600w vs. 1000w for Mothers

[AcesFull]

Hi All,

These questions may very well be filed under 'dumb questions', but I have to ask them.

I grow mother plants to clone from. The goal is to be able to cut as many clones per month off of each mother plant. I currently use 1000w HPS over the moms. It has worked well.

I have also kept a bunch of moms in a greenhouse, but we're getting very close to the flowering stage outdoors and I'll need to move them inside soon so I'm re-configuring the indoor rooms to accommodate them.

The only reason I have HPS currently is because when I started out I planned to flower. That is no longer the case, but I haven't felt a need to run out and switch everything to MH without a compelling reason.

Now to the questions:

Does MH at the same wattage outperform HPS in that I'll get more clones per month by switching?

Would jumping down to 600w MH slow my current growth rate?

The 1000w HPS lights are up, just not turned on. I need to do absolutely nothing except plug them into the timers when the moms come inside, but would like to make the switch to either MH or 600w while I still have the space to work in there if indeed making a switch would help me.

Thanks for any advice I can get.

AcesFull............

 

[AcesFull]

A mother plant is a plant you cut a clone from. The clone being the baby of the 'mother' plant.

And, no, I'm not looking for LEDs.

Thanks.

 

[AcesFull]

why don't you like LEDs ?

I don't not like LEDs. Read a lot, haven't tried them. I'm setup with 1000w HPS right now and swapping to 600w MH would be easy.

Swapping to LEDs would require a considerable investment and to get the same square footage of coverage I currently have would be quite the investment indeed. Ain't happ'nin.

Thanks though.

As I get closer to moving outdoor plants inside to continue veg'ging/mothering, it's looking like I'll be firing up the 1000w HPS ballasts in place.

Just looking for options.

 

[lil stinker 420]

i would think the 600w. would maybe be the way to go plus you save on electric,then use the 1000w. for flowering. have you considered t5s as an option.

 

[AcesFull]

i would think the 600w. would maybe be the way to go plus you save on electric,then use the 1000w. for flowering. have you considered t5s as an option.

T5s pale badly in comparison to the 1000w lights. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking T5s as they have there place in anyone's grow operation including mine. I have done side by side comparisons and 1000w blows T5 away in terms of growth rate.

About the 600 watters, that's my question. I'd love to save electricity, but I have never compared growth rates between 600w vs. 1000w and HPS vs. MH.

1000w will perform better in terms of growth rate. That's a given. How much better, though?

MH is recommended for veg'ging. I know that. What I want to know is how much more productivity, if any, would I get switching to it.

I may have to spend the time and money to do the comparisons myself.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

Peace..........

 

[HB Rob]

Sodium will always outgrow a similar wattage MH just on the extra lumens. Additionally, some etiolation is helpful for cloning. Stick with HPS.

 

[lil stinker 420]

i agree no comparison in the t5s and a hps 1000w.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Deja vu...

These questions may very well be filed under 'dumb questions', but I have to ask them.

A wise man once told me that the only dumb questions are the ones that a person keeps asking over and over again because he did not listen to the answers.

I grow mother plants to clone from. The goal is to be able to cut as many clones per month off of each mother plant. I currently use 1000w HPS over the moms. It has worked well.

Just a hunch, but since you'll see some degree more internodal spacing length with a HPS over a (comparable wattage) MH, that in your application (clone production) a HPS will be most useful. The wattage part of the question is up to you. Less with a 600 HPS than a 1000 (or 750) HPS, but whether less is "too less," IDK.

 

[AcesFull]

Deja vu...



A wise man once told me that the only dumb questions are the ones that a person keeps asking over and over again because he did not listen to the answers.



Just a hunch, but since you'll see some degree more internodal spacing length with a HPS over a (comparable wattage) MH, that in your application (clone production) a HPS will be most useful. The wattage part of the question is up to you. Less with a 600 HPS than a 1000 (or 750) HPS, but whether less is "too less," IDK.

Awesome. Thank you, Sir!

 

[TorturedSoul]

You can always pick up a Lumatek Dimmable 1000-watt ballast and try it @ the 600-watt setting. If that doesn't work to your satisfaction, try it @ the 750-watt setting. And if that doesn't work...

I guess there are more ballasts than just Lumatek's that have dimmable - or at least multi-watt - settings these days. I just haven't used any of them. But one hopes that any quality one would be acceptable, as long as it suited your needs.

 

[kdogsgirls]

Mothers need one fourth the light of flowering, you could mother noooooo problem with a 400 watt lite..dont forget you dont have to worry about tightness of the nodes and shit if ...its just a mother..how many moms?....its once the clones root that you wanna blast em...but to get a nice mom you dont need the 1000, if I want five moms id chuck em under a 400hps, if you want ten stick with the 1000

 

[kdogsgirls]

Oh also mh lamps give off wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more heat..but maybe a 400 mh would be perfect for moms...its not like you need the moms to be huge, you just take clones and let em grow more...

 

[AcesFull]

Thanks for all the replies. Very very helpful. I'll check out a dimmable at my local grow shop. Sounds like a reasonable idea to compare recovery times at different wattages on the same plants.

 

[Stoned4daze61]

Have any of you heard or read about the T5 fixtures with the spectrum specific bulbs made for reefs? I've come across a few threads w/ results that compare to HID's & expensive LED's. You can buy blue,red, or purple bulbs. The people iv'e seen used 8 bulb fixtures w/several blue & purple for veg, & swapped the blue w/red for flowering. They dont need cooling like the HID's & they are spectrum specific like the LED's, they are also made for corals & are made to penetrate 5' of water.

 

[kdogsgirls]

A friend and grower I know has this sick ass t5 setup with like ten bulbs in it...it is awsome for vegging sfarting clones, but wwed have never ever flowered unded it..i dont care who tells me what about it, ive seen plants grow in both rooms at the same time and hps blows it away..although you could get it super close...awsome for keeping moms under though and thats what were talking about rt? I just wouldnt flower with em

 

[Stoned4daze61]

Well the thread I came across had some super scientific grower posting all kinds of spectrum charts stating that most people use T5's with full spectrum which is a waste of potential lumens,$,& plant growth. He said plants only need blue spectrum(400-470nm)for veg, & red(640-665nm) for flowering & a tiny bit of green so the plant can absorb the blue & red. The full spectrum bulbs your friend is using covers the FULL spectrum, when plants ONLY need 400-470nm & 640-665nm so any wavelengths in between are wasted. It is basically a T5 fixture with the benefits of being wavelength specific just like Expensive LED's. Your friend w/ a 10 bulb T5 fixture should mix 7 blue/3 purple for veg & 7 red/ 3 purple for flower. They are $20 a bulb vs. about $6-$7 for full spectrum but are all "usable light" & penetrate WAY better for a fluoro & even gives good flowering results. Here is a chart of full spectrum bulbs

And a chart of the actinic spectrum bulbs ( notice how they are specific & dont waste any unwanted wavelengths) Actinic Blue

Actinic Red sun

And the Fiji Purple which is a mixture of red & blue ( people mix it with blue for veg to add a little bit of red & vice versa with the red bulb for flowering) Just like daylight & soft white cfls but way more specific

Sorry pics didnt upload at first

 

[kdogsgirls]

I guess it was just a matter of time before someone found the right combo. Ten years from now im sure lights will be crazy different.i would love to see a grow done with em...the first time I ever grew indoors was with regular flourescent shop lights like t12s..they grew a bud the size of my fist..lol one bud..then I got a 400hps and was like holy shit...then I ended up building a five by five . I have the fourhundred, the six and six four ft t8s on the walls to help light up under three feet, since even the six hundred cant really produce decent nugs under three ft...so if you think about.it.that guy may be right..you could probably do good with enough bulbs and the right spectrum if you have a nice even canopy and put the tfives real close youd do ok..but would the floros penetrate the canopy?

 

[TorturedSoul]

Have any of you heard or read about the T5 fixtures with the spectrum specific bulbs made for reefs?

Yes.

They dont need cooling like the HID's

Like the HIDs - specifically MH, I assume, if you meant in terms of aquarium/reef duty - no. But the consensus is that they DO need cooling to prevent color shift and some output loss at temperatures over 130°F. You'd want the fans blowing across the ends, of course, since over-cooling the bulb as a whole tends to hurt output. But not cooling them at all - especially with the VHO types or any T5 that is overdriven (which is a common practice in that hobby) - is a bad idea. Some have noticed a 30% decrease in PAR after a short period of time (2-3 months) when fans were not used.

[EDIT #1: 100°F seems to be optimum for T5s when color-shifting, amount of output, and useful lifetime are all considered. But there's a bit of "wiggle-room."]

they are spectrum specific like the LED's

Well... no, not really. You're comparing the single-wavelength output of LEDs with bulbs that have outputs in a range of wavelengths (although they are, of course, weighted).

they are also made for corals

Many of them do well in that application, with the proper mix of bulbs (which many consider to be the primary benefit of T5 setups, that ability to mix and match). But since you're talking mostly 10K-20K with a little 6500K thrown in, that is probably not directly comparable to cannabis.

are made to penetrate 5' of water.

. Maybe 3' for the higher-output types. I don't think I'd want to try growing SPS corals at 3' with T5s though. For some applications, many agree that "nothing beats the penetration of a MH." Although the reefer with a large budget often goes with a couple of 400-watt MH and some VHO or overdriven T5s in combination.

He said plants only need blue spectrum(400-470nm)for veg, & red(640-665nm) for flowering & a tiny bit of green so the plant can absorb the blue & red.

He has not, perhaps, read much about PAR?

From Cornell University Biological and Environmental Engineering Department's Controlled Environment Agriculture page (which has a lot of information on light and its affects on plants):

Plants have multiple pigments that absorb light energy and utilize that energy during photosynthesis, including chlorophylls a and b, carotenoids, phycoerythrin, phycocyanin, and other more minor pigments. Scientists have quantified the amount of light each pigment can absorb at each wavelength, creating absorption spectrum graphs for each pigment. There is a temptation to match the light source to a pigment absorption spectrum and one would use Chlorophyll a as the pigment to match because it is the most important pigment for photosynthesis. The absorption spectrum is not the complete story however. There is another factor that must be considered, called the action spectrum. The action spectrum is the yield of oxygen produced when a plant is exposed to a single wavelength. This does not match the absorption spectrum exactly; the current theory for this is that not all pigments are as efficient in converting light energy to photosynthesis products. A “blue” photon, for example, carries more energy than a “red” photon, but each leads to the same amount of photosynthetic product. Therefore, when thinking about using supplemental lighting to aid plant growth, the photosynthetic action spectrum should be considered in conjunction with the spectrograph showing the relative quantity of each wavelength produced by the supplemental light.

Plant morphogenesis and light
Morphological changes associated with differences in light quality (color) are categorized into two main classes: blue light responses and red light responses (aka, phytochrome response). Examples of blue light responses include the elongation of the hypocotyls, stomatal opening and phototrophism while examples of red light responses include things that are day length sensitive such as germination, flowering, and preparation for dormancy. Therefore, the amount of blue and red light in supplemental light sources should be considered because they can have a strong effect on the growth and development of the plant.

Plant color and light
Plant secondary metabolites (those produced as pigments) and light quality can influence plant color. Many secondary pigments are produced in plants, including beta carotene, phenolics and anthocyanins. These pigments are used by the plant to help dissipate surplus electromagnetic energy that strikes the leaves. This extra energy is often from the ultra-violet portion of the spectrum. Anthocyanins are familiar because of the red color they contribute to leaves during the fall when leaves of deciduous plants are preparing for winter dormancy. They are also responsible for the red/purple color of some annual and perennial bedding plants and lettuce cultivars. The glazings (covering material) over controlled environments can filter out some of the light wavelengths that are responsible for anthocyanin production. For example, glass filters out some of the shorter ultra violet rays in the range that is called UV-B but allows UV-A to pass through. Polyethylene film allows both UV-A and UV-B to pass through and reach the plants. Research has demonstrated the increased anthocyanin production by baby leaf lettuce showing a 30% increase by the application of supplemental lighting (Li and Kubota, 2009). Therefore, supplemental light can be utilized that includes wavelengths that induce the production of these pigments.

The page - which has a lot of information and links to more (although not cannabis-specific) is here:
Cornellcea - Environment Control

Wiki's PAR page:
Photosynthetically active radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of the PAR range of 400-700nm is utilized by plants (although not all in equal amounts). [EDIT#2: Since there is some plant-response on either side of that range, some consider 350-750nm when discussing PAR.] Which is one reason that LED panels with a variety of wavelengths often perform much better than ones with only two or three. This is not universal, of course - if anyone has figured out the perfect blend of wavelengths and amounts, they're not telling, lol; I suspect that for some manufacturers/sellers, the addition of extra wavelengths is as much a marketing ploy as anything. But I digress.

Speaking of which, I seem to have gone running off-topic. Apologies to the OP.

I wonder if there's enough interest here to add an aquarium/reefing forum to the off-topic section?

 

[Stoned4daze61]

Well, of course some oscillating fans would be fine with some T5's compared to MH's that require ducting,inline fans,etc. Those Actinic bulbs state their PEAK, I was just giving a range in reference of what the plant needs. The first is 420-460nm that's pretty blue and that's the most efficient absorption of energy for vegetative growth. Also worth noting that plants with less blue light than they need get leggy. This is because parts of the blue spectrum allow them to control their internodal length.

The other part of the spectrum is the red side of things. The red is interesting because not just chlorophyll a and b get activated here this is also the realm of carotenoid(sp?) which are the yellow/auburn pigments. Now in the red range you'll get the most energy absorption somewhere between 640-650. Some why the 620 nm that make healthy plants? Well right around 620nm is a band of light which the plant use to change their metabolism from their night/growing/sleeping mode into an active photosynthetic mode. This takes around 2.5 hours for the plants to get enough of this light to actually start using the higher(640-650) red frequencies. So adding in these 620s won't actually give your plant anymore energy but it will more quickly catalyze your plants metabolism.
I'm probably wrong, but I don't think the Kelvin ratings have much to do with the issue here. Kelvin ratings are an average of the light spectrum produced by a light, and it's not consistent at all from one bulb with the same K-rating as another. That's why you have color spectrum graphs for 1,000's of SPECIFIC lights published all over the web and with some of the lights themselves, when you buy them. Sure, if you wanted a bulb with more small-wavelength blues in it for vegging, you would certainly look toward the higher Kelvin bulbs (4,000k and up). But unless the manufacturer has provided the spectral graph, you have little idea whether the light hits the peak points that you want it to hit.

Now, let's say you said, "Well, I found a 5,000k CFL that has a GREAT full-spectrum rating (CRI) of 95+ . . . well, that just means that the light being emitted is more broadly distributed across the visible light spectrum. So, it would probably be a poor source for growers, since it doesn't peak specifically in any wavelength, but uses a blend of all of them.

Colored LED's emit light at a specific wavelength, so that's why you don't often see Kelvin ratings, you see nanometer ratings. And that's why this thread was started. It doesn't appear that much research has been done on which EXACT wavelengths are most absorbed by cannabis. You can consult the GENERIC photosynthetic response graphs, that show the peak areas of light absorption . . . but the graph isn't specific to cannabis.

So the question still stands: when will we finally have studies specific to cannabis regarding which EXACT light wavelengths are best.

I suspect eventually we'll find that it varies by strains, depending on factors such as leaf color. And we'll eventually find that certain spectrums (such as 280nm UV light) might have benefits that we are only guessing at now. For example, the 280nm range might spark a "tanning"-type stress response from the plants, causing more resin production for protection from that light.

We're still in the infancy of testing specific wavelengths on cannabis. Hopefully things will move along quickly . . . and since LED are becoming more efficient (I think they double their efficiency every three years), it'll soon be a no-brainer.
A Kelvin rating is *JUST* the average of the visible light wavelengths. So, Kelvins tell you nothing whatsoever about which specific wavelengths of light are hitting your plants. A 3,000 Kelvin light could have 40% of it's light at 400nm and 40% at 700nm, and 20% somewhere else. And you'd have one very crappy grow light.
If someone tells you that they have a great 2,200K CFL for growing cannabis, first ask them for that specific light's spectral graph, so you can see for yourself if that specific CFL nicely targets the nanometer lengths you prefer. Otherwise, you're just guessing

Chlorophyll B Has a peak on 430nm and 660nm

Chlorophyll A Has Peaks on 470nm and 632nm

Carotenoids are build by 430-480nm

...

SO , Ideally u want 4 specific colors + A light that cover the 430nm-480nm spectrum.

 

[kdogsgirls]

Ok I think what this comes down to is I need to grab my friends t five sef up, put the aqarium bulbs in and see if it.compares....bhes not growig rt now so he shouldnt care...i still think hps will win..ima take a ride see if I can find him.