watts (light intensity) during flowering to save electricity without sacrificing yield. People need to stop making comments when they don't know what the FUCK there talking about...yeah a 600w is more intense at 6" compared to a 1000w at 3' but why would somebody use such a big gap inbetween light and canopy when it is NOT needed. Stop using these retarded examples when you know damn well nobody in there right mind would put a 600w 6" away from a plant then in the same room put a 1000w 3' from another plant...it makes NO sense.

 

[LexLuthor]

thats not necessarily true that a 600w is less intense then a 1000w. A 600w 6 inches away from a plant is much more intense than a 1000w at 3 feet away. You should be talking about intensity and not wattage because wattage is just electricity and plants dont respond to watts

Why don't you get a lux meter and put it 2' directly under a 1000w HPS. Then put the same meter 2' directly under a 600w HPS. Then come back and tell me which one has more "intensity".

 

[glockdoc]

in a way you guys are both right so lets keep it peaceful in here. main reason why i joined another community..that and avg yields LoL

 

[LexLuthor]

I don't wanna argue with anybody but everybody knows a 1000w is more intense then a 600w. There's NO argument. We were not talking about distance from canopy we are talking about lowering the watts to save electricity without sacrificing yield. I'm honestly about done with this thread nobody has any suggestions, people wanna disagree with me when they are WAY OFF subject. They keep saying it has nothing to do with watts, but it has everything to do with watts because less watts equal less electricity which equals MONEY SAVED. Wasn't that the main point of this thread, glockdoc??

 

[squiggly]

It's just that the plants aren't affected by wattages--they respond to photon density and intensity.

It is not proper to quantify or qualify results based on a physical value that is not in direct correlation to the system being studied--especially when there exists a physical value which does have such a correlation.

If you experiment and post results on this process to the farm--only farmers with the exact same lighting setup with the exact distances and exact environment as you will be able to benefit from the findings. If, however, you discuss the results in values which are applicable across all setups--the findings can be more useful for everybody.

There is a reason measures for light intensity and photon density exist--and studying systems like this is one of those reasons. Using wattage will be great from a personal experience level--but unless you can quantify the actual physical effect of the values you're varying it will not teach the community anything in a definitive sense.

I'm merely trying to nudge conversations like these in a direction where the results might be more useful for everyone--if I've learned anything from being a part of this community-at-large (not just THC farmer) its that many of the side-by-sides are useless from a reproducibility standpoint. Very few if any of the results from these represent a definitive conclusion about what is physically happening.

That is to say that none of them would be eligible for publication of their results in academia. I only suggest that this is a bit of a shame--because academia is not so hard to imitate really in this area. Only a few changes to experimental setup could see this community getting some really salient and useful results. As it stands now much of the hard work that is put in goes to waste--because we aren't taking the time to be careful in our calculations.

Either way, it's not intended as a reprimand on the conversation at hand--or even a correction necessarily. Think of it as a suggestion that doing this a tiny bit more carefully might yield some really cool findings.

 

[LexLuthor]

I am not doin an experiment where I lower the wattage (light intensity) during flowering. I said it would be a cool experiment if someone did that to see if they could do it in a way that they did not lose yield. I understand plants don't absorb watts, but, plants do absorb light which is generated through a lamp that uses electricity (in the expression of watts) to produce light. Therefore the more watts in an HID light the more intense and more expensive it is to run the light. The conversation me and glock was having was about using less watts in flower as opposed to veg instead of using the same wattage throughout the entire grow to save on electricity (save money) without sacrificing yield. You keep saying watts have nothing to do with it and won't prove anything, so, could you please explain to me (in lamest terms) how more watts do not generate more light intensity when it comes to HID grow lights. Also, I honestly dont know how else to explain light strength in HID's other than watts. You say I need to focus on photon density and light intensity, well FYI, I'm not a scientist with thousands of dollars of equipment that can test photon density, and everyone else I've ever talked to (including lots of people on the farm) always used the watts of an HID light in relation to the intensity and penetration of the light through the canopy. I just don't understand how you expect me to know how intense or dense the photons are in a light just by looking at it, I think there's a reason so many people talk about watts, I think it's because the more watts the light has then in turn it is more intense which (if all other factors are in place) equals better yield.

 

[squiggly]

You keep saying watts have nothing to do with it and won't prove anything, so, could you please explain to me (in lamest terms) how more watts do not generate more light intensity when it comes to HID grow lights. Also, I honestly dont know how else to explain light strength in HID's other than watts.

Happy to.

Okay so let's assume that we're going to run this experiment for the following argument:

Let's start at the beginning and be specific about the question we're asking (or our hypothesis). So what we want to find out is: can we use less electricity without losing yield?

If we want to answer this question for your and only your setup (or an identical one) then using wattage is fine, because all of your results are quantified according to your wattages. So if you notice that you set this at 600W rather than 1000W and you can still yield the same and thus save on electricity.

Now, that's a great finding--and it will aid you greatly and save you money. If that's your plan then I encourage you and wish you luck. I think it's a great idea.

However, if you want to answer this question for everyone you need to put it into a value which is easily measurable for all. Because of the many many different lighting fixture/bulb designs in HID lighting every light/bulb will not be producing the same intensity/density of light as other designs.

So if someone wanted to repeat your results--and they try to use 600W as you did, they may end up sacrificing some yield if their density/intensity values are not the same as yours were.

In science, we report the value that matter to the system not the one that is easiest for us. A plant does not care what wattage produced a light of a given density/intensity--it only cares about the density/intensity. Because of this it could be misleading, or un-useful, for someone else to attempt to repeat your results using wattage as a guide.

You can say:

A plant which is exposed to light of density X and intensity Y will still produce a given yield Z under certain circumstances. If you measure these quantities (and if we do enough experiments and find a representative mean for the population) then we can say some definitive things about how intensity/density of light will affect yield and whether or not we can save on electricity.

You cannot say:

A plant which is exposed to light produced by wattage X will produce a given yield Z as compared with a light produced by wattage Y.

The reason you can't say this is that the physical quantities which are important to the plant are independent of wattage. Wattage can effect a given light in a predictable way, but we can only make predictions for that light if we choose to base an experiment like this off of wattage.

I suppose in most layman terms I'd say the following:

Less wattage does translate to less intensity--but the reduction in intensity for a given wattage is not a constant term which applies to all lights. If you switch one light from 1000 to 600, it may drop the intensity by X. If you switch another from 1000 to 600 it may drop the intensity by Y (a different value).

For this reason it is more useful to discuss the intensity/density as these should average out to be constant values for the given experiment which will apply to all plants of a given genetic profile. These are the values the plants care about.

Here's an analogy if you're still having trouble.

The velocity of a given gaseous particle is dependent upon (in a simple case) two things. Temperature and pressure. Essentially the higher the temperature the faster particles are moving in the gas phase.

Doing this experiment this way and measuring wattage would be a lot like doing an experiment in which you wanted to test the effects of varying temperature--but instead of deciding to measure the temperature of the room to record, you decide to instead measure the velocity of a given particle.

This would be okay if the velocity depended only on the temperature, but in this case it actually depends also on the pressure (and concentrations of particles). If the experiment in question was involving a plant we could measure the same velocity for a particle (if we varied the pressure) and observe temperatures which cover the entire range of the plants ability to survive so all the way from fatally low temperatures to fatally high temperatures (with the same velocity). If I were to hold pressure/concentrations constant then the same velocity would always translate to the same temperature--and this is analogous to the situation above wherein measuring wattages will work for your and only your lights. For this experiment the velocity measurements would work for my and only my pressures.

The same thing could happen here. We could be covering the entire range of intensities/densities from no response to negative response, if we use enough different lights. However we have the technology to directly measure the physical quantities we're after and leave the light design and variance behind as a confounding variable and instead focus on these quantities.

Just for a heads up--the equipment to measure these quantities does not cost thousands of dollars. I wouldn't have even brought this up if it did.

 

[kushtrees]

Ok bro, you are pointing out the obvious...but with proper ventilation and cooling you can easily get a 1000w close enough to be more intense then a 600w. Now you are acting like squiggly and getting completely off subject, we are talking about lowering watts (light intensity) during flowering to save electricity without sacrificing yield. People need to stop making comments when they don't know what the FUCK there talking about...yeah a 600w is more intense at 6" compared to a 1000w at 3' but why would somebody use such a big gap inbetween light and canopy when it is NOT needed. Stop using these retarded examples when you know damn well nobody in there right mind would put a 600w 6" away from a plant then in the same room put a 1000w 3' from another plant...it makes NO sense.

theres no reason to get upset, I was trying to reiterate squigglys point in a more obvious way

if you have a side by side with all the same variables and the only one you change is wattage the 600w is going to yield less no doubt. If you bring the 600w closer and still keep the temps and humidity where they should be you could approach the same yields, but as squiggly is saying in order to do this and make it applicable for everyone there has to be a measure of light intensity, as different bulbs put out more/ less light

another thing to take into account is that fruiting and flowering plants like full sunlight during flowering, leafy plants such as lettuce and cannabis while it is in the vegative state do not need as much light and can be grown well in more shaded environments. Sunlight gets less intense during the end of flowering so maybe starting flowering with 1000w and using a 600w in the last few weeks you might not see a significance yield difference. I back of the lights the last two weeks but this is more for quality, not yield

 

[glockdoc]

great input guys, all of you! yes lex that is what i am basicly talking about. the title of thread says more yield but it should say without loosing any yield.
sup squiggly you following me or am i just in good threads?!? i got a question for you about this whole watt thing..dont you think we should be going by watts and such because the unviersal goal to reach is measured at grams per watt? i am about to get a 150w hps, and im thinking if i used 250 w during veg and dropped to 150 at flowering; yes the potential gpw i could yield is a 100 gram loss at 1gpw, but im starting to believe in doing this, there would be a greater chance of me yielding 150g to reach my 1gpw goal. hey i could be just over imaginative but it seems realistic to me.
what do all u guys think?!?!
how do you go about your grows squiggly? if lumens are the measurement of intensity do u go by lumens? do u aim for lets say 10,000 lumens per sq ft like the sun? that another thing i think about too. figure the sun puts out around 10,000L per sq ft. or 108,900 lumens per sq meter. a 600 and 1000w put out this number give or take some. do you think even thou the measurement are g.p.w that someone could use lumens as a measurement? think about it we dont use gpw outdoors i would hope. the sun is millions of watts but we dont yield millions of grams. just pounds. it really leads me to believe that the measurement of yield should be based on how much water the plant consumes...idk, too much to think about.

 

[LexLuthor]

I do apologize for cusing and I do understand what ya'll are talking about different bulbs of the same wattage emit slightly different intensities but not many people have the time or resourses to buy 7 seperate 600w light kits all with different bulbs then 7 more 1000w light kits with different bulbs, thats 14 light kits and they cost a few hundred dollars a piece, plus many people don't have the space or cooling capacity to support that many lights. Now grant you that would make for a more accurate experiment, but the average joe (most people on this website) can relate to watts in the relation to intensity and it is a better way of doin a side by side without spending $5,000 on an experiment with 10 or 15 seperate grow lights all with slightly different intensities, thats just something the majority of people cannot do. If a 600w bulb emits 96,000 lumens and another 600w emits 98,000 its honestly IMO not going to make a huge impact, but if a 1000w has 136,000 and a 600w has 94,000 then there is a big enough difference and they both would be close enough to the canopy to maximize light intensity. So again IMO you really don't need all those different bulbs to get decent results from an experiment (the one I'm not doin), but, I do agree it would be MORE accurate the way squiggly and kushtrees are saying, I just believe it's accurate enough just by using watts.