“Do you think it is necessary to add UV chips to the LED grow light?”
Only if that LED grow light is specifically created to properly test the effects of UV light on cannabis. Which to date has never been done to an extend that would lead to adding UV to commercial production lights. The research from the 80s can be dismissed and should lead to only one conclusion: that it’s worth researching further. Personally I believe it may be helpful for specific varieties under specific circumstances and with very specific dosage, and thus is generally not useful. It would also be something to combine with an otherwise perfect grow, which unfortunately are still rare.
While THC may be a result of cannabis having evolved to protect itself against UV (there’s some truth to the mountain reference the previous poster mentioned), it does not follow UV will increase that further. Just as we land animals don’t grow extra limbs if we stay on land. Just as red plant doesn’t get any more red if you surround it with predators.
Most importantly, the THC % isn’t the only relevant factor. Certain light conditions lead to an increased THC% not because of an increase of THC, but a decrease in other plant material. This is sometimes evident in results from (C)MH too. Frostier yet smaller buds.
If for example you want to produce THC oil/concentrates, would you rather have 3 ounce of 15% THC bud, or 2 ounce of 20% THC bud. In other words, while you may push the THC% a bit with additional UV light, if you end up harvesting less in weight it may not be worth it after all. On the other hand, if you are in a competitive market where a higher THC% means you can sell your product more easily... Point is, this would have to be tested more extensively, and properly before a solid answer can be given to the question at hand.
“Do you think it is necessary to add UV chips to the LED grow light?”
Only if that LED grow light is specifically created to properly test the effects of UV light on cannabis. Which to date has never been done to an extend that would lead to adding UV to commercial production lights. The research from the 80s can be dismissed and should lead to only one conclusion: that it’s worth researching further. Personally I believe it may be helpful for specific varieties under specific circumstances and with very specific dosage, and thus is generally not useful. It would also be something to combine with an otherwise perfect grow, which unfortunately are still rare.
While THC may be a result of cannabis having evolved to protect itself against UV (there’s some truth to the mountain reference the previous poster mentioned), it does not follow UV will increase that further. Just as we land animals don’t grow extra limbs if we stay on land. Just as red plant doesn’t get any more red if you surround it with predators.
Most importantly, the THC % isn’t the only relevant factor. Certain light conditions lead to an increased THC% not because of an increase of THC, but a decrease in other plant material. This is sometimes evident in results from (C)MH too. Frostier yet smaller buds.
If for example you want to produce THC oil/concentrates, would you rather have 3 ounce of 15% THC bud, or 2 ounce of 20% THC bud. In other words, while you may push the THC% a bit with additional UV light, if you end up harvesting less in weight it may not be worth it after all. On the other hand, if you are in a competitive market where a higher THC% means you can sell your product more easily... Point is, this would have to be tested more extensively, and properly before a solid answer can be given to the question at hand.
Just like anything solid about cannabis research. We are all just experimenting with the guidance of our peers. We have been waiting for science to step in with full fledge research. Example: we have yet to breakdown the cannabis genome. We don't even know how many cannabinoids there are. Until then, Lets keep testing!!!“Do you think it is necessary to add UV chips to the LED grow light?”
Only if that LED grow light is specifically created to properly test the effects of UV light on cannabis. Which to date has never been done to an extend that would lead to adding UV to commercial production lights. The research from the 80s can be dismissed and should lead to only one conclusion: that it’s worth researching further. Personally I believe it may be helpful for specific varieties under specific circumstances and with very specific dosage, and thus is generally not useful. It would also be something to combine with an otherwise perfect grow, which unfortunately are still rare.
While THC may be a result of cannabis having evolved to protect itself against UV (there’s some truth to the mountain reference the previous poster mentioned), it does not follow UV will increase that further. Just as we land animals don’t grow extra limbs if we stay on land. Just as red plant doesn’t get any more red if you surround it with predators.
Most importantly, the THC % isn’t the only relevant factor. Certain light conditions lead to an increased THC% not because of an increase of THC, but a decrease in other plant material. This is sometimes evident in results from (C)MH too. Frostier yet smaller buds.
If for example you want to produce THC oil/concentrates, would you rather have 3 ounce of 15% THC bud, or 2 ounce of 20% THC bud. In other words, while you may push the THC% a bit with additional UV light, if you end up harvesting less in weight it may not be worth it after all. On the other hand, if you are in a competitive market where a higher THC% means you can sell your product more easily... Point is, this would have to be tested more extensively, and properly before a solid answer can be given to the question at hand.
While THC may be a result of cannabis having evolved to protect itself against UV (there’s some truth to the mountain reference the previous poster mentioned), it does not follow UV will increase that further. Just as we land animals don’t grow extra limbs if we stay on land. Just as red plant doesn’t get any more red if you surround it with predators.
It doesn’t provide growth, it increases terpenes and THC content.i have yet to find any solid evidence that the addition of UV helps promote any substantial growth
OG
You spell just fine buddy! I think Adding Agromax PureUV or California light works Uv product would do wonders for anyone’s garden. Just my opinion; take it for what its worth.we were only speaking of the UV part being helpful during the flowering sage and causing potential harm to some plants. most of this theory as far as i can tell, there is to much information on lights that is released by the manufacturer. i voted NO as i feel like the added cost of a few red dots here and there are going to be more hype than homerun!! would love to be proved wrong. my spider farmer have a couple red strips and my plants love these lights as do i. i've bought two and have another one on the way!!
i suffered a TBI years ago and never gave it a thought till my shrink gave me this 3 test with puzzles and shit etc etc and well i of course thought i crushed it as any adult would. gramar, short story retention, simple color shape puzzles, spatial awareness etc. long story short i failed hardmode... it was a odd day but explained a lot.
OG
Would actually cost a lot more. Those bulbs are more than a 4 foor agro max that puts out a lot more uva uvb. The agromax are like $25Does anyone run a reptile light with a UVB bulb? Seems like the most cost effective option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?