# Far Red ....



## Therrion (Jul 12, 2019)

I was just wondering what kind of results people have been getting using Far Red lights 15 min before and after lights out on a 14/10 schedule. I haven't found any comparisons in a controlled environment and I was just curious.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 12, 2019)

I find the LED supplemental units as over priced and not delivering on the promise.

I tested this shit some years back.

Skip it and focus on growing for potentials....In the long run, you don't really gain enough to justify the cost's across the board.
Simply put. - The return does not justify the costs to do it......This includes the increase in electric use for a whole grow operation....


----------



## zypheruk (Jul 12, 2019)

you would be wiser to add deep reds etc to help the flowering end of the spectrum and forget the far reds.


----------



## Therrion (Jul 13, 2019)

zypheruk said:


> you would be wiser to add deep reds etc to help the flowering end of the spectrum and forget the far reds.


I have the deep reds covered, I use the Chilled logic V2 pucks. I already bought enough far red intiater pucks for putting them asleep , but not enough for the Emerson effect. My sealed room is dialed in. I'm just trying to nickle and dime at this point.


----------



## rkymtnman (Jul 13, 2019)

Therrion said:


> I already bought enough far red intiater pucks for putting them asleep , but not enough for the Emerson effect


so i'm kinda in the same boat: i have 4K atreum 144.2 boards and i added one growmaus initiator puck (i'm in a 3x4). i'm not going for the putting them sleep faster aspect but instead Emerson. 

how do you know you don't have enough for Emerson? i'm curious how to calculate how many more pucks are needed for me? 

and i'm correct in saying that Emerson only requires 2 different light sources: less than 670nm and greater than 700nm? 

thoughts?


----------



## ReubenIsMyDog (Jul 13, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> I find the LED supplemental units as over priced and not delivering on the promise.


 I don't know that my far red setup is helping anything, but was hardly cost prohibitive. The whole rig with 2 HLG far right boards and Mean Well driver only cost about $40 (including $12 shipping from HLG) and it's only on for around 20 mins a day. I mean, I guess that could be considered a lot of money for something that may or may not work, but it's not like it's a huge investment.


----------



## Axion42 (Jul 13, 2019)

rkymtnman said:


> so i'm kinda in the same boat: i have 4K atreum 144.2 boards and i added one growmaus initiator puck (i'm in a 3x4). i'm not going for the putting them sleep faster aspect but instead Emerson.
> 
> how do you know you don't have enough for Emerson? i'm curious how to calculate how many more pucks are needed for me?
> 
> ...


I've been told to use twice as much deep red, or photo red 660nm as far red. Not sure the math on it but I use 12 deep red rapidled starboards and 6 far red leds. As long as there is more deep red 660nm than far red 730nm it wont trigger the shade avoidance syndrome and you should benefit from the emerson effect. I just started flower and after the stretch I plan to use the far reds for 5-10 minutes after lights out to put them to sleep. My first time doing this so I really dont know what to expect, only what I've been told from various members of this community...RB is the most notable.


----------



## rkymtnman (Jul 14, 2019)

Axion42 said:


> I've been told to use twice as much deep red, or photo red 660nm as far red.


yep, i've read that too.

but in my case i'm relying on the 4k qb's for my 660nm. so if i look at the chart for the spd, let's say it shows roughly 0.4 on a scale to 1.0 at 660nm. how do i figure out how many of the far red pucks would give me 0.2 on that same scale and the 2:1 ratio for deep/far? make sense?


----------



## Axion42 (Jul 14, 2019)

Yup makes sense, figuring that out is all above me heh. Might have to find out by test, add far red and if you get no stretching you could consider adding more until you start getting stretchy plants, means plants are thinking they are in shade. Best answer I've got.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 14, 2019)

ReubenIsMyDog said:


> I don't know that my far red setup is helping anything, but was hardly cost prohibitive. The whole rig with 2 HLG far right boards and Mean Well driver only cost about $40 (including $12 shipping from HLG) and it's only on for around 20 mins a day. I mean, I guess that could be considered a lot of money for something that may or may not work, but it's not like it's a huge investment.



You miss the fact that you do this for extra bloom light time...correct?

Now add that electrical to the equation..... When your running 8 1k lights per room. You tend to increase the electrical cost...
Claims of adding more hrs of light time hover at what,,,2 hrs a day 
That's 16 more hrs of light per day, billing wise...
Now do the math.....
For a 28 day month, that adds a total of 488 more light hrs.
This adds > $100 a month to the E bill.....or more like > $250 per run.

Now any gain I found in doing that method,,,,WAS NOT covering that > $250 cost to do it...

SO then, The use of the deep red initiator's, and running the lights for 2 more hrs a day......Did NOT increase the yield to any amount worth doing it!

The other thing is you MUST have the PROPER Nm banding to actually make the plants go to "sleep" fast.......They MUST be between 728 to 732 Nm (mostly sold in 730 Nm diodes)...
They must deliver enough power to an area to work properly also.....Like 10 watt's should be the low end diode power.....
Early, well constructed "deep red" units were at $350 + per unit.
They effectively did a 10x10 area... I needed 3, overlapping to be sure of coverage for 1 room (I only experimented with 1 room due to cost).

They sit in the pile of used grow equipment. Well, one of them was bought by the co-op farms head Hort... She's playing with one, redoing my experiments.
So far she finds the same thing I did.
Minor yield increase with the decrease in total run time being minor also.. 
She is now doing experiments with it in SOG type grows.....This seems to show more promise....

So, you understand _now_ what I meant by "Not cost effective?"


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 14, 2019)

Let me say this also..

If the things actually worked as claimed...

The whole world of cannabis growing,,,,,,would be doing it...
I mean that they have been around long enough to be the "IT" thing if they did....Right?


----------



## ReubenIsMyDog (Jul 14, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> You miss the fact that you do this for extra bloom light time...correct?
> ...
> So, you understand _now_ what I meant by "Not cost effective?"


Most of us aren't running 8k watts. It's a matter of scale, but even then the percentages are fairly small.

I'm running a small tent for a personal grow with single qb288. Running my grow light an extra couple of hours and the far reds adds about 10KWh a month to my bill. That's like $2-3 a month. 

Under a 600 watt for an extra 1.5 hours a day it would be about 30KWh or around $6 a month.

It's a matter of scale and perspective.


----------



## Therrion (Jul 14, 2019)

rkymtnman said:


> so i'm kinda in the same boat: i have 4K atreum 144.2 boards and i added one growmaus initiator puck (i'm in a 3x4). i'm not going for the putting them sleep faster aspect but instead Emerson.
> 
> how do you know you don't have enough for Emerson? i'm curious how to calculate how many more pucks are needed for me?
> 
> ...


growmau5 said you need 8 to 9% of your total wattage to be far red for the Emerson effect


----------



## rkymtnman (Jul 14, 2019)

Therrion said:


> growmau5 said you need 8 to 9% of your total wattage to be far red for the Emerson effect


cool, thanks, that gives a better idea of how much i need.


----------



## Therrion (Jul 15, 2019)

rkymtnman said:


> cool, thanks, that gives a better idea of how much i need.


Icemud had a post on another forum about his results. They were pretty negative . I may not even use mine until I have some room to make a control group and experiment with them myself.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 15, 2019)

ReubenIsMyDog said:


> Most of us aren't running 8k watts. It's a matter of scale, but even then the percentages are fairly small.
> 
> I'm running a small tent for a personal grow with single qb288. Running my grow light an extra couple of hours and the far reds adds about 10KWh a month to my bill. That's like $2-3 a month.
> 
> ...



Ok, I get ya.

Still, they do not do as claimed.
The benefit is rather moot to none.....It's simply a way for some light makers to make extra money.

In some newer college studies. They find basically, no marketable reason for use in any commercial growing aspect. This was tried on several greenhouse crops including Tomato's and herbs...

The cannabis growing market is a place for those who take dubious information on anything, and profit from it. From whole nutrient lines to gadgets and lights (any LED that is not a COB is basically over priced and over hyped. Not to mention the induction lighting systems.) Now before you LED guys that bought big expensive (or even cheap blurple units) get all in a huff. How many of those claim to deliver UV lighting? They deliver UVA and, NONE I have seen actually get down to the 280-315 nm bands that are UVB and the only UV that actually effects cannabis to increase any THC levels.....While yes, thay are delivering UV radiation. They are banking on the fact that you don't know that the wavelengths they deliver,,,are useless!
Enough on LED's ..

With misleading information to outright lies. There are more then a few things that are not what they say they are.

As far as deep red use for increasing bloom lighting times..... It falls in that line of, "Nice theory on returns but, it doesn't deliver enough to become mainstream or be commercially viable.
Like I said, "If these things actually worked. Every commercial op in the world would be using the tech."

I understand you defending it, you bought it. That doesn't make it actually fill the claims of those selling them...or at least worth using.

Sorry


----------



## rkymtnman (Jul 15, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> Ok, I get ya.
> 
> Still, they do not do as claimed.
> The benefit is rather moot to none.....It's simply a way for some light makers to make extra money.
> ...


the end of day far red might be a hoax but supplementing white and/or blurple leds with it is a positive.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.00322/full
Conclusion:
Increasing the R:FR ratio of artificial LED light above the R:FR ratio value for sun light negatively influences the growth and early fruit production of young tomato plants. The observed reductions in plant dry mass due to a lack of FR were mainly related to reductions in whole plant light absorption, which in turn were largely due to reductions in total leaf area. In contrast to the decreased leaf area, the changes in petiole angle and decreased internode length did not negatively influence whole plant light interception in these experiments. Finally, FR increased fruit yield, which correlated well with the accelerated flowering and overall increase in plant source strength under FR light. We conclude that growing tomato plants under artificial light without FR during the light period causes a range of inverse shade avoidance responses, which result in reduced plant source strength and reduced fruit production that cannot be compensated for by a simple EOD-FR treatment. Consequently, in greenhouse horticulture where often RB LEDs are used without additional FR, the addition of FR can result in increased plant growth and fruit production.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 15, 2019)

rkymtnman said:


> the end of day far red might be a hoax but supplementing white and/or blurple leds with it is a positive.
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.00322/full
> Conclusion:
> Increasing the R:FR ratio of artificial LED light above the R:FR ratio value for sun light negatively influences the growth and early fruit production of young tomato plants. The observed reductions in plant dry mass due to a lack of FR were mainly related to reductions in whole plant light absorption, which in turn were largely due to reductions in total leaf area. In contrast to the decreased leaf area, the changes in petiole angle and decreased internode length did not negatively influence whole plant light interception in these experiments. Finally, FR increased fruit yield, which correlated well with the accelerated flowering and overall increase in plant source strength under FR light. We conclude that growing tomato plants under artificial light without FR during the light period causes a range of inverse shade avoidance responses, which result in reduced plant source strength and reduced fruit production that cannot be compensated for by a simple EOD-FR treatment. Consequently, in greenhouse horticulture where often RB LEDs are used without additional FR, the addition of FR can result in increased plant growth and fruit production.


Never had any issue with the use of any far red...... You knew that too.
I agree with you on FR.

The issue with blurple lights are the less then potential ability of them to produce a genuine _full potential_ result.

The issue I have with with DR or deep red lighting that generates the "sleep" mode in a plant......The single band 730 nm diodes sets that "allow you to have up to 2 more hrs of regular bloom lighting per day." and the claims of what that does for you....

Not anything like what the makers of them claim.....Snake oil level of manipulating facts and logic...

Nice though! Many need to be aware of FR/PFR factors in growing.


----------



## BobCajun (Jul 18, 2019)

All it does is cause severe stretching. You don't need 14 hours of light anyway, just 13 the entire flowering phase. You wouldn't use 12 because you would get lower yields and ripening would not be sped up anyway, same with fewer hours. There is no benefit from using fewer hours than the critical day length, which for most strains is somewhere between 13 and 14 hours. I've found 13 works perfectly. It takes 15 weeks, regardless of light cycle. You'll just get lower yields and potency with less hours. Show me one scientific article which shows that a short day plant will ripen faster with fewer hours than critical and I may believe it.

The fact that weed needs 15 weeks to ripen means that outdoor weed in most northern locations will never ripen, unless it's an auto of course, in which case it will be ripe but crappy, at least most auto strains. Mold may start before 15 weeks is up but you just spray the affected buds with baking soda water until it runs off into a container you hold under it, mold gone. Have to wash the buds when harvested of course to get the soda off. Bud mold needs an acidic environment, it exudes oxalic acid to acidify the area it's growing on so you have to basify it with soda.


----------



## Sade (Sep 20, 2020)

Dr. Who said:


> Let me say this also..
> 
> If the things actually worked as claimed...
> 
> ...


They are. I live and work in legal cannabis industry in Humboldt county and for light deps and adding supplemental lighting works perfectly. Especially if you are lightdepping and cutting out the sun. This way you can still accelerate the phytochrome process with some supplemental spectrums. 

You have no idea about the electrical bill until you actually use them yourself. Why are you bashing everyone for finally finding a damn good LEDs light system. My whole pge bill gas and everything was 157 this month and during longest light on phase veg. Try them out man prices are dropping.


----------



## Dr. Who (Sep 21, 2020)

Sade said:


> They are. I live and work in legal cannabis industry in Humboldt county and for light deps and adding supplemental lighting works perfectly. Especially if you are lightdepping and cutting out the sun. This way you can still accelerate the phytochrome process with some supplemental spectrums.
> 
> You have no idea about the electrical bill until you actually use them yourself. Why are you bashing everyone for finally finding a damn good LEDs light system. My whole pge bill gas and everything was 157 this month and during longest light on phase veg. Try them out man prices are dropping.



I don't live there but, I do also work in the industry. $157 a month? Nice cpl of tents.

Try 4 figures per, total .... Even with a shift over to LED (my plants have to run shorter, and I have to cycle the air about once every hour of lights on). I did drop about 50% of my lighting run cost.

BTW, I did try them sir. I have 3 730nm specific LED units, left sitting in storage. While these spectrum specific units do put the plant to "sleep" faster. I have in 2 years of trying. Have yet for them to make any market difference vs without them.

If you are talking about available UV from LED banks? They only supply UVA and that, don't do shit. You need UVB at 230-315 nm.


----------



## Kassiopeija (Sep 21, 2020)

Well if you have UVB then you also need UVA as this induces UV photorepair. But UVA/NUV alone also works to some extent as there are many absorption peaks sitting around 365-420nm. Actually most peaks reside within these UVA/blue bandwaves....

FR can be tricky as the plant's physiological reaction is three-fold - if one encounters too much stretching under continuous daylight FR addition one has to either increase the amount of 660nm, and/or UV/blue. FR is a very special kind of light that disperses rather like IR, that's why it can also reach deep into a thick canopy. It may be used to increase photosystem I net photosynthesisrate as this is oftentimes the limiting factor due to the fact that the PSII supercomplex is twice as large as PSI in landplants.
Consequently, alot of new LED board manufacturers increasingly add this wavelength - citing the extended Fluence PhysioSpec here as a prime example.

As for the sleep initiation - Cannabis is a plant that can respire during the day (= it can be lit 24h/7 "without problems") whereas, for example, tomatoes will encounter photoinhibition up to the point of photodeath if kept too long under strong continuous light.

Nevertheless, the "Florigen"-mechanism is still not completely understood so it remains debatable if an increased length of night brings benefits. Oftentimes, the answer to such a question is not easy as a grow consists of many interrelated factors...
Paradoxically, there emerge new insights into "breaks" of the daylight regime, ie. giving plants a short time of darkness or reduced irradiance without the sacrifice of biomass. This may be explainable from the relief of otherwise toxic photosynthetic byproducts (radical oxygen species) by a superoxiddismutase-clearance mechanism which is increasingly necessary at high PS rates (close to the CO2 cap)

Not so long ago scientists found a new type of chlorophyl (Chl-f-712) [IIRC] in cyanobacteria & green algae which enables uphill-exciton-transport to the reaction center of PSI (p700). This is very unusual considering the typical buildplan of the light-harvesting complexes which hold the absorption-max pigments at the end of the chain (p680 & p700) with the other, less red-shiftet pigments increasingly distal to it (the increased latent energy of shorter-wavelength photons help to overcome the distance....)
I'm not aware if this Chl-f can be found in landplants as well but the PS capacity of FR light beyond the "red-drop" has been confirmed empirically since 1957 by Emerson (et al) many times.

So this region of the spectrum is still not fully understood and perhaps harbours unknown potential. We'd need to have a team of experts to _systematically review_ this particular region, as isolated studies may not get to the true bottom of this, plus, some are even in conflict, esp. when it comes to increased or decreased measured PS rates.

P.S.
btw it's good to see you're back, and (hopefully), in good health.


----------



## Dr. Who (Sep 23, 2020)

Kassiopeija said:


> As for the sleep initiation - Cannabis is a plant that can respire during the day (= it can be lit 24h/7 "without problems") whereas, for example, tomatoes will encounter photoinhibition up to the point of photodeath if kept too long under strong continuous light.


Well, yes and no. It can be run 24/7 but it won't flower under that.

They also will slow in growth through reduced light effectiveness/use, and that starts at around 30%. This loss will continue - 24/7 until it's given a lights out period of at least a length of time required to keep them from going to bloom... During this lights out time, as the plant "sleeps".
The plant recovers (at the cellular peptide level) to , again be able to utilize the light 100%. This then cuts the plants ability to use that powerful light again (this is found to actually save the plant from excess light intensity "damage".

The effect is called the "Light saturation point in C3 plants" It happens earlier in the day then most folks think.

Personally, I find that 24/7 plants are lanky and less able to support themselves (when grown out to be large plants)......That's my experience..


----------



## Dr. Who (Sep 23, 2020)

Kassiopeija said:


> P.S.
> btw it's good to see you're back, and (hopefully), in good health.


Yeah, doing fine! Just took time off.
Kinda looking at a longer sabbatical starting early next year and lasting longer.
Wife and I are looking at spending time at our "out of the country" Homes. She is going to finally,,,,,,retire!
Say 6 months at each and then return home..... Jamaica, Italy and Austria. Likely figuring out what 1 to finally end up in. See if the boys would like any of the other 2 and sell what we don't need.

Boys will get the farm, and be part of running the whole Co-op. One is dating one of the other farm Co-op "daughters". Looks like the family will grow to include some beef experts and grand children. Some day anyway... The beef guy is my original Co-op partner and best friend...

This time I'll let you all know before I leave and when I may return....


----------



## rkymtnman (Sep 23, 2020)

Dr. Who said:


> Yeah, doing fine! Just took time off.
> Kinda looking at a longer sabbatical starting early next year and lasting longer.
> Wife and I are looking at spending time at our "out of the country" Homes. She is going to finally,,,,,,retire!
> Say 6 months at each and then return home..... Jamaica, Italy and Austria. Likely figuring out what 1 to finally end up in. See if the boys would like any of the other 2 and sell what we don't need.
> ...


we'd be interested in renting the house in Osterreich when you aren't there. One of my favorite countries. What part? We've done Salzburg, the Alps and Klagenfurt areas.


----------



## Kassiopeija (Sep 24, 2020)

Dr. Who said:


> They also will slow in growth through reduced light effectiveness/use, and that starts at around 30%. This loss will continue - 24/7 until it's given a lights out period of at least a length of time required to keep them from going to bloom... During this lights out time, as the plant "sleeps".
> The plant recovers (at the cellular peptide level) to , again be able to utilize the light 100%. This then cuts the plants ability to use that powerful light again (this is found to actually save the plant from excess light intensity "damage".
> 
> The effect is called the "Light saturation point in C3 plants" It happens earlier in the day then most folks think.
> ...


Yes, indeed, plants are much more susceptible for light for doing photosynthesis in the early 6-8h of the day (grossly estimated generally for plants, out of a botany book) and then there must be quite some physiological reasons of why it does drop. The 24h light regime seems to create much less healthy plants, even 18h of strong light seems excessive.

Alot of growers that changed their regime to run 12/12 from seed report 0 drop in growth, but these are usually SOGs which flower out early. Alot of calculations of light strengths for 18/6 seems to take this into account and thus, deliver low ppfd, but I don't like that, esp. on grown-up fullbushy plants - with regards to the Sieve & Detour-effect (strong light creates much better penetration from both a plant physiological and physical standpoint....) so I'm of the mindset that strong lightstrength on a reduced timer may be best. Just like outside the sun & clouds & the skylight. Keeping the plants in veg using the Gas Lantern Routine or dimming down... usually not viable with HIDs but LED offers alot of possibilities here:

Micro-naps for plants: Flicking the lights on and off can save energy without hurting indoor plants - Explore

Energy-savings of 66% but increased growth (although not more than the standard 12h...)

How is this even possible or explainable from a plant physiological point of view... That prof has quite a good standing in photobiology... so, not saying this is the general rule, but under certain circumstances it may seem that "less = more".


----------



## Bosgrower (Sep 24, 2020)

Dr. Who said:


> Let me say this also..
> 
> If the things actually worked as claimed...
> 
> ...


Consensus isn't a recommended method of validation


----------



## Kassiopeija (Sep 24, 2020)

BTW within here is that spectrum I've mentioned previously, plus some general info on FR.


----------



## Horselover fat (Sep 25, 2020)

I usually run 24/7 in veg. I've tried nights, but if anything the growth is slower and more strech.


----------



## Dr. Who (Sep 25, 2020)

Bosgrower said:


> Consensus isn't a recommended method of validation


True enough but, This isn't a college class. I thought I might put up industry use (or lack there of) to justify my point for the masses.
Industry use, should be a very good indicator of viability in production use....


----------



## Dr. Who (Sep 25, 2020)

Kassiopeija said:


> Micro-naps for plants: Flicking the lights on and off can save energy without hurting indoor plants - Explore
> 
> Energy-savings of 66% but increased growth (although not more than the standard 12h...)
> 
> How is this even possible or explainable from a plant physiological point of view... That prof has quite a good standing in photobiology... so, not saying this is the general rule, but under certain circumstances it may seem that "less = more".


Because they doing this in VEG.
Reduction is electrical use would be 50%. 
Now build us the controller they used. Lets try it.. Hell, I'm game! 

This would be only possible by those who DO NOT use MH,HPS DE lighting! So like LED, etc would work.

Then again, I spend the bulk of my electrical $ on bloom. Include cooling and circulation to all that too.


----------



## Sade (Sep 25, 2020)

Dr. Who said:


> I don't live there but, I do also work in the industry. $157 a month? Nice cpl of tents.
> 
> Try 4 figures per, total .... Even with a shift over to LED (my plants have to run shorter, and I have to cycle the air about once every hour of lights on). I did drop about 50% of my lighting run cost.
> 
> ...


Yea did some more research. Very pricey to build a light with enough proper 290nm diodes to make it beneficial. Like you said my small 5x5 grow at home for personal smoke is a great way to experiment with things. If I had a much larger grow I could not afford it.


----------



## WubbaLubbaDubDub (Feb 9, 2021)

Hey guys I’m still reading this thread so I’m sorry if my question came up and or is already answered.
I can see the benefits of running 15mins of far red around lights out.weather your trying to get a 13 hour day or do 12/12 a little quicker.

has anyone experimented with 730nm at lights out in veg??or is that stupid?
I know people do 18/6,20/4 and even 24/0 in veg I’m wondering if you could run 20/4 or something with the far red as lights go out and the plants would get “more” rest than usual?


----------

