First Grow - Cheap CFL Grow

[devblxntz]

Okay so I had these 2 bagseeds and I planted them about 3 weeks and a half ago and this is what they came out looking like so far.

I wanted to know if this is basically the first stage of Vegetation.

Even though I know I shouldn't, I diluted about 20 ounces of water with one teaspoon of GrowBig and I put it in a spray bottle and I moistened the soil. I don't spray directly on the plants. Just a mist in the air for humidity.

I just started giving them this water about 2 days ago. The yellowing on the leafs were there before I put nutrients in the water. So I'm guessing its because the plant had water on it and the lights burned through it.

I don't overwater my plants, at all and I usually keep the temperature at 70 through 80.

I also have it next to my window so it has plenty of natural air flowing through it via the fan as well.

The left light is 2700k 23w
The right light is 3500k 23w , I will get more later, I'm on a tight budget


I have a timer set for 16 hours on and 8 hours off.


This is the tall plant which is about 5 1/2 inches.

This is the yellowing:

This is the short plant

This is the yellowing

Just an overview of things

Tell me what you guys think. Suggestions and ideas, please, share the knowledge

 

[TiKanis]

Hey dev..... The burned tips look like typical nute burn. You didn't mention the type of soil your using. Possibility your soils a bit too hot?

 

[Greenethumb42]

I agree with Gilmour..looks like nutrient burn..don't get discouraged just fix the problem and keep going...and I'm a fan of cfl's and they do work..I just finished a grow about 3 weeks ago..it was blackberry kush she flowers for 11 weeks and 5 veg..used Fox Farm Ocean Forest soil and Fox Farm nutrients from Grow Big,Big Bloom,Tiger Bloom,Open Sesame,Beastie Bloom and Cha Ching..also used a little Great White and some Cal mag..ended up with 170 grams dried.

 

[devblxntz]

Hey dev..... The burned tips look like typical nute burn. You didn't mention the type of soil your using. Possibility your soils a bit too hot?

I just used soil that I had bought from a discount store and it's not bad actually. I left my Miracle Gro soil in my sisters house.

 

[TorturedSoul]

I left my Miracle Gro soil in my sisters house.

...and thank your lucky stars for that! Friends don't let friends grow cannabis in Miracle Grow soil (or with Miracle Grow nutrients). I'd rather wait six weeks to start my grow because I had to get a paper route and save my quarters up to buy decent soil and nutrients.

Whatever soil you're using... It kind of looks like mud to me. As soon as your budget allows for it, go grab some (non-fortified) perlite. It'll lighten your soil, help its ability to drain, and help the plant's roots access the oxygen that they need. You can get a small bag for $6-$10 - but you can get a large (2 cubic foot) bag at a nursery/gardening center for around $18-$22 and that'll last you quite a while.

I cannot tell from your pictures how you've got your CFL bulbs set up. But try to orient them horizontally:

socket<BULB>
..........PLANT

above the plant instead of vertically (etc.). Bulbs produce the vast majority of their illumination from the "sides."

You can create usable reflectors for a CFL bulb by cutting a (rinsed) soda can. That will further aid you in helping get the most light that is being produced by your bulbs onto the plants, where it belongs.

If you have small lights, lol, you should be growing in a small space. Paint the walls white, that'll aid in reflectivity, and if the space isn't too large for your light, you won't be wasting either the space or the light.

6500K ("daylight") CFLs are better for the vegetative stage, and 2700K are better for flowering. You can mix at a 1:3 ratio (three 6500K / one 2700K for vegetative and the opposite for flowering) if you wish. Some do, some don't.

 

[lexort420]

Just wanted to say that you should be getting 2700k cfls or 6500k cfls or both for a mixed spectrum however i use only 2700k and it does fine. Everything else has pretty much been covered. If you want a cheap alternative to white paint go get an emergency blanket and line your grow area with it, works like a charm. Good vibes your way and I hope you have a wonderful day.

 

[devblxntz]

Okay so here's an update.


I added a 3rd light bulb. It's a 23w 5000k and the spectrum is bright.

They actually seem to be loving it. Their new set of leaves are actually growing faster and the lumens within their area reach 2000 on my ph meter.

The new one is the single one hanging.

The tall plant is about 7 1/2 inches

[The second plant is about 5 1/2, it gained an inch.

 

[lexort420]

Your gonna probably want a minimum of 150-200w of light real watts not equivalent. And just to be sure you know a ph meter measures how alkaline or acidic your water is not measuring lumens. Your girls look good just might want more light, i made that mistake my first grow. Good vibes your way!

 

[welshpony]

Nothing for me to add really, everything has been all ready said! My first grow was with CFL's and now I use them in my vegging area and HPS is going to stay for flowering. The first grow had a respectable harvest using CFL all the way through. Good luck on your journey!

 

[devblxntz]

I mean, I'm not slow.

I have a ph meter that has a small solar square on the front of it to test my lumens. You have to first move the switch to the middle to, "light". The two long prongs are to test the ph so you move the switch to, "ph".

 

[dr.h00k]

don't trust that meter...it will show a difference in light intensity...but not at all accurate(the plants growth rate is a better indicator)..same to be said for the Ph meter...I use a liquid tester...as I am basically lazy and don't prefer to calibrate a digital meter weekly...but thats me...everything looks fine...although you might consider adding another 5000k (or higher) light for veg...both higher and lower temp lights are usually available at the dollar store...usually in the 13 watt range...but...if Yer lucky, maybe 23 watts...cheerz...h00k...If Yer budget can afford it...higher wattage in both temps would be preferable...

 

[lexort420]

26w cfls are the most efficient in terms of watts/lumens ratio. I wasn't trying to say your slow or anything i guess i just never heard of a ph meter and light meter combo before so i just assumed you were referring to the latter. And now to back up my statement that the most efficient cfl is the 26w cfl i suggest you read this thread it will give you a bunch of good information that helped me when i started growing.
CFL Light Tutorial

 

[devblxntz]

Just kidding bro. But definitely I'll check in more through the forums. In total I have 60w though.

 

[lexort420]

Get at minimum 6 of the 26w cfls if you think you can control the heat i would actually run 8 of those cfls. 60w is a tad low and you will notice slow rate of growth and your plants won't really fill out. Good vibes your way

 

[TorturedSoul]

And now to back up my statement that the most efficient cfl is the 26w cfl i suggest you read this thread it will give you a bunch of good information that helped me when i started growing.
CFL Light Tutorial

My biggest issue with that one is that it states that CFLs are inherently cooler (in the grow room, one supposes) than HPS. A m ore efficient light will always produce less heat than the less efficient one. That's simple logic, lol - lights produce two things, light and heat. If one produces more light, there is less energy available for producing heat. Not to mention that, with HID lighting, it's far easier to place the ballast outside of the grow, where with CFLs they're all attached to the bulbs and require a modest amount of surgery to accomplish it.

In terms of efficiency specifically in regards to fluorescent bulbs... Those old 40-watt 4' tube-type bulbs I used to run a double-decker grow with produced 75 lumens per watt . Their fixtures were also easier to remove the ballasts from than the CFL bulbs' ones are. They only really worked well with scrog grows, though, where one could match the flat canopy to the flat lighting.

Of course, any lumen specification is only going to tell you which light appears brightest to the human eye, since it was intended for that purpose (and actually is weighted to give preference to wavelengths that plants don't really use).

devblxntz, I'm glad to see that you were able to add more light. Have you given any thought to my suggestion of changing the orientation of your bulbs so that they are flat (in relation to the top of the plants) and then cutting soda (pop) cans to make reflectors for them, instead of using a significant portion of your bulbs' illumination to light up the walls of your grow area? You've already paid for the lights - and you're paying for the electricity each month. You might as well direct as much of the illumination they produce onto your plants' leaves as you can. Especially when it's light that's already in the room (so to speak).

It would be beneficial to fill your pots the rest of the way up with your growing medium (soil), especially if you plan on allowing your plants to spend any real length of time in there. You shouldn't have to move/repot them in order to do so; Cannabis - like tomato plants - tends to grow roots from any length of stem that is buried... Just ask any outdoor grower that has allowed a branch to come in contact with the ground and then get buried, lol.

 

[welshpony]

Cannabis - like tomato plants - tends to grow roots from any length of stem that is buried... Just ask any outdoor grower that has allowed a branch to come in contact with the ground and then get buried, lol.

I 2nd this, I always transplant a bit deeper on the stem and on this grow the way ive done my LST ive got rots growing out of my first internode!

 

[lexort420]

My biggest issue with that one is that it states that CFLs are inherently cooler (in the grow room, one supposes) than HPS. A m ore efficient light will always produce less heat than the less efficient one. That's simple logic, lol - lights produce two things, light and heat. If one produces more light, there is less energy available for producing heat. Not to mention that, with HID lighting, it's far easier to place the ballast outside of the grow, where with CFLs they're all attached to the bulbs and require a modest amount of surgery to accomplish it.

In terms of efficiency specifically in regards to fluorescent bulbs... Those old 40-watt 4' tube-type bulbs I used to run a double-decker grow with produced 75 lumens per watt . Their fixtures were also easier to remove the ballasts from than the CFL bulbs' ones are. They only really worked well with scrog grows, though, where one could match the flat canopy to the flat lighting.

Of course, any lumen specification is only going to tell you which light appears brightest to the human eye, since it was intended for that purpose (and actually is weighted to give preference to wavelengths that plants don't really use).

Im thinking maybe you should read that thread again because you seem to be making assumptions since it clearly states within the first few sentences that a cfl is cooler to touch then hps/mh/hid not cooler in the grow room so you supposed wrong. With a good lighting setup ofcourse you could make a hps not noticeably hotter then a cfl grow however cfl growers usually are growing in smaller spaces so a hps in the same space is much more of a pain to cool then cfls. As far as you claiming cfls require modest amount of surgery to rig up i call BS

soooo where is the surgery in my grow? And really cfls ain't any harder to swap out then a standard house light bulb. Ofcourse your right lumens doesn't mean squat to plants since PAR is what matters to them but when have you gone to pick up cfls and saw their PAR listed? Good luck on that one lol. See that would be why cfl growers should be aware of lumens because that is the only bit listed (besides kelvin) and yes it isn't accurate however its more of a guesstimation. You know there is a saying im quite fond of "better to be thought a fool then to speak and remove all doubt". If your not gonna take the time to read what is actually being said here then it might be best to not comment.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Im thinking maybe you should read that thread again because you seem to be making assumptions since it clearly states within the first few sentences that a cfl is cooler to touch then hps/mh/hid not cooler in the grow room so you supposed wrong.

Did I?

What cost more to handle the HEAT? What do I have to VENT? What will VENTING cost?

HEAT? VENTING? I can touch a 200 watt CFL for ten seconds and not burn my hand. I can hold a burning 42, 65, or 85 watt bulb in my hand for five seconds and not get burnt. I can touch a HID bulb for half a second and have a serious blister and burn. Touching a HID bulb is like touching the burner on an electric stove. If you use HID bulbs, not only will you have to cool the bulb, you will have to cool the grow area too. Growing with HID lights requires VENTING the HEAT, and that cost extra money, BIG MONEY.

Speaking of assuming, lol... I am not positive (as I am not the author) but it seems as if the original author of that article is assuming in his heat discussion that the choices are a "hella-watt" HPS and a relatively small amount of CFL watts. But that's not really reality, IMHO. HPS lights are available in small wattages, such as 150-watt and 70-watt (been there - they make good "trash-can grow" lights) - and one can end up sticking 500+ watts' worth of CFL bulbs into a grow cabinet (been there, too). When the watts are equal, the more efficient light source produces less heat.[/b]

HPS lights might seem to produce less heat, because a hobby grower might have experience with, for example, ONE 400-watt HPS - in a hood, with the light (and much of the heat) concentrated downwards... and experience with CFLs where the heat production is divided by the number of bulbs - and the light/heat from those not really being concentrated in any one direction, as is the case with devblxntz's current setup. <SHRUGS> Stick 400 watts' worth of them in a box, shut the fans off for an hour or so, and then stick your head inside the box, lol - see if you don't start sweating.

With a good lighting setup ofcourse you could make a hps not noticeably hotter then a cfl grow however cfl growers usually are growing in smaller spaces so a hps in the same space is much more of a pain to cool then cfls.

How so? If you have a small cabinet, say six to eight square feet, and you use enough CFL bulbs to get both good coverage and decent penetration (okay, make up for the lack of penetration by interspersing some of those CFLs within the canopy, I suppose)... Then you have, in effect, multiple heat sources and must, therefore, ventilate/cool your entire grow cabinet as a unit. Now take the same small cabinet, remove the CFLs, multiple sockets, wiring/cords, et cetera and install a 400-watt HPS fixture. Those hoods are available in "air-cooled" models, you know. With one of those, you can then pull (relatively) cool air in from outside of the cabinet, pass it through the hood, and right back outside - where it can be vented reasonably discreetly, as it has at no time picked up the smell of growing cannabis. The heat (and I will admit that there will be some) from the cabinet - along with ALL - of the smell can then be moved via a smaller fan through a carbon filter - which will last much longer and operate more efficiently, because the air which it is tasked with filtering will not carry the total heat burden - and then vented.

I have seen a dozen or so homemade, multi-CFL, sealed reflectors (including two or three that have been documented here, IIRC) - and they worked well, for what they were. But they gave up the principal advantage that CFL bulbs have (that of being able to position them all around the plant, where their lack of penetration becomes less of a liability). And most people do not seem to bother with such things, anyway.

BtW, I have nothing against CFLs - or the people that use them. I have used them, myself, a time or ten. <SHRUGS> I just don't think people should get the idea that, watt per watt, they produce less heat than HPS bulbs do. And that's before figuring in the (approximately 2x) efficiency hit of the CFLs, or the penetration issues. Other than that... Personally, if I'm only going to grow with a small amount of watts, I'd rather do so with a small-wattage HID light. <SHRUGS> But that's just me. I'd also prefer to grow hydroponically - but I have consumed some fine cannabis that was grown in the biggest "container" of all, the ground. Whatever works for a person... works for them.

As far as you claiming cfls require modest amount of surgery to rig up i call BS

In order to separate the ballasts from the bulbs? Absolutely (no BS)! Not only is it not the simple "open the box, loosen the screws holding the wires onto the terminals, replace said wires with longer ones, tighten the screws back down and close the box back up" operation that an all-in-one (including ballast) el-cheapo HID fixture would involve, it is far from the "pick up the ballast, carry it out of the grow room/cabinet, job done " that moving any remote-ballast entails, lol. And one would have to perform the surgery on each CFL bulb. I have only seen that one done twice. Again, it is something that most people simply do not bother with. Yet I have seen people mention heat issues with only 400-600 watts' worth of CFL bulbs in a confined space (let alone the people that worked up to ~1,200 watts). <SCRATCHES HEAD> I'd think, even with the hassle, that people who are doing low-budget CFL grows would consider doing this, since the main part of the expense is simply their labor. IDK...

soooo where is the surgery in my grow?

The same place that your "modified for remote ballast operation" CFLs are, lol - nowhere. So... Your picture is sort of irrelevant to my stated point.

And really cfls ain't any harder to swap out then a standard house light bulb.

I could (and did) unscrew an HPS bulb and screw in a MH one in less than a minute (err... I did use a towel) with my Lumatek ballast. Flipped the timer back on and I was done.

Ofcourse your right lumens doesn't mean squat to plants since PAR is what matters to them but when have you gone to pick up cfls and saw their PAR listed? Good luck on that one lol.

You definitely have a point there. I did get PAR specifications when I was sent some of these CFL bulbs (the one on the left, I mean ) once upon a time, along with a couple of their bigger brothers:

...but that was several years ago and I have no idea what the numbers were. Oh, and <COUGH> they put out a good bit of heat. Not only the bulb (glass) part of the bulbs, but the ballasts on the bottom, too (notice the large open slots to allow it to escape... into the grow room :rolleyes3 ).

This one actually seemed to produce less heat, although (IIRC) it was 300-watt bulb:

...and it did produce quite a bit of illumination (for the wattage, in comparison to other fluorescent bulbs). And the longevity would be far better, since electrodeless (those shiny rings aren't where the bulb plugs in - the bulb is one continuous rectangular tube with no end-points) fluorescent bulbs do not degrade the way "traditional" (tube or CFL) ones do. Unfortunately, they were still lacking in penetration in comparison to even a 250-watt HPS; and their efficiency dropped off markedly above 400 watts or so. But that was several years ago - for all I know, the technology might have improved.

I've always wanted to test a sulfur-plasma lamp. Those things seemed to have promise, although they were still in the "infant stage" in terms of development (as a grow light) back when I researched them. IDK if that technology has improved or not, either. Perhaps the growing popularity of LEDs for growing indoors has caused development of both technologies to stall, IDK.

What was I on about, lol? Oh, yes, PAR. IIRC (and I cannot swear to it), photosynthetically active radiation - and PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density) refers specifically to 400-700 nm. In many ways, it IS a more useful specification than lumen / luminous flux. It is in no way "weighted" towards the wavelengths that the human eye is most capable of perceiving. But PAR also has its flaws... It completely disregards illumination in wavelengths outside of the 400-700 nm range as being absolutely useless in the realm of growing plants (which is not wholly true, of course). It also fails to distinguish between the various wavelengths within this range and, instead, gives them equal weight. And we know that isn't the case - otherwise, you could just pick a wavelength, say 555 nm, construct a light that emits only that wavelength, and grow plants as well as you could with a multi-wavelength light source, lol. YPF (yield photon flux) is, I think, a better specification - but if you think PAR specifications are still relatively rare, lol... And different species of plants actually react differently to the different wavelengths anyway, so... Methinks we need a CWRS (cannabis wavelength reaction specification) . Me, I have CRS .

BtW, there have been studies done that seem to show that the quantity of light has a <COUGH> power of its own - even when the spectrum is not optimum. Which would go a long way towards explaining why bulbs that, admittedly, produce a fair amount of their illumination in wavelengths that are not optimum for plants (IOW, HPS bulbs)... are still capable of producing over 1 gram per watt if all other conditions are favorable, lol.

See that would be why cfl growers should be aware of lumens because that is the only bit listed (besides kelvin) and yes it isn't accurate however its more of a guesstimation.

Sure, I see your point. But do you want to know what I think? Okay, well... I'll let you know anyway, lol. I think that there is at least the possibility that one could use the lumen specification as a negative indicator. IOW, since it's weighted towards humans' perception (as opposed to, err, plant't perception, lol)... If one knows the efficiency of a given type of illumination (at least in a general, ballpark kind of way), one could look at two different bulbs (of the same wattage), compare their lumen specifications - and posit that the one with the lower lumen number might actually be capable of producing more PAR. Several years ago, when the manufacturers finally started publishing PAR numbers, I observed that some of the ones with the highest PAR numbers... had lumen numbers that were average at best (and often lower than that). <SHRUGS> But one cannot be assured that such a finding denotes an across-the-board rule, of course.

If your not gonna take the time to read what is actually being said here then it might be best to not comment.

I wasn't going to mention it again, lol - but you're referring to where you completely disregarded where I was speaking of how much simpler it is to move HPS ballasts out of the grow area than it is to do the same with CFL ballasts because surgery is required with the latter, and then posted a picture of a bunch of CFLs with their ballasts still attached, and stated that you didn't see any surgery? If it had been ME, that did such a thing, I wouldn't have mentioned such a faux pas again. But to each his, her, or its own I guess .

 

[lexort420]

Alright well maybe i did misunderstand you i can admit that however i still have a problem with some things you have said. For starters you keep insisting that is more work to rig up cfls and i just can't accept that, reason being its not that hard to screw in a y-splitter into a reflector dish that has a clamp and then screw two cfls into the y-splitter.

whats hard about that? Legit question not being sarcastic or snide here seriously whats so hard about that? I still run cfls in my veg box to be precise 336w (yes that includes two fluro tubes i have in there but they are only 17w a piece) and my veg box is a little under 6 sqft but if i must be precise it is 5.8333333sqft so to be even more specific my veg box is a old baby crib i picked up at a second hand store so how would i mount a hps in there safely without a bunch of tools after all the cfl route is cheap and with keeping that in mind not everyone going that route has money for fancy tools to build (in my case that's why I used a crib) so how is installing hps/mh/hid a option? Now with my cfls setup atleast i can get away with a small fan in the grow and a box fan on top to extract the heat and i guess you can say i have a passive intake. Now with a hps setup i would need ducting to move the hot air entirely which isn't a option don't own my home so I ain't gonna go cutting the place up to vent a grow. I would never claim that cfls are better then the other lighting options because I would be lying then however what I will say is you can't put any lighting system in a SMALL space with that minimal amount of effort. Using cfls has more to do with circumstance then having the best gear for your grow. Trust me when i say i saw enough hate towards cfls when i was first looking into growing and I now think that those people hating on cfls were just dismissing them purely because they had tried them then moved up to a better light system which i don't find that a good enough reason to dismiss them as not a viable option. Now I am not entirely sure what you mean by"remote ballast operation" but i have to take a stab in the dark mine would be on my power strip that my lights are plugged into, im sure you know but just in case you don't power strips have a button/switch on them that kills power to the strip. However my veg box runs 24/7 so i don't bother with that or a timer on the veg box. Now im sure you have noticed that typically people who pick cfls as their first setup are just breaking into this world but if they follow the rough guidelines for making sure they have enough watts in their grow area, they can figure out whether they really want to stick with growing or not. To me it makes more sense to upgrade after that if they choose to then to buy a whole hid setup only to find out they don't want to grow afterall, atleast with a cfl setup i could remove the bulbs and use them around the house but what would i do with the ballast setup and bulb in that case? I'll admit you do know more then me with the technical mumbo jumbo of lighting specifically hps and what not but as a cfl grower i don't have PAR listed or any other fancy info all cfls list is how many watts they are what they are equivalent to for whats to incandescent lights (which as im sure you know is useless information to a grower since incandescents aren't viable for growing) and they list the Kelvin whether ot be 2700k 3000k 5000k or 6500k and then ofcourse they list how much you will save in electricity per year (once again useless). People growing with cfls have to go by more of a rule of thumb such as 100-150 watts per plant and as far as lumens go here i copy and pasted this
(Lumens per square foot:

Minimum amount of lighting needed is around 2000 lumens per square foot.
(Two – 23 watt CFL’s, per square foot*)

Mid range is around 5000 lumens per square foot.
(Three - 23 watt CFL’s, per square foot*)

Optimal is 7000-7500, or higher, lumens per sqft) see the info cfls growers have to work with is not exact science just guesstimations. Now i would like to end my ridiculously long post by saying i do believe I mistook you and i would like to apologize for being a ass.

 

[welshpony]

so reading through this there seems to be some misunderstanding, whats being said re CFL's is its harder to move the ballast of the CFLs out of the grow area like you can a HPS setup. CFL's are attached to the ballast and the ballast is where the heat is generated.

CFL's do kick out a fair bit of heat im running 105watts in a small space and it needs ventilation.

Now can we agree the each grow system has its pros and cons and move on from this????

Thanks all