NooB Advice

johnathandoe

Active Member
either my computer, camera, or kodak program lost my hidden pic files.....or maybe i just burried them so deep in BS files I don't remember the way to the file......Any one ever done that, if you don't know what I'm talking about ur neglecting ur comp.

I got a 3 yr old and a newborn to tend to while mama rests, lil baby is only 5 days old shes beautiful tho.

What I am getting at is I don't want my 3yr old running up on my photo session haha, Ill have some new ones in an hour or so.
 

johnathandoe

Active Member
see how the top is very "stretched" and the bottom is bushy........@ the thinning point is where i added cfls to the tops and put the t12's on the sides..the side shoots comming out from the bottom was growing toward the t12 not the cfl,,,, matter of fact any growth in the light range of the 12 was turned towards it.

maybe all this just means my cfls are shitty... haha:fire::leaf::hump::weed:
 

Attachments

DTR

Active Member
seconeds turn into years when waiting for them to turn amber would the hermie pollen make the thricomes stop ripening or does it just stop bud production where its taken pollen in im probably just being impatient lol /facepalm 8.5 weeks into flower and they all are at the same place on trichomes where the bubba is 6-8 week and the chem are 8-10 it is all still growing tho and getting much fatter each day so maybe its just all the retarded shit i did to them the cuts iv taken have been like smokeing a angels fart so smooth and no smell or flavor but is has a sweet smell except the 91 kinda smells like pumpkin before smoking i just hope that it comes back in the cure but even just these cloudy trichs get me super medicated for a long time just no couch lock which i need
 

johnathandoe

Active Member
hey just wondering.... should I cut the leaves and branches that are laying or touching the soil..... im sure when I "feed" it will burn those it touches, would it hurt the whole plant if the nutes get on the lower foliage?

CAN I START A CLONE W/O "root starter?"
 

TrynaGroSumShyt

Well-Known Member
.. u can do what u want with your bottom leaves, some say dont cut fan leaves but the low bottom leaves that get no light/bud i cut for better airflow and easier watering. u can get a clone goin in plain water but it'll take a while.
 

EdGreyfox

Well-Known Member
How about just giving them some side light instead? I'm using HID lights as primaries right now, but eventually i'm planning to add a 4 tube bank of t5 (or t8's) as side lighting. Doing some pruning and cutting back to improve airflow makes sense, but I like the idea of giving the whole plant plenty of light.

John- don't be so sure those leaves/branches are going to get burned. I have one plant that grew every direction but upwards for the last 3 weeks, and it has several branches that drag the ground that haven't taken any harm whatsoever from feedings. Just try not to poor water directly on them and then lift them up a bit aftwards so they aren't sticking to the soil and they should be ok. You can always trim them later if they do burn, so see how they react first.
 

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
.. u can do what u want with your bottom leaves, some say dont cut fan leaves but the low bottom leaves that get no light/bud i cut for better airflow and easier watering. u can get a clone goin in plain water but it'll take a while.
I agree. If a leaf isn't getting light it is not benefiting the plant. It's just another leaf the plant has to work to keep alive.
 

EdGreyfox

Well-Known Member
Was wondering what peoples thoughts are on music effecting plant growth? I've been doing some looking online but there don't really seem to have been all that many scientific studies done (mostly in Japan/China during the 90's). The one's I've read suggest that music in certain frequency ranges does effect plant growth in a variety of different ways, but since they werent' doing them on our favorite plant I was wondering if anyone here has done their own testing?
 

riddleme

Well-Known Member
I agree. If a leaf isn't getting light it is not benefiting the plant. It's just another leaf the plant has to work to keep alive.
If you give a plant the right light (the light it wants and uses, I should say proper spectrum) and it is in the right range of proper intensity it passes thru the leaves and gets used by all the leaves.

You are basing your beliefs on what you see which would be a leaf in the shade of another leaf, but the plants don't see light the way we do

I keep on tellin folks this over and over but every one wants to only believe what they see and that is not how it works!
 

riddleme

Well-Known Member
Was wondering what peoples thoughts are on music effecting plant growth? I've been doing some looking online but there don't really seem to have been all that many scientific studies done (mostly in Japan/China during the 90's). The one's I've read suggest that music in certain frequency ranges does effect plant growth in a variety of different ways, but since they werent' doing them on our favorite plant I was wondering if anyone here has done their own testing?
Hey Ed

I mentioned this thread awhile back but there is good info here about music as well and there are some books on the subject mentioned
https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/222916-how-plants-communicate.html

enjoy
 

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
If you give a plant the right light (the light it wants and uses, I should say proper spectrum) and it is in the right range of proper intensity it passes thru the leaves and gets used by all the leaves.

You are basing your beliefs on what you see which would be a leaf in the shade of another leaf, but the plants don't see light the way we do

I keep on tellin folks this over and over but every one wants to only believe what they see and that is not how it works!
Yes, plants "see" light best at wavelengths of 425-475nm and 650nm-700nm. Meaning the more efficient the light is at plant growth.

Irregardless that is still in the range of visible light. So yes it is what I can see haha. But there are other aspects to light that cannabis reacts too aswell. Ultraviolet light is also a factor in trichome production. Why do you think Jamaican weed is claimed to be so strong? They receive the most light especially UV. These equatorial buds were prized because of there potency and that's why.

As far as you claim to passing through leaves and reaching the lower leaves...

Light will only penetrate so much canopy. The light is visible light not X-Rays. It cannot pass through all of the leaves. Leaves on the lower 1/3 or so of the plant receive much less light. The lower 1/8 is useless to the plant. (Unless going with vertical lighting...which is why they are very efficient g/watt - direct light and using the most leaf mass.)

The energy gathered from the top of the canopy will be distributed throughout the plant keeping in consideration auxins and other hormones. If the leaf is not a producer it is a consumer.

A lot of science is based off of observation. A lot of the the things we know about horticulture is based off of scientific research, it's called field observation, Darwin would not approve of you knockin it.
 

Attachments

EdGreyfox

Well-Known Member
Riddle,

Interesting read, but it didn't quite cover what i hoped for. The papers I read online talked about how heavy bass can promote germination, but seemed to indicate that it slowed growth in general, and since I have to contend with a bunch of neighbors that play overpowered bass loud enough to be heard (and felt) clearly in my grow areas I've been considering relocating to the basement where the sound will be muffled and you can't really feel the vibration.
 

riddleme

Well-Known Member
Yes, plants "see" light best at wavelengths of 425-475nm and 650nm-700nm. Meaning the more efficient the light is at plant growth.

Irregardless that is still in the range of visible light. So yes it is what I can see haha. But there are other aspects to light that cannabis reacts too aswell. Ultraviolet light is also a factor in trichome production. Why do you think Jamaican weed is claimed to be so strong? They receive the most light especially UV. These equatorial buds were prized because of there potency and that's why.

As far as you claim to passing through leaves and reaching the lower leaves...

Light will only penetrate so much canopy. The light is visible light not X-Rays. It cannot pass through all of the leaves. Leaves on the lower 1/3 or so of the plant receive much less light. The lower 1/8 is useless to the plant. (Unless going with vertical lighting...which is why they are very efficient g/watt - direct light and using the most leaf mass.)

The energy gathered from the top of the canopy will be distributed throughout the plant keeping in consideration auxins and other hormones. If the leaf is not a producer it is a consumer.

A lot of science is based off of observation. A lot of the the things we know about horticulture is based off of scientific research, it's called field observation, Darwin would not approve of you knockin it.
Not knockin it, I love factual scientific research! and I have done a lot of it. I am an electronics tech (have been for 36 years) so I have a very good understanding of electromagnetic theory which involves light energy as well, here is a breakdown of the actual ammount of the suns light that is utilized by plants quote is from this book
http://books.google.com/books?id=6F7yuf1Sj30C&dq=hall+rao+photosynthesis

The following is a breakdown of the energetics of the photosynthesis process from Photosynthesis by Hall and Rao:[5]

Starting with the solar spectrum falling on a leaf
47% lost due to photons outside the 400-700 nm active range (chlorophyll utilizes photons between 400 and 700 nm extracting the energy of one 700 nm photon from each one) [Photosynthetically_active_radiation]
30% of the in-band photons are lost due to incomplete absorption or photons hitting components other than chloroplasts
24% of the absorbed photon energy is lost due to degrading short wavelength photons to the 700nm energy level
68% of the utilized energy is lost in conversion into d-glucose
35--45% of the glucose is consumed by the leaf in the processes of dark and photo respiration

Stated another way:
100% sunlight --non-bio-available-photons-waste-47% leaving-->
53% (in 400--700nm range) --30%-of-photons-lost due to incomplete absorption leaving-->
37% (absorbed photon energy) --24%-lost-due-to-wavelength-missmatch-degradation-to-700nm-energy-level leaving-->
28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyl) --32%-efficient-conversion-of-ATP-and-NADPH-to-d-glucose leaving-->
9% (collected as sugar) --35-40%-of-sugar-is-recycled/consumed-by-the-leaf-in-dark-and-photo-respiration leaving-->
5.4% net leaf efficiency

net efficiency of a leaf at 25°C is about 5%
many plants lose most of the rest of this doing things like growing roots
most crop plants store ~0.25% to 0.5% of the sunlight in the product (corn kernels, potato starch, etc)
sugar cane is exceptional in several ways to yield peak storage efficiencies of ~8%.

Photosynthesis by D.O.Hall & K.K.Rao says that photosynthesis increases linearly up to about 10,000 lux or ~100 watts/square meter before beginning to exhibit saturation effects. Thus, most plants can only utilize ~10% of full mid-day sunlight intensity. This dramatically reduces average achieved photosynthetic efficiency in fields compared to peak laboratory results. Real plants (as opposed to laboratory test samples) have lots of redundant, randomly oriented leaves. This helps to keep the average illumination of each leaf well below the mid-day peak enabling the plant to achieve a result closer to the expected laboratory test results using limited illumination.

and if you want to do your own experiments here is a site that sells all of the equipment you would need (page in link is an instrument for measurring the light that passes thru leaves)
http://www.cid-inc.com/ci-710.php

Having done this research is why I understand and tell folks that cramming more light up the plants ass will not make it grow better :bigjoint:
 

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
What you have posted breaks down the simple fact that leaves do not use 100% of energy from the sun.

However back to the matter at hand. Do you have your own spectrometer? If you do put the probe right below a leaf so it is heavily shaded and tell me the intensity reading is not lower. If you have 3 leaf sets stacked on top of each other the leaf is entirely opaque. No light can pass through it. Light would be absorbed and reflected by the top and to an extent the middle leaf. Yes too much light is wasteful but allowing light to lower branches is obviously a benefit. IE LST. If light passed through a leaf there would be no such thing as shade.
 
Top