lighting schedule

[GMO]

this is quickly turning into my kinda thread

I personally do fully believe cannabis to be a C3 or C4 type but it really comes down to splitting hairs but thats where the fun starts

you have 2 parts to the calvin cycle;e, one light dependent and one light independent.

From what ive seen of plant growth first hand i believe alot of inter-nodal growth happens in the dark period especially through the transitioning time of flower. Personally i dont think the different is pureply photoperiod plants like X and Autos like Z but a plant bred in a particular way for a particular type of growing style will show the genetic traits the breeders or locals have bred into those local genetics over generations. this can be said for the vast majority of land race strains let alone modern hybrids. so all the rules go out th window when you find one that behaves different

basically, its nature, it will always throw us a curve ball the second we think we have it sussed

roll with it, dont fight it

[GMO]

problem with all the data is that we dont grow purely for biomass. by taking a light photon and binding carbon to atp can be a direct measure of growth and biomass but neither really describe how the light affects plant structure and flower production as well as the ratio of secondary metabolites

I personally found autos react to 24/7 light by growing less vertically which for me is not a good thing, a taller plant is more manageable for my growing style and the end results in my view were much more potent being given a 3-6 hour dark period

addition;

the quoted book was published like 6 years ago. there are alot more modern research with published data

[GMO]

the quoted book was published like 6 years ago. there are alot more modern research with published data

You got some links to the modern research and data?

sorry, i wasnt trying to seem a douche about it. the guys at Utah State Uni do alot of studies around hemp which are pretty up to date

plant morphology isnt something ive searched to my into besides the newer stuff with spectrum... but now your gonna have me off searching for hours

[Josh]

You got some links to the modern research and data?

sorry, i wasnt trying to seem a douche about it. the guys at Utah State Uni do alot of studies around hemp which are pretty up to date

plant morphology isnt something ive searched to my into besides the newer stuff with spectrum... but now your gonna have me off searching for hours

No need to apologise dude. Just makes my BSc in the early 90's out of date too.

I'm also interested to see some kind of science behind why folks chop so many fan leaves off their plants to expose bud sites to the light.
More leaves = more photosynthesis and more sugars for the plants = bigger buds. But again

I have found this interesting link on my googling travels. https://physicsworld.com/a/artificial-l ... mushrooms/

Now I just gotta work out how to wire the plants up to 240v in the tent.

I've found that a happy medium between the two extremes works best, imo

I only defoliate to expose the lower leaves to the light, not the bud. For example, I grow flat, even canopy most of the time. But there's still usually a top or two that is taller than the others and creates shade

If there's big fans on the lower part of the tall top that are blocking light from seperate tops' fan leaves, I'll remove those
(Holy fuck, that sounds confusing )
It's all anecdotal but just a thought

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk