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

[LexLuthor]

four 250w instead of one 1000w: more coverage yes, more penetration no. So there are pros and cons in every situation, glockdoc just wants to use a 150w and a few CFL's during veg then take the CFL's out during flowering to save a lil money and see if his yield suffer's, I don't think it's gonna actually work but I think it's a great idea. It's not an actual scientific experiment he just wants to answer his own question with real world experience. All of us as growers should do more experimenting like this, the only way to get better at what we do is with experience.

 

[ttystikk]

I'm not disparaging glockdoc's curiousity, or his experiment, and I don't think Squiggly is either. What he's pointing out is that there's a difference between 'let's see what happens' and real reproducible results- and that as an industry (or hobby, whichever you prefer) we do too much of the 'let's see' stuff and not enough real science. I happen to agree, and so I've been laboriously saving my money and setting things up so that I CAN do some scientifically rigorous side-by-sides.

Squiggly, I appreciate your interest- and your candor about your lack of time right now. What I will do for now is to discuss my intentions and approach and let you- or anyone else- critique and we'll see what we can do about coming up with some good data.

Glcokdoc, my light rotator idea is a fancy way of trying what you're suggesting; using less watts in flower than is ordinarily recommended. As discussed above, I'm trying to think outside the box by using tricks like edge reflectivity and light movement, but the end result is the same; less PPK per unit area over time, and seeing what the results tell us.

On the wattage vs. a more specific measurement; watts is fine, as far as it goes. The trouble is that watts alone don't give an accurate picture of what you're doing. PPK, or at least PAR is a better way of discussing light intensity. Here's an example; you can get 1000 umol of light intensity from both a 1000w bulb and a 400w- but the distance from the bulb at which you measure this value is of course drastically different. When you attempt to equate watts with light, you muddy the waters because you're not giving a specific, reproducible number for someone who has never seen your setup to match. So, if you insist on using watts as a measurement of light, let us know what the bulb to canopy distance is so that when someone tries to figure out what you did, they can replicate your setup.

This is, in essence, what I'm trying to do with my own experiment; I will be sharing a lot of really anal picky details in an attempt to make it possible for someone else to visualize my setup, or even replicate it on their own if they want. It's only in this way that I can give an accurate picture of what I'm doing, and therefore give you all- who can't see the setup, let alone measure it in any meaningful way from cellphone pics- a decent chance of having the necessary information to give relevant and useful feedback.

 

[LexLuthor]

I'm not disparaging glockdoc's curiousity, or his experiment, and I don't think Squiggly is either. What he's pointing out is that there's a difference between 'let's see what happens' and real reproducible results- and that as an industry (or hobby, whichever you prefer) we do too much of the 'let's see' stuff and not enough real science. I happen to agree, and so I've been laboriously saving my money and setting things up so that I CAN do some scientifically rigorous side-by-sides.

Squiggly, I appreciate your interest- and your candor about your lack of time right now. What I will do for now is to discuss my intentions and approach and let you- or anyone else- critique and we'll see what we can do about coming up with some good data.

Glcokdoc, my light rotator idea is a fancy way of trying what you're suggesting; using less watts in flower than is ordinarily recommended. As discussed above, I'm trying to think outside the box by using tricks like edge reflectivity and light movement, but the end result is the same; less PPK per unit area over time, and seeing what the results tell us.

On the wattage vs. a more specific measurement; watts is fine, as far as it goes. The trouble is that watts alone don't give an accurate picture of what you're doing. PPK, or at least PAR is a better way of discussing light intensity. Here's an example; you can get 1000 umol of light intensity from both a 1000w bulb and a 400w- but the distance from the bulb at which you measure this value is of course drastically different. When you attempt to equate watts with light, you muddy the waters because you're not giving a specific, reproducible number for someone who has never seen your setup to match. So, if you insist on using watts as a measurement of light, let us know what the bulb to canopy distance is so that when someone tries to figure out what you did, they can replicate your setup.

This is, in essence, what I'm trying to do with my own experiment; I will be sharing a lot of really anal picky details in an attempt to make it possible for someone else to visualize my setup, or even replicate it on their own if they want. It's only in this way that I can give an accurate picture of what I'm doing, and therefore give you all- who can't see the setup, let alone measure it in any meaningful way from cellphone pics- a decent chance of having the necessary information to give relevant and useful feedback.

I was making that comment towards Cap because he said he doesn't think anybody should be doing it. He compared it to Topping a plant to see if it grows 2 tops. Basically he was being sarcastic and saying everybody already knows what happens when you use less light.

 

[LexLuthor]

@ttystikk: Anyways I hope you get great results and good luck on your experiment and if you have time you should start a new thread about it so we all can follow.

 

[squiggly]

There's a strange fallacy that cannabis is somehow not a plant, not made from the same material, or uses the same resources, etc. It has a particular metabolic pathway that makes THC. There have been studies on cannabis. Also look for papers on hops - a close cousin. Regardless, a common greenhouse operator can go into any pot garden and improve its operation, productivity, plant health etc.

Yes there have been studies--but they have been far and few between. For me this argument is about increasing oil production--for others its about saving money.

Regardless of what we ultimately want out of it--I can assure you there a millions more things to find out (scientifically) about MJ before we're done studying it. You are making an absolutely vast oversimplification in saying that we don't need to "know" what it needs. You also essentially use a double negative to make that point--you say we don't need to know what it needs so long as we can deduce what it needs (which is a path to "knowing").

I'm merely saying we should deduce to within a small degree of error what it likes and needs. Even beyond that I'm sure you know that doing careful science can sometimes present results which were not expected. This is how new discoveries are made--you must first ask the question.

I must say that I firmly disagree with your blowing over the issue and generalizing. You appear to lump cannabis in as "any old plant" when the truth is the no plant is any old plant.

You may be an engineer--but I'm a biochemist (Chemistry/Biochemistry and Molecular Biology double-major) and thus I understand that every single tiny input into an organism makes a difference. There a times during a metabolic process where the addition of a single excess molecule will flip an entire cascade of pathways on or off.

Literally millions of people have performed studies on Arabidopsis for years and we are still not done with it--so I'm not so quick to assume that a bunch of us MJ lovers have gotten it all figured out (all the while using mostly bad data).

I've already acknowledged that sample size is an issue--however, if we all take careful data I believe it would be quite easy to "crowd-source" this type of science. Even if we do not end up with perfect data, we will end up with better data. As an engineer you should be familiar with six sigma strategy--this is merely a version of that, an attempt to streamline and improve the vast amount of R&D the community is already doing.

As for a greenhouse operator doing a better job--that makes perfect sense. However, I don't believe it has much to do with whether or not people should take proper measurements if they want to end up at a scientific conclusion (which is what this about no matter how you flip the coin).

 

[Capulator]

I was making that comment towards Cap because he said he doesn't think anybody should be doing it. He compared it to Topping a plant to see if it grows 2 tops. Basically he was being sarcastic and saying everybody already knows what happens when you use less light.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. ;)

Also, with closer lights you can get great penetration, especially with some of the new digi bulbs (USHIO 600's kill). If you are delarfing anyway you don't need a shitload of penetration. You want all the canopy getting even light for maximum yields. This is why screen of green, SOG, or vert with the trees consistently produce the highest yields inside.

I use 600's and I consistently get 50% more fruit than a friend who runs exactly the same system with 1k's.

With 1ks on vert I can get plants nice and close because there is no reflector (less intensity), and I have a fan on each bare bulb.

 

[LexLuthor]

Yes, I was being sarcastic. ;)

Also, with closer lights you can get great penetration, especially with some of the new digi bulbs (USHIO 600's kill). If you are delarfing anyway you don't need a shitload of penetration. You want all the canopy getting even light for maximum yields. This is why screen of green, SOG, or vert with the trees consistently produce the highest yields inside.

I use 600's and I consistently get 50% more fruit than a friend who runs exactly the same system with 1k's.

With 1ks on vert I can get plants nice and close because there is no reflector (less intensity), and I have a fan on each bare bulb.

Yeah your right SOG or ScrOG if done right usually produces the best because of the even canopy getting maximum light coverage, but if somebody wants to try using less lights during flower then I wish them the best of luck. It's always good to try new things even it it doesn't work out it's still a good learning experience. So I still think he should try it I'm sure he'll learn something valuable.

 

[squiggly]

I think the idea behind this has gotten lost along the way somehow.

Capulator actually sort of makes the point here (albeit in a different way):

I use 600's and I consistently get 50% more fruit than a friend who runs exactly the same system with 1k's.

Obviously we're talking about two different processes--but the idea that sometimes you can get more yield with less light is the thing we're trying to probe here (I understand this was not the point you were making Cap--but it shows that if you don't hold everything constant, stuff changes). Ttystikk has suggested using a light rotator, and that may be an excellent way to save on electricity without sacrificing yield--but we won't know for sure until we look deeper and run some tests.

Now to make a definitive statement about cannabis as a whole we would be in for a great deal of testing--however if we look at strains individually, it should not be very difficult to get a good sample size. If everyone were to do it this way ($20 instrument required)--we would eventually end up with a huge amount of strain-dependent data, which could be stratified and analyzed statistically that way. The point is there are routes open for this type of thing--"crowd-sourced" science depends on this type of analysis in many situations. I don't see why we can't apply it here.

What I think the major problem is here is the community is lacking direction in this area. People don't want to read research papers to find direction--and I understand that. I am slightly pedantic, but I like to believe I don't take it to a fault. Research papers aren't meant to grab everyone, but that doesn't mean the applicable knowledge within them should stay forever lost to the MMJ community simply because our government has yet to pull its head out of its ass.

In real life here's what happens:

Scientific discovery -----> Monetization (simplify/consumerize concept) ------> Marketing ------> Industry Acceptance (tipping point ~20-25% market penetration) --------> Full utilization of discovery by industry (~100% market penetration, ubiquitous) --------> Utilization for further discoveries.

Notice what comes second to last.

Our model looks like this (for the system we currently use).

Scientific discovery (19th century) --------> Ignore it, its too hard and expensive (its not) --------> Use something easier to measure and understand which correlates to, but does not equal, the scientific discovery (i.e. use an inferior model) --------> 100% market penetration (laziness, or incorrectly assumed barrier to entry into the known superior model) --------> Learn by experience, not science --------> Everyone present data differently -------->New discoveries are questionable --------> Bicker about it on the internet (everyone is wrong, or only partially correct--for the most part)

You don't get anything solid from this format. That is the muck this community-at-large (not Farm specific) has been muddled in since I became a member of it over a decade ago now. At the time I had no clue, but having been taught both ways--first this way, and then a more exacting, although never perfect, method--I can say that you make discoveries more quickly, efficiently, and to a greater degree of accuracy and certainty with the latter method rather than the former. That's pretty much the entire point of it. New understanding is all-inclusive, it builds on older understanding.

If the understanding you have been generating is shaky and uncertain--you do not have a good base from which to build even newer understanding. If science were heartily involved in cannabis yield maximization research, then we may not have to consider any of this--because the best and brightest would be at work on it. It is not, and so we must (if we give a shit, and I think we do).

I believe our model should look like the following:

Scientific Discovery (19th century) --------> Use it (20ish dollars) --------> Standardize/centralize data reporting (app, website) --------> Open data to everyone for analysis --------> Profit (New discoveries, new synthesis of understanding) --------> Laugh loudly at the fact people used to bicker about it.

TLDR version:

If you cant write out cannabis' genome, explain every gene and its function/purpose, and link all possible metabolic pathways correctly--then you don't know everything you can about the plant. It's more then likely that it's got a few surprises for you.
I know that was a short sentence of things to be able to do but some people hate to read :) Let's just look at explaining every gene for a second:

This explanation and understanding falls over 2 or 3 orders of magnitude of complexity. If the thing codes an enzyme: how much is it expressed? What are co-substrates? what inihibitors/activators? What type of the former? What's the mechanism? What's the substrate specificity? The max reaction velocity? Is there an equilibrium constant? What is it? How does this affect other enzymes? How do those enzymes affect this one? What mutations are allowed? Which are desirable/undesirable?

The list goes fucking on and on and on--for this tiny itty bitty little part of one piece of one gene, and this isn't the only thing genes can code for. However, all of the things all of the genes code for will interact.

It should be clear enough by now that the plant has made it difficult enough for us on its own to understand it. Why then should we be using an observation to probe greater understanding of the plant which we know to be flawed (and have for probably 150 years)?

That doesn't sparkle with me.

Now I'm not here to deride anyone, and you won't see me jumping on anyone's back in a thread where they report flawed data; however, in a thread which is to discuss the concept in general--it suits me to discuss reality. You'll forgive me if it offends any of your sensibilities, but using logic to defend bad science is never, ever, going to work (especially if in your argument you concede the science is bad).

You can get in a broken car and shift the gears whilst mashing on the pedals as much as you'd like to--but it will not get you where you are going any faster (and it may slow you down considerably).

Or you can jump in the fuckin' limo which someone has already fixed up real nice for you and worry about what you're doing from point A to B rather than how to get there.

Ya'll can decide what situations I believe those two statements are analogous to.

 

[ttystikk]

@ttystikk: Anyways I hope you get great results and good luck on your experiment and if you have time you should start a new thread about it so we all can follow.

Built my own light rotator- wanna see?

If I had the $30k up front to throw at it, this would already have been done. Since I'm bootstrapping my own research, it's taking more time. But it IS gettin done and 'interesting and unexpected results' are already cropping up!

 

[ttystikk]

Yes, I was being sarcastic. ;)

Also, with closer lights you can get great penetration, especially with some of the new digi bulbs (USHIO 600's kill). If you are delarfing anyway you don't need a shitload of penetration. You want all the canopy getting even light for maximum yields. This is why screen of green, SOG, or vert with the trees consistently produce the highest yields inside.

I use 600's and I consistently get 50% more fruit than a friend who runs exactly the same system with 1k's.

With 1ks on vert I can get plants nice and close because there is no reflector (less intensity), and I have a fan on each bare bulb.

Here is an excellent example of the confusion that results when we aren't precise about what we're saying; Cap, are you saying you get 50% more yield, merely by substituting lower wattage bulbs in the exact same setup? Or, do you mean that you're getting 50% higher yields on a weight per wattage comparison? Or, are you using the same total wattage in the same total square footage, just spreading it around more with 600s as opposed to your friends' setup with 1k bulbs? Worse, the next sentence switches from talking about 600w bulbs to vertical 1ks, leading to some confusion when I try to visualize what you've done.

I'm not picking on you at all- I want to know precisely what you're doing so I can better replicate your results! I mean, shit- if my goal is higher efficiency, all my screwing around with bike parts making light rotators might still amount to barking up the wrong tree. You might well be running a better setup. My interest is being able to replicate results and get good data; that is, quantifiable outcomes based on specific conditions.

 

[LexLuthor]

Built my own light rotator- wanna see?

If I had the $30k up front to throw at it, this would already have been done. Since I'm bootstrapping my own research, it's taking more time. But it IS gettin done and 'interesting and unexpected results' are already cropping up!

Oooooh...you already got a thread about it...thanx for the link.

 

[Capulator]

Here is an excellent example of the confusion that results when we aren't precise about what we're saying; Cap, are you saying you get 50% more yield, merely by substituting lower wattage bulbs in the exact same setup? Or, do you mean that you're getting 50% higher yields on a weight per wattage comparison? Or, are you using the same total wattage in the same total square footage, just spreading it around more with 600s as opposed to your friends' setup with 1k bulbs? Worse, the next sentence switches from talking about 600w bulbs to vertical 1ks, leading to some confusion when I try to visualize what you've done.

I'm not picking on you at all- I want to know precisely what you're doing so I can better replicate your results! I mean, shit- if my goal is higher efficiency, all my screwing around with bike parts making light rotators might still amount to barking up the wrong tree. You might well be running a better setup. My interest is being able to replicate results and get good data; that is, quantifiable outcomes based on specific conditions.

I have one room, running 3 600's in block buster aircooled reflectors over a custom ebb/flow/nft/topfeed hybrid system. A friend has the exact same setup, with 3 1k's in great white reflectors instead of 600's. Mine are closer side by side, his are spaced a couple feet apart. he has 15 more plant sites and his table is longer. I consistently out yield him by 25-50%, with almost half the light and 15 less plants. Same nutes, same climate, everything the same but the caretaker. ;)

I have a vert room with 9 trees and 9k. the plants can get much closer to the bulb without burning or bleaching because there is no reflector (less light intesity).

If fixed cost in equipment was not the issue, but getting higher yields with less electricity was, I will put my money on 3 250's or hanging right on top of the plants, over a 1k hanging 2 feet about the canopy. Same lumens, more light distribution, and less energy. The amoutn of water and nutes a plant goes through and the rate of photosynthesis is directly related to the amount of light it is getting. Have you ever taken a plant from under a 1k when it starts to yellow and put it in a shadier spot? It gets green again overnight. it also grows thinner branches.

fuck light rotators and movers IMHO. No offense. Better to get bigger reflectors and more fixtures, or get creative with a scrog.

Also there is such a thing as lumen shock. Going from t-5's to 1ks is rough on plants. going from same wattage to same wattage is not. Perhaps that is why my plants do so much better. They never skip a beat.

In my veg room for the trees I veg under 2 1k's
In my veg room with 600's I veg under 8 bulb t-5s

I am not sure why one would spend more electricity in veg using more light and for a longer period of time to get plants nice and big, just to sheist them in flower by cutting their lumens in hopes of getting the same yield. You will do better with less lumens in veg, less time in veg, and more lumens in flower. .remember the first three weeks or so is transition, the plant is still in veg even thoguh its on 12/12.

Here is a quote on the sun/earth relationship:

"It is all about the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many people believe that the temperature changes because the Earth is closer to the sun in summer and farther from the sun in winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the sun in July and is closest to the sun in January!

During the summer, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a steep angle. The light does not spread out as much, thus increasing the amount of energy hitting any given spot. Also, the long daylight hours allow the Earth plenty of time to reach warm temperatures.

During the winter, the sun's rays hit the Earth at a shallow angle. These rays are more spread out, which minimizes the amount of energy that hits any given spot. Also, the long nights and short days prevent the Earth from warming up. Thus, we have winter!"

In a room, inside, the sun is not an issue. We provide, light, water, nutes, temp control, RH control, etc. We emulate a perfect environment for the plant, even better than what nature may be able to provide 24/7.

The only way you will yield the same per sq. foot. is by hitting the plant with the same lumens. Whether it is a 600's closer or 1k's farther, its the same when it hits the plants.

My advice is to look in to digi 600's if you are running horizontal, in a reflector like a raptor or something like that, for the most efficient watt/yield outcome.

 

[Aerojoe]

I don't know about them accepting our work w/ just those minor changes squiggly, I think your a bit of an optimist. I never decided not to use the meter cause I'm lazy, aside from that thing being innacurate as hell(move it around the canopy it's pegged at max and it drops off only where it's horribly shaded...I don't have the best vision but I don't need a cheap meter to do this for me), do you guys own one? it's kinda like using inches to measure something that should be measured in milimeters. In this situation I prefer caps watch if they bleach and note method. It's more that it doesn't help our community use the info fully and also I don't agree w/ how you could just crowd source the info even though every one has way too many variables different to account for, unless you wanna do a study on cannabis in general. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to do better science, I'm just saying it will never be accepted even w/ those small changes you mention because of all the other factors. I'll bet a fat nug that one of the biggest factors in why it will never be accepted that way is almost none of us have the same strains, even when we have same strain name, I'd bet many have fakes from seeds/bad sources, that they think is the real deal. unless we are all doing the same clone only strain, w/ similar nutes/lighting/media/RH/temps, there is virtually no reproduction possible at all. How many people have a sour diesel not from clone only that thinks it's the real deal original? despite how the original has hermie traits that are very difficult to breed out at this point. Or herijuana after the fake seeds came out it's difficult to find the real deal.

 

[LexLuthor]

@Squiggly: It's impossible to get the mainstream scientific community to start R&D on cannabis because it is illegal. It takes thousands of dollars to properly research and develope a crop like cannabis and since it is illegal that limits the amount of people that would donate to the cause. Not only that but the government wants no part of it so they won't budget money for R&D either. There is alot of people (past and present) who wrote books and have alot of knowledge of cannabis cultivation and right now there are people pulling a lb. from one indoor plant using a 600w, you cant get much better then that. So the community-at-large is not doin such a bad job. As long as cannabis is illegal then there will always be online bickering because there is no mainstream scientific studies that have been done on cannabis and accepted through the scientific community. When a scientist said that Pluto is no longer a planet then the scientific community agree's with him, then they make it official. With cannabis we don't have any official scientists to tell us whats right or wrong so until it's 100% legal then people will continue to have these online debates.

 

[squiggly]

I am not sure why one would spend more electricity in veg using more light and for a longer period of time to get plants nice and big, just to sheist them in flower by cutting their lumens in hopes of getting the same yield. You will do better with less lumens in veg, less time in veg, and more lumens in flower. .remember the first three weeks or so is transition, the plant is still in veg even thoguh its on 12/12.

I'm glad you said this in exactly this way. This, I think is sort of where the conversation is stalling. People aren't understanding how this could be possible, and I believe your comment helped me to see the issue, Cap.

Let me try to really boil this down.

Basically, if photosynthesis were 100% efficient.

That is you expect the ratio to be--

Photon : Energy Produced (glucose)
I don't discuss number of photons because it takes more than one to move through the chain--but just assume we're saying 1 Equivalent of Photons needed for 1 cycle : 1 cycle

This is actually not the case--not at all. It looks more like this (oversimplified)--

100% energy
[NIGHT]
100% energy ----> near zero energy
[DAY]
0% ----> 100%

[Photosynthesis Off]

100% ----> 75% (for simplicities sake)

[PS On]

75% ----> 100%

[PS Off]

100% ----> 65%

[PS On]

65% ----> 100%

[PS Off]

Etc.
There has been research which shows that photosynthesis slows throughout the day. This is because the "tools" of PS (many many various molecules) are actually easily degradable. Part of being uv sensitive means that uv can also break you (or your bonds). There is evidence that when photosynthesis stops--the mechanics go to work on the "photosynthesis-mobile" and gradually throughout the day (and according to various photon intensities) it will require more energy for this process to complete in each cell (or at each site for photosynthesis) and it will take longer--which is why we see it dip from 75% one cycle to 65% the next.

This makes sense because naturally throughout the day the system slowly warms up--energy is diverted to photosynthesis, it maximized in the middle of the day (but also is damaged the most) and the need for repair is lowered as we have a cool-down period before night. The cell machinery is specialized towards this and we would expect that.

If you graph photosynthesis (in terms of turn-over of energy products) vs. time using this simplified model--it would look like one big curve (peak) to start, and then progressively shorter and less broad curves throughout the day. When you look at what the cell actually does it's a quite a bit more complicated, but this explains the different reasoning than if we assume photosynthesis to be 100% efficient (which it is not). That is only one situation which demonstrates this reduced efficiency, but there are many others which are at play.

This is the difference between thinking of it as a living being rather than as a solar cell.

So while things tend to this idea of more light = more yield. That is not the nature of the system--and that is something about which it is at least worth asking the question.

It does not mean we will like the result--but we'll never know unless we try.

 

[LexLuthor]

I think the reason glockdoc wanted to use less light in flower was because he said the sun gets less intense as winter approaches so as to mimic the sun use alittle less light, plus he was saving on electricity. For the record I do not use less light during 12/12 nor do I have any intentions on doing so. I am under the impression more light is better during flowering.

 

[Aerojoe]

Anyone here w/ a solis-tek matrix ballast? I wish I had one I'd try to have it start up w/ maybe 750 for first 2 hours and then up it to 1000w or solisboost then drop it back down to 750 for the last 2 hours to mimic sunrise/sunset? this would save some electricity, mimic nature and shouldn't wear down the bulb too much because of solis-tek's soft dimming? Anyone try this?

 

[squiggly]

Do you guys own one?

chyeah

I don't agree w/ how you could just crowd source the info even though every one has way too many variables different to account for, unless you wanna do a study on cannabis in general.

Well again I feel like we could do this in a strain dependent fashion and collect good data (RH, temp, etc, etc, etc) and I was actually speaking with someone earlier about a possible way to "rate" data according to its accuracy (trusted researchers). Of course the infrastructure is the hard part (website, how to organize it, instructions for possible measurements, a community to rate it--etc).

The data would vary wildly yes--but if we collect a huge amount of it we can start to make some sense. If we open the data to everyone I promise you that the result will be some interesting statistical analysis. What I'm proposing is not perfect data (no such thing exists)--but rather better data (or even centralized data at all).

In science we don't progress from worse to perfect, we go from worse to better ---> and with a few exceptions (which were/are universally mistakes) we do it ubiquitously. People don't use the worse way once the better one comes out (so long as the investment to upgrade is not steep, or pays for itself).

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to do better science, I'm just saying it will never be accepted even w/ those small changes you mention because of all the other factors. I'll bet a fat nug that one of the biggest factors in why it will never be accepted that way is almost none of us have the same strains, even when we have same strain name, I'd bet many have fakes from seeds/bad sources, that they think is the real deal. unless we are all doing the same clone only strain, w/ similar nutes/lighting/media/RH/temps, there is virtually no reproduction possible at all.

Well the electron transport chain for photosynthesis is pretty well conserved in nearly all plants, this is a highly specialized process (only the best at it survived for millions of years). So for at least this system--broad data actually works even if you claim stratification won't work.

I think it will, if you're careful about it and it is "peer-reviewed" by a community.

As for it being accepted, who's to say it will or won't be. Certainly if a community takes part in this it will begin to accept some of the more prominent and easy trends that present themselves. People really underestimate data. Putting it all together can reveal some things which you'd have never expected.

How many people have a sour diesel not from clone only that thinks it's the real deal original? despite how the original has hermie traits that are very difficult to breed out at this point. Or herijuana after the fake seeds came out it's difficult to find the real deal.

See above. It's all true--but I suggest that we will still find some interesting things the more data we have and the better we get at judging it's quality (the inherent error). The human error isn't removed simply because we use wattage--it's always there.

What we try to remove is the procedural error as much as possible in science. This is just that. The centralized data idea is simply me throwing something out there. Maybe see if THCFarmer wants to host it?

Else maybe I'll create something and try to get it off the ground. I fear the last time I wrote HTML though was like 2001 lol. I'd have to enlist some of my nerdier friends on campus to make it secure :)

I agree this is a hard sell, but that doesn't mean its the wrong one. I really believe in centralizing data like this--and despite what your opinion is this is exactly the power from crowdsourcing. This is a huge community--if an idea catches on, you won't believe the info you can extrapolate from such a huge sample different strains or not. This practice itself is better than what we do now--forget the physical biochemistry. However if we put both together we can find some cool shit probably.

As humans when we get together we equal something that is great than the sum of its parts--I think we're really missing out on taking advantage of that here.

 

[Aerojoe]

Regardless of how you think it doesn't matter to have the same strains/media/nutes/lighting, it does matter because when your doing science you want to remove as much outside variables other than those you are testing against, otherwise you won't know for sure what was the cause of the results. I got an idea for how you might begin to get people to a standard, maybe you should make a sticky for a science/side by side forum? in that sticky you could make a template for how to do things properly, but I suppose you'll encounter same prob as in the smoke report forum where not everyone chooses to follow the templates.
I don't doubt we'd get some cool info out of it, but how peer reviewable would it be?. When I say accepted I don't mean by stoners, I mean by scientific community specifically it should be able to stand up to being peer reviewed w/o being laughed at. I think for that to happen we'd need to make drastic changes to layout of site, that might not be the goals/priority of owner of site.

 

[Capulator]

Here is some more "scientific observation" for you guys:

With the Jews Gold I am growing now... the fruit directly under the lights are more dense and less hairy than the ones off to the side, however... with the tangerine... the mid canopy fruit has a much better structure and density than the top fruit.

Jews gold: very very indica
Tangerine: very very sativa.

Have you read DJ shorts studies about how sativas like to be off to the side of the light? This must have something to do with the geographical location their ancestors should be in. Less light intensity, possibly better for particular strains...