# Revolutionising the traditional light cycles and photo periods



## cerealkilla (Jun 12, 2010)

I have been using a 32 hour flower cycle for some time, since i was able to buy a cheap enough digital timer and throw the old 24 hr timers with there nasty contacts in the bin. my digital timer now only around 30 bucks dosnt care how many hours there are in one day neither do my greens and neither do i. my 32 hr period consists of 20 hours of perfect hps light and 12 hr perfect dark my grow is 20/4 so my 20hr light period never changes only my dark period. this increases yield, decreases dramatically your flower period and gives the green what it wants more light during flower not less. Anyone else using this method if not why?


----------



## rzza (Jun 12, 2010)

im concidering it. you lose money on electric when opposed to running at off peak hours. does a 65 day finisher still take 65 days?


----------



## rzza (Jun 13, 2010)

bump...

im having a hard time finding info on this. ive read a some on it before but id like more info. any search tips?


----------



## riddleme (Jun 13, 2010)

> From Cannabis Culture #56 Aug/Sep 05
> 
> Ask Ed Rosenthal:
> 
> ...


this came up when I googled EXTENDED PHOTOPERIOD FOR PLANTS


----------



## rzza (Jun 13, 2010)

hey thanks alot riddleme. that shhould get me started.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Jun 13, 2010)

if mother nature is what you are trying to mimic than I say your stuff is BS, but if it works for you than go for it.


----------



## quillo (Jun 13, 2010)

riddleme said:


> this came up when I googled EXTENDED PHOTOPERIOD FOR PLANTS


 That is really interesting, especially the notion of using longer days on a plant variety with a lower critical time factor. But I have never heard of any variety bred to have a shorter critical light period. Wonder why not?


----------



## quillo (Jun 13, 2010)

jesus of Cannabis said:


> if mother nature is what you are trying to mimic than I say your stuff is BS, but if it works for you than go for it.


 LOL, my plants have their roots in perlite/vermiculite, are fed nutrients from a bottle, are lighted from an hps lamp, and as isolated as I can make them from non-me life forms. They may as well be orbiting Neptune in a space capsule for all Mother Nature has to do with them.


----------



## cerealkilla (Jun 13, 2010)

Well i hope this has ya thinkin yes it does shorten your flower period, more is goin on during flower and the 20hrs of light is welcomed by my geens as you can see in my avatar pic bubba kush as long as the cycles stay constant this cant be done with your old 24hr pin timer but can be easily programmed with a digital 24 hr timer. this will not fail!!


----------



## deflator (Jun 13, 2010)

quillo said:


> LOL, my plants have their roots in perlite/vermiculite, are fed nutrients from a bottle, are lighted from an hps lamp, and as isolated as I can make them from non-me life forms. They may as well be orbiting Neptune in a space capsule for all Mother Nature has to do with them.


This is a ridiculous statement. You are replacing soil with that media, organic compounds with chemical nutrients, and sunlight with a lamp...you're doing everything in your power to recreate the natural environment and now you want to go and change the most essential part of cannabis flowering, the photoperiod? LMAO good luck buddy. It will probably work, these plants will grow under most conditions, but not as well as using the natural rhythm of the planet.


----------



## rzza (Jun 13, 2010)

hes not saying that hes trying this. this is what he does and it works. there is some info out there about it available, just hard to find. i just would like to find out how much sooner harvest comes.


----------



## quillo (Jun 14, 2010)

deflator said:


> This is a ridiculous statement. You are replacing soil with that media, organic compounds with chemical nutrients, and sunlight with a lamp...you're doing everything in your power to recreate the natural environment and now you want to go and change the most essential part of cannabis flowering, the photoperiod? LMAO good luck buddy. It will probably work, these plants will grow under most conditions, but not as well as using the natural rhythm of the planet.


Ridiculous? OK, to you the above described is a recreation of nature. To me, it looks more like a factory or industrial chicken production. It's striking to me to see this plant thrive even in the extremely artificial conditions in which we grow it. Mind you, I'm not putting this artificial culture down; my plants grow like gangbusters in this environment and I'm excited to find new ways to accelerate production even more. But given the extent of the artificiality that already exists in technified indoor grows, it seems silly to argue against altering the photoperiod because it's too unnatural.


----------



## rzza (Jun 14, 2010)

quillo said:


> Ridiculous? OK, to you the above described is a recreation of nature. To me, it looks more like a factory or industrial chicken production. It's striking to me to see this plant thrive even in the extremely artificial conditions in which we grow it. Mind you, I'm not putting this artificial culture down; my plants grow like gangbusters in this environment and I'm excited to find new ways to accelerate production even more. But given the extent of the artificiality that already exists in technified indoor grows, it seems silly to argue against altering the photoperiod because it's too unnatural.


it is silly. the guy probably just needs to get laid or something ...tell me your cycle for flower please? wouldnt it be 24/24 or alike? perhaps 22/24??


----------



## cerealkilla (Jun 14, 2010)

Ok! my light cycle for flower is 20 on 12 off my grow 20 on 4 off i keep my on cycles the same the only thing that changes is my off period which tells my kush what to do. this method was taught to me by some dutch growers over ten years ago and was a closely guarded secret for some time, my thoughts are why not share my knowledge so everyone can benifit from what i like to call extended light hours, i can reasure you the kush knows little about light cycles or how many light ours their are in a day and is manipulated by the dark hours it receives not the light hours, many of you may be sceptical of new things for myself i have never been scared to try new things if they sound logical, this method sounded more than logical it sounded revolutionary. Any and all feed back will be welcomed!!


----------



## cerealkilla (Jun 14, 2010)

Sorry for those of you who want to know this is a closet grow, coco, 400hps, dutchmaster nutes, bubbakush strain, pic taken at 24 days.


----------



## rzza (Jun 14, 2010)

no pic!!!!!!! i wanna see it. and is it 24 real days LOL

so what would you say on average for time? typical 60 day strain would take how long with your method (which i like alot and im trying it out)?


----------



## cerealkilla (Jun 14, 2010)

I cant say how many or how few days it would take, at this point i would say experiment and whats the worse that can happen? remember if you dont like disturbing their sleep like i dont then you need to write down or have a good memory because your light on times will be changing with every cycle 32 does not fit into 24!!


----------



## Brick Top (Jun 14, 2010)

I have read about such light cycles a number of times over the years and one question always popped into my head more than any others. That is, since light degrades THC and most THC is produced during hours of darkness when plants run on stored energy and they shut down most plant functions and allocate increased amounts of energy for THC production and for growth, IF the additional amount of THC that is lost through light degradation during the increased length periods of light can be made up for in a normal 12-hour period of darkness on top of the amounts that can and would normally be made? 

Someone might get increased growth and yields but they might also end up with a lower quality herb than they would otherwise have. In a normal light cycle they might end up with a lesser amount but what they have might be more potent.

Until someone other than someone doing this sort of thing in a basement says it is the bee's knees I will stick to the conventional light cycles.


----------



## cerealkilla (Jun 14, 2010)

you are entirely right brick top and i have been told not to exceed 20hrs of light i dont think any one method is the beez neez as you put it, there are just too many growing methods around and technicalities can go on for ever, i guess we will see if anyone else tries this, i have friends who stick with the traditional methods even though they know my method works and has its advantages especially in a commercial sense, i guess some people dont like change and prefer to stick with what they know and what works for them.


----------



## rzza (Jun 14, 2010)

i like the idea of 20/4 and increasing night to 20/12.


----------



## quillo (Jun 17, 2010)

I like the idea extended light too and hereby bump this post in the hope that it will be further discussed.


----------



## NoSwagBag (Jun 17, 2010)

So the better plants to use for such growing techniques are ones that tend to flower early? Well Im willing to give it a shot. I'm wondering if White Widow would do ok or an early flowering hybrid?


----------



## mame (Jun 18, 2010)

Brick Top said:


> I have read about such light cycles a number of times over the years and one question always popped into my head more than any others. That is, since light degrades THC and most THC is produced during hours of darkness when plants run on stored energy and they shut down most plant functions and allocate increased amounts of energy for THC production and for growth, IF the additional amount of THC that is lost through light degradation during the increased length periods of light can be made up for in a normal 12-hour period of darkness on top of the amounts that can and would normally be made?
> 
> Someone might get increased growth and yields but they might also end up with a lower quality herb than they would otherwise have. In a normal light cycle they might end up with a lesser amount but what they have might be more potent.
> 
> Until someone other than someone doing this sort of thing in a basement says it is the bee's knees I will stick to the conventional light cycles.


Is there any information on the rate of degradation or maybe the point in a day that is too much light and would cause said degradation? I could easily see this working in something like a 18/6 >18/12 cycle but the there is the inconvenience of the lights being off at a different time everyday (off 12am-6am then 6am-12pm, etc)...

I'll stick to 20/4 and 12/12


----------



## cerealkilla (Jun 26, 2010)

nobody has any more to say on that hu!! i bet theres a few quietly doin the maths. without a digital timer forget about it......


----------



## cerealkilla (Jan 10, 2011)

so i thought this may have been discussed a bit more i guess change can be scarey i think there are more than one dutch commercial grower using this method and was originally explained to me by a little known dutch grower, it originally blew my mind and 15 years ago i could not find a digital timer so i had one made.


----------



## SCCA (Jan 10, 2011)

i like the idea, but i have to agree with brick top that the plant wouldn't be able to produce enough hormones and growth during the night cycle. this same thinking is why i dont use more than a 18hr day in my veg room. plants do more at night than people give them credit for. i would love to see this done in side by side experiment. if i get some funds i might build a cabinet in the next couple months to test this.


----------



## rzza (Jan 11, 2011)

cerealkilla said:


> so i thought this may have been discussed a bit more i guess change can be scarey i think there are more than one dutch commercial grower using this method and was originally explained to me by a little known dutch grower, it originally blew my mind and 15 years ago i could not find a digital timer so i had one made.


have you done this yet?


----------



## 1oldgoat (Jan 11, 2011)

cerealkilla said:


> so i thought this may have been discussed a bit more i guess change can be scarey i think there are more than one dutch commercial grower using this method and was originally explained to me by a *little known dutch grower*,it originally blew my mind and 15 years ago i could not find a digital timer so i had one made.


Had the technique worked, perhaps he would be a *"well known"* dutch grower. Just saying....


----------



## MrSmiley (Jan 12, 2011)

You have me very interested... +rep for the thread... 
I believe "any new ideas" are always worth thinking and weighing.. Doing the math.. 

I think I'm going to try this in a controlled environment.. 
2 small identical cabs.. CFLs, same air,coco, nutes, lights, etc, only difference would be the light cycles for both.. 
20/4 for veg. Is what I like to do anyways.. Then the 12/12 and the 20/12 for flower...

If one finishes first,, I'll weigh it, and SMOKE IT... 
When the other finishes,, I'LL weigh it, and SMOKE IT TOO~!!! 

Then I'll know if the potency is different enough to worry about and of course, the time factor and weight "will" make a difference.. 
And the electricity of course, if this worked with good results, then do it again with 600 HPS's.. 

Is very interesting, and I'm happy I found this thread.. 

Smoke On... 
MrSmiley


----------



## cmt1984 (Jan 12, 2011)

very interesting subject. i have a spare cabinet that i keep my males in. after i get the pollen i need i think i may set up a light schedule test.

would there be any benefits to extending the night cycle too? for example, in flowering, run a cycle of 18 hours of light on and then 14 hours of darkness. like bricktop said, thc degrades during the day (so ive read anyway), so couldnt you compensate for that by making the night longer?


----------



## ballemason (Jan 13, 2011)

I like this idea and the thought has crossed my mind. Yes change is hard at times, sometimes impossible if you don't have the space to do ALL of the things that sound fun. I would be interested to see what if any diff the extended dark period with the extended light would do to overall Q&Q (quantity and quality)


----------



## BagSeedBoy (Jan 13, 2011)

Yeah very interesting. Ive heard of extending the light period for an hour or two 13-14 hours in a 24hr cycle during the last two weeks of flower to increase yeild. I my self have increased the dark period to 14 hours a few times in a 24hr cycle. My buds finished quicker but with smaller yeild. That being said I'm surprised to hear that increasing your light hrs may shorten flowering time. I'm hoping to give this a try. I too will make a 2x2 cab with some floros & see what happens. I'm a couple of months away from giving it a shot + rep


----------



## cerealkilla (Jan 15, 2011)

thanks for the rep, play with the idea guys thats what new ideas are for someone may find an improved version of this concept, i have had to go back to the traditional 12/12 for now because of the very hot summer where having. also the light hour periods dont have to change only the dark, so eg. 20/4 - 20/12 because she requires more light during flowering not less only longer nights. i will be going back to this method in winter and will run a grow post with pics and let the non beleivers have a revelation. also i dont know much about the auto flower strains but isnt the idea with them that they flower automatic regardless of the light hour period.


----------



## alfreeds (Jan 18, 2011)

So, what's up with this? Anybody testing cerealkilla's method? Sounds plausible as plants could very well live on another planet that (most certainly) won't have the same light/dark hours as Earth does.


----------



## CaptainCAVEMAN (Jan 18, 2011)

Jorge Cervantis metions this method in the medical growers bible. Never tried it...too hard to fuck with the timers and everyting else.


----------



## Grow'N'Smoke (Jan 18, 2011)

Sub'd, I want to see some results. Then I might go buy a digital timer.

-G'N'S


----------



## cerealkilla (Feb 1, 2011)

want to see results, spent a big 30 buck on a digital timer and try for ya self......


----------



## Grow'N'Smoke (Feb 2, 2011)

cerealkilla said:


> want to see results, spent a big 30 buck on a digital timer and try for ya self......


I didn't realize that you were holier than thou; I figured if you were going to make an entire post about it you would probably be reporting the results. Anyway, thanks for wasting both of our time...

-GNS


----------



## homebrewer (Feb 2, 2011)

Grow'N'Smoke said:


> I didn't realize that you were holier than thou; I figured if you were going to make an entire post about it you would probably be reporting the results. Anyway, thanks for wasting both of our time...
> 
> -GNS


Check out post #17 by the guy who can't back up his 'experiment' with pictures and compare it to mine below. Day 22 of 12/12 as nature intended.

Oh, and if you've ever been to Amsterdam, you'd know the 'Dutch' don't produce anything special.


----------



## greenkrakzak (Feb 3, 2011)

humm... interesting style. btw bricktop, the way you worded that, blew my stoned mind


----------



## Alex Kelly (Feb 3, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> I have read about such light cycles a number of times over the years and one question always popped into my head more than any others. That is, since light degrades THC and most THC is produced during hours of darkness when plants run on stored energy and they shut down most plant functions and allocate increased amounts of energy for THC production and for growth, IF the additional amount of THC that is lost through light degradation during the increased length periods of light can be made up for in a normal 12-hour period of darkness on top of the amounts that can and would normally be made?
> 
> Someone might get increased growth and yields but they might also end up with a lower quality herb than they would otherwise have. In a normal light cycle they might end up with a lesser amount but what they have might be more potent.
> 
> Until someone other than someone doing this sort of thing in a basement says it is the bee's knees I will stick to the conventional light cycles.


I have to think that it is possible that in giving the plant MORE light it may focus MORE energy on producing THC during the night cycle when there is no light. Possibly making up for the loss of time spent in the dark.


----------



## Alex Kelly (Feb 3, 2011)

Ya and now that I think about this a little more, if you were to still give your plant a 12 hr dark cycle and just extend the light cycle to 18+ hours, it would still have the same amount of time to produce thc AND possibly be more focused on producing more THC because of the more time and larger amount of light that the plant is receiving. Any thought???


----------



## steverthebeaver81 (Feb 3, 2011)

I think that this is an experiment that needs good controlled testing. Im too lazy, so it wont be me, but it does sound intriguing.


----------



## greenkrakzak (Feb 3, 2011)

agreed beaver man


----------



## Alex Kelly (Feb 3, 2011)

Ya lol i dont have extra space for that. Any volunteers?


----------



## greenkrakzak (Feb 3, 2011)

i dont have the attention span, and i couldnt do it for atleast 4months


----------



## lowerarchy (Feb 3, 2011)

Hey cerealkilla, questions for ya: 

what's your gram/watt ratio and how long do you flower for when you do your 20/12?

what's your gram/watt ratio and how long do you flower for when you do 12/12?


----------



## boarderofsnow (Feb 5, 2011)

quillo said:


> LOL, my plants have their roots in perlite/vermiculite, are fed nutrients from a bottle, are lighted from an hps lamp, and as isolated as I can make them from non-me life forms. They may as well be orbiting Neptune in a space capsule for all Mother Nature has to do with them.


Haha just bumped into this thread.. Very good point! haha


----------



## Wolverine97 (Feb 5, 2011)

I don't doubt that it would _work_, but I fail to see how it could speed up finishing time. You have fewer dark periods over the same given timeframe (say, 55 days). How would this speed up maturation? Even if the extended photoperiod accounts for faster finishing, you're paying a lot more in electricity over the given timespan than you would w/ 12/12 cycles. Meh...


----------



## yermom (Feb 5, 2011)

quillo said:


> LOL, my plants have their roots in perlite/vermiculite, are fed nutrients from a bottle, are lighted from an hps lamp, and as isolated as I can make them from non-me life forms. They may as well be orbiting Neptune in a space capsule for all Mother Nature has to do with them.


THANK YOU. So tired of the old school hippie BS about natural this and organic that. How do you think the strains most of you are growing were produced, Rainbows and Love? All these naturalists are growing strains that are genetically selected, inbred, mutants. Ant then feed them with molasses, which of course plants in nature eat right? You tell me where the ditch is that the 1st wild Super Lemon Haze was found in. Nothing is natural in any home garden anymore. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we can get the scwagg off the streets and the science lab, medical quality stuff into the hands of people that need it.


----------



## cerealkilla (Feb 5, 2011)

winter is coming and so i will be able to use extended light hours once again, my grow will be posted pics and all. my wattage at the moment is 490 watts to one plant small wardrobe grow 400 hps 90 ufo led. my flower cycle times are relatively close only about a week between the two different methods only the method in question will produce bigger healthier flowers limit reaching and produce a more potent product. i dont care for scepticism thats what holts progress in its tracks. i dont care if no one tries this method i am only putting the idea out there food for thought.
thanks for the replies though and keep em coming!!!!


----------



## cerealkilla (Feb 5, 2011)

looks nice but you have a room full of stems, anyway if ya wanna grow stems be my guest.


----------



## cerealkilla (Feb 5, 2011)

srry replying to homebrewers bullsh*t


----------



## yermom (Feb 5, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> I have read about such light cycles a number of times over the years and one question always popped into my head more than any others. That is, since light degrades THC and most THC is produced during hours of darkness when plants run on stored energy and they shut down most plant functions and allocate increased amounts of energy for THC production and for growth, IF the additional amount of THC that is lost through light degradation during the increased length periods of light can be made up for in a normal 12-hour period of darkness on top of the amounts that can and would normally be made?
> 
> Someone might get increased growth and yields but they might also end up with a lower quality herb than they would otherwise have. In a normal light cycle they might end up with a lesser amount but what they have might be more potent.
> 
> Until someone other than someone doing this sort of thing in a basement says it is the bee's knees I will stick to the conventional light cycles.


It's my understanding that degradation doesn't begin until after the plant dies. So extra light during it's life wouldn't matter. But that's just my understanding. I'd be curious to read more on this point though. I too will be sticking to the standard cycle until I see some evidence. I have enough experiments going on, I don't need another variable.


----------



## yermom (Feb 5, 2011)

Wolverine97 said:


> I don't doubt that it would _work_, but I fail to see how it could speed up finishing time. You have fewer dark periods over the same given timeframe (say, 55 days). How would this speed up maturation? Even if the extended photoperiod accounts for faster finishing, you're paying a lot more in electricity over the given timespan than you would w/ 12/12 cycles. Meh...


I would hope that it DIDN'T speed finishing time. Seems plants would suffer from a shorter life cycle. If it only affected yield and quality but finished in normal time, that would be impressive.


----------



## Wolverine97 (Feb 5, 2011)

yermom said:


> It's my understanding that degradation doesn't begin until after the plant dies. So extra light during it's life wouldn't matter. But that's just my understanding. I'd be curious to read more on this point though. I too will be sticking to the standard cycle until I see some evidence. I have enough experiments going on, I don't need another variable.


That's not true. The terpenes, THC, etc can degrade for many different reasons. Intense light exposure, over-ripening, poor drying/curing etc...


----------



## Wolverine97 (Feb 5, 2011)

yermom said:


> I would hope that it DIDN'T speed finishing time. Seems plants would suffer from a shorter life cycle. If it only affected yield and quality but finished in normal time, that would be impressive.


Not trying to be a dick, but what would be the point? If it didn't speed up maturation time, and actually took longer to finish this way (using much more elec $ along the way), why wouldn't you just save that extra time over the course of a year to grow another complete cycle at normal day/night intervals?


----------



## homebrewer (Feb 5, 2011)

cerealkilla said:


> srry replying to homebrewers bullsh*t


 Feel like going toe-to-toe good friend?


----------



## homebrewer (Feb 5, 2011)

cerealkilla said:


> looks nice but you have a room full of stems, anyway if ya wanna grow stems be my guest.


 Oh, and those 'stems' turn into buds when you're not looking for a 'secret' to growing a good product. Day 36 below. Update in the journal in my sig this Monday, tune in, you'll probably learn something  .


----------



## MediMary (Feb 5, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Check out post #17 by the guy who can't back up his 'experiment' with pictures and compare it to mine below. Day 22 of 12/12 as nature intended.
> 
> Oh, and if you've ever been to Amsterdam, you'd know the 'Dutch' don't produce anything special.


Newb ownership, nice homebrew

that^ vs this


----------



## bob harris (Feb 5, 2011)

deflator said:


> This is a ridiculous statement. You are replacing soil with that media, organic compounds with chemical nutrients, and sunlight with a lamp...you're doing everything in your power to recreate the natural environment and now you want to go and change the most essential part of cannabis flowering, the photoperiod? LMAO good luck buddy. It will probably work, these plants will grow under most conditions, but not as well as using the natural rhythm of the planet.


So, deflator, are you gowin one crop a year outdoor....cause most grows don't mimic nature.

Don't know any body that cuts the light back only a few minutes a day to get to flower. 


I'm a true organic gardener...so I appreciate "natural" to a degree...but photoperiods are far less offensive than plant that live their lives on an IV.


----------

