# Reduced hour light cycles



## torontoke (Aug 9, 2017)

Over the last yr or so I keep reading more n more posts about people trying alternative light cycles in their rooms and rather then having the results and info scattered I thought why not start a thread.

So if your running a schedule other then 18/6 to veg or 12/12 to flower please feel free to post your results and experiences.

If you haven't tried anything then please skip to the next hps is better than led thread and argue there Instead.


----------



## WeedSexWeightsShakes (Aug 9, 2017)

since talked to you i switched my flowering tent to 10/14 and it hasnt skipped a beat
only saving myself 2 hours of electricity everyday
i think veg is 17-18 hours on hard to exactly say cause it isnt a digital timer
veg is only 72 watts anyways so i am not too worried about that


----------



## torontoke (Aug 9, 2017)

WeedSexWeightsShakes said:


> since talked to you i switched my flowering tent to 10/14 and it hasnt skipped a beat
> only saving myself 2 hours of electricity everyday
> i think veg is 17-18 hours on hard to exactly say cause it isnt a digital timer
> veg is only 72 watts anyways so i am not too worried about that


Well I'm glad that your plants haven't skipped a beat but it's honestly not my intention to try to convince anyone to switch or do anything differently.
Just trying to get as much info on the subject in one place from more then one source.


----------



## WeedSexWeightsShakes (Aug 9, 2017)

torontoke said:


> Well I'm glad that your plants haven't skipped a beat but it's honestly not my intention to try to convince anyone to switch or do anything differently.
> Just trying to get as much info on the subject in one place from more then one source.


may not have been your intention but thanks for the savings! lol
hopefully more will chime in with their experiences


----------



## Doomhammer69 (Aug 20, 2017)

I have always ran 16-8 in veg and 12-12 flower, however I am starting a dominate sativa strain Rio Negro Columbian, I'm thinking of running the lights in veg closer to what the natural day light would be in Columbia http://www.bogota.climatemps.com/sunlight.php will see what happens


----------



## churchhaze (Aug 23, 2017)

Since when is 18/6 standard? A ton of people use 24/0.


----------



## Buba Blend (Aug 23, 2017)

torontoke said:


> Over the last yr or so I keep reading more n more posts about people trying alternative light cycles in their rooms and rather then having the results and info scattered I thought why not start a thread.
> 
> So if your running a schedule other then 18/6 to veg or 12/12 to flower please feel free to post your results and experiences.
> 
> If you haven't tried anything then please skip to the next hps is better than led thread and argue there Instead.


I have a grow in week 6 of flower, the seedlings never saw anything but 12/12. It was not intentional. They started flowering sooner than I expected while under the 12/12. I had to transplant to 3 gallon plastic pots after flowering started another issue in the grow, but things are coming along fine so far.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/plants-in-my-1st-soil-recipe-are-still-alive-after-5-days.945380/


----------



## BobCajun (Aug 23, 2017)

23/1 for veg, the hour is to give them a diurnal photoperiod. I have a feeling that it's good to maintain a 24 hour cycle with a dark part so the plant is in a more natural environment than 24/0. Plants are evolved to be in a 24 hour light/dark cycle of some sort. To get a good amount of growth from low wattage LED bulbs I figure 21 is close enough to 24 to produce similar growth while still allowing a full hour dark period.

For flowering it's just 13 hours until the final week, when the hours are reduced by one each day for several days until it's down to 9 or 10. I was trying 13.5 hours but didn't seem significantly more growth than 13 so I went back to that. 13.5 might drag things out too much. 13 seems just about right to me for high yield and reasonable ripening time, with the accelerated autumn at the end. I think the plants may be able to judge how quicky the days are shortening. Like they may ripen faster if it goes down by an hour per day versus 1/2 hour per day, "thinking" that they better hurry up because at that rate winter will be here like next week.


----------



## torontoke (Aug 23, 2017)

churchhaze said:


> Since when is 18/6 standard? A ton of people use 24/0.


Really?
A ton of people veg with 24/0?
Beyond seedling stage I've never heard that


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

24/0 veg all the way. tighter node spacing, easier to maintain temps/RH, less veg time overall.

11/13 for bloom.


----------



## SouthCross (Aug 23, 2017)

My light schedule.

24 hours light for sprout stretch. About three days total of 24. Then it's 15/9 in veg. Flower start is 11.5/12.5. Reduced down over weeks to a final 10.5/13.5.

The old standard of 24, 18/6 and 12/12 are guidelines.


----------



## OrganicGorilla (Aug 23, 2017)

I'm a boring standard guy lol. 18/6 Veg and 12/12 Flower.


----------



## GroErr (Aug 23, 2017)

Currently running 18/6 or 20/4 veg/clones/seedlings and 11.5/12.5 in flower. Inspired by your thread, I knocked it down 1/2 an hour at a time in flowering to see the effects, started at 12.5/11.5, then 12/12, now 11.5/12.5 for a couple of rounds. Not seeing any downside from a yield perspective and have shaved finish times somewhere in the range of 5-10 days depending on phenos. Last 2 plants I pulled at 50 days, the one is normally a 52-55 day pheno, the other flowered as long as 60 days at 12.5/11.5. Works for me. May try 11/13 next to see if there's any noticeable differences.

Only caveat I'll throw in here about reducing your lights on period is to have your lights-off environment in check. RH spikes during lights off so longer period could cause some issues (e.g. PM) if it's not dialled in.


----------



## WeedSexWeightsShakes (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> 24/0 veg all the way. tighter node spacing, easier to maintain temps/RH, less veg time overall.
> 
> 11/13 for bloom.


Is there actual proof of this claim, as far as tighter node spacing and less veg time?
Not trying to bash it just curious if there is real studies or anything to prove it.


----------



## SouthCross (Aug 23, 2017)

WeedSexWeightsShakes said:


> Is there actual proof of this claim, as far as tighter node spacing and less veg time?
> Not trying to bash it just curious if there is real studies or anything to prove it.



It's all about mimicking a synthetic environment to a natural one. Tighter internodes, less veg, you grow indica dominant. Looser internode, longer veg and flower. Sativa dominant.

The baseline evidence of what a plant will do is when it's grown outside. Replicate of that environment and how close you get to it. Determining the variables and success.

To provide concrete proof of the performance of anything grown in a synthetic environment. Would require study of every kind of light. Grow space size, ventilation, circulation, light distance, fertilizer, temps, humidity...How close it mimics a natural environment.


----------



## whitebb2727 (Aug 23, 2017)

Its not really a reduced schedule but I have grown autos and vegged photoperiod under 6/2 during hotter months to keep temps down. Works fine.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

WeedSexWeightsShakes said:


> Is there actual proof of this claim, as far as tighter node spacing and less veg time?
> Not trying to bash it just curious if there is real studies or anything to prove it.


cannabis is a c3 plant so it can grow 24/0. 

any time you turn the light off during veg, the plant's response is to stretch towards the last known light source. so what people confuse as growing (it can only grow with light i.e. photosynthesis) is actually stretching. 

as far as veg time, 18/6 is 6hrs per day, 42 per week of time that a plant could be growing when it's not .


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 23, 2017)

whitebb2727 said:


> Its not really a reduced schedule but I have grown autos and vegged photoperiod under 6/2 during hotter months to keep temps down. Works fine.


I do this in veg, too. I'm very happy with the results and the reduced environmental swings.


----------



## WeedSexWeightsShakes (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> cannabis is a c3 plant so it can grow 24/0.
> 
> any time you turn the light off during veg, the plant's response is to stretch towards the last known light source. so what people confuse as growing (it can only grow with light i.e. photosynthesis) is actually stretching.
> 
> as far as veg time, 18/6 is 6hrs per day, 42 per week of time that a plant could be growing when it's not .


So having a dark time causes it to stretch more? Wouldn't that technically create a shorter veg time? Cause it'd get to the height you want faster. 
But on the other hand if you have less dark time it won't stretch as much and keep nodes tighter? So it'd have to veg longer but end up with more, and closer, nodes?

Is that somewhat right lol?


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> cannabis is a c3 plant so it can grow 24/0.
> 
> any time you turn the light off during veg, the plant's response is to stretch towards the last known light source. so what people confuse as growing (it can only grow with light i.e. photosynthesis) is actually stretching.
> 
> as far as veg time, 18/6 is 6hrs per day, 42 per week of time that a plant could be growing when it's not .


Funny, the horticulture professor I discussed this with said the plants will actually keep growing- not just stretching, but growing- in the dark for as long as all the basic environmental conditions are met. Those conditions include access to nutes and water, reasonable environment and sufficient stored sugars in the plant- which generally take 12-16 hours or more to deplete.

When I mentioned the short day cycle I'm running (6 on/2 off) he said that would work fine and the stronger the light the better it would work. I didn't discuss any other lighting schedules besides 24/0.


----------



## torontoke (Aug 23, 2017)

Wow
Thanks everyone for chiming in.
I'm not about to get into an argument over which methods work best and try to blanket statement anything but I'd say the the posts in this thread show how much variance everyone uses to find what works for them.
I use glr to veg and can't imagine anything causing tighter node spacing.
I would say that using glr on Indy dom plants have see them mature and even preflower. For satys that could be an advantage to plants that tend to veg out of control. Same way the longer times might be beneficial for someone needing taller plants with stretch and longer distance between nodes.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

WeedSexWeightsShakes said:


> So having a dark time causes it to stretch more? Wouldn't that technically create a shorter veg time? Cause it'd get to the height you want faster.
> But on the other hand if you have less dark time it won't stretch as much and keep nodes tighter? So it'd have to veg longer but end up with more, and closer, nodes?
> 
> Is that somewhat right lol?


yep. it would be basically the same if you tried to grow a plant with a small cfl 5 ft above the plant. it will be very lanky and spindly.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> Funny, the horticulture professor I discussed this with said the plants will actually keep growing- not just stretching, but growing- in the dark for as long as all the basic environmental conditions are met. Those conditions include access to nutes and water, reasonable environment and sufficient stored sugars in the plant- which generally take 12-16 hours or more to deplete.
> 
> When I mentioned the short day cycle I'm running (6 on/2 off) he said that would work fine and the stronger the light the better it would work. I didn't discuss any other lighting schedules besides 24/0.


i would disagree that the plant can't be growing without light. but i'm not a horti professor. all that i've read is that the cells are elongating during the dark cycle which leads to the stretch. same as when you switch to 12/12 and the plants stretch like crazy. 

i supplement with co2 so it makes more sense for me to run 24/0 anyway.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

@ttystikk 
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=297

kinda a bit of both is true.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> @ttystikk
> http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=297
> 
> kinda a bit of both is true.


That blurb said nothing about the how or why, nor did it address timing- which is at the heart of the current debate here.

Notice that nothing I said above contradicts the article; I was clear that I was talking about short periods of darkness. Until the depletion of the plant's stores of sugars it will indeed continue to grow.

Beyond that, I'm not at all convinced that the stretch response has much if anything to do with the length of darkness, per se. I think it's a part of the plant switching from vegetative growth to generative (blooming) growth and is an indirect result.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> i would disagree that the plant can't be growing without light. but i'm not a horti professor. all that i've read is that the cells are elongating during the dark cycle which leads to the stretch. same as when you switch to 12/12 and the plants stretch like crazy.
> 
> i supplement with co2 so it makes more sense for me to run 24/0 anyway.


24/0 works best if the light intensity is well below the maximum the plants need.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> That blurb said nothing about the how or why, nor did it address timing- which is at the heart of the current debate here.
> 
> Notice that nothing I said above contradicts the article; I was clear that I was talking about short periods of darkness. Until the depletion of the plant's stores of sugars it will indeed continue to grow.
> 
> Beyond that, I'm not at all convinced that the stretch response has much if anything to do with the length of darkness, per se. I think it's a part of the plant switching from vegetative growth to generative (blooming) growth and is an indirect result.


here ya go: from Mr Rosenthal 
*Need the dark*

By Ed Rosenthal - Thursday, October 23 2003 Tags: 

<LI class="first taxonomy_term_19">Ask Ed <LI class=taxonomy_term_78>CC44<LI class=taxonomy_term_114>GROWING
Lights
Do plants need a dark period during the vegetative cycle?




Does marijuana require a dark period during the vegetative growth stage? I recently read a grow book that advocated an 18-6 light cycle during the early growth stages.
PSD 420,
Internet
_One way in which plants are categorized is by the way they gather and handle carbon dioxide. Cannabis is a C3 plant. It uses the CO2 it gathers during the light period, when it is photosynthesizing. Plants designated C4 also gather CO2 during the dark period for use during the light period. Many C3 plants, including cannabis, do not need a rest period. They continue to photosynthesize as long as they are receiving light. 
The plant's photosynthetic rate determines its growth rate because the sugars are used by the plant to build tissue and for energy. Cannabis under continuous light will grow 33% faster than the same plants on an 18-6 light regime._


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

more to peruse:

"The following information is straight from Greg Green's "The Cannabis Grow Bible"

Cannabis is a light demanding plant. Professional growers keep the light on their plants using the 24/0 photoperiod for this reason. Plants that grow under 24/0 flourish and do not need a quantity of darkness in order to rest and perform photosynthesis properly. Plants that are grown in optimal conditions under 24/0 light regime grow vigorusly and the benefits of a 24/0 photoperiod can be seen actively in the results. More nodes are formed, more branches are created, leaf numbers increase, the plant is growing at its finest.

Some growers opt to use 18/6 as their photoperiod. This is 18 hours of light, six hours of darkness light regime. Under these conditions the plant will grow quite naturally but not as vigorously as the 24/0 photoperiod.

The 18/6 photoperiod expels 3/4 the amount of light that a 24/0 photoperiod does. Although this does not mean that a plant produces 1/4 less leaves,branches and nodes under the 18/6 photoperiod, it certainly does show the correlation between light and cannabis growth. As we have said already, cannabis is a light demanding plant. There are no problems associated with 24/0 and although some have attributed cannabis sexual dysfunction (the hermaphrodite conditon) to 18/6 photoperiod these problems are actually the result of heat stress.

A 24/0 photoperiod requires that your grow room temperature be kept well monitored. The 18/6 option is cheaper to run. You use a quarter less electricity and this will have an impact on your electricity bill. Also the 18/6 photoperiod will generally extend the bulb's lifespan. During the 6 hours of darkness the grow room is allowed to cool down for this period but a well maintained good grow room setup should not require a cooling down period.

24/0 and 18/6 both share the same problem though. Once you start the photoperiod you should keep that way especially when the plants near maturity (the preflowering stage). An irregular photoperiod can cause more males than females to develop. It can also cause sexual dysfunction to appear. Whether you choose 24/0 or 18/6 as your vegetative photoperiod try to keep that photoperiod unitl your plants are mature enough to express their se


----------



## churchhaze (Aug 23, 2017)

WeedSexWeightsShakes said:


> Is there actual proof of this claim, as far as tighter node spacing and less veg time?
> Not trying to bash it just curious if there is real studies or anything to prove it.


How about you guys prove your claim that 18/6 can actually save power over 24/0.


----------



## SouthCross (Aug 23, 2017)

When was the grow bible first published? What technology was used to base the information on? How modern were the plants?

How many revisions has the book gone through?


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

SouthCross said:


> When was the grow bible first published? What technology was used to base the information on? How modern were the plants?
> 
> How many revisions has the book gone through?


unknown. grow technology. cannabis has been a plant for many years. 1 revision.


----------



## churchhaze (Aug 23, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> Funny, the horticulture professor I discussed this with said the plants will actually keep growing- not just stretching, but growing- in the dark for as long as all the basic environmental conditions are met. Those conditions include access to nutes and water, reasonable environment and sufficient stored sugars in the plant- which generally take 12-16 hours or more to deplete.
> 
> When I mentioned the short day cycle I'm running (6 on/2 off) he said that would work fine and the stronger the light the better it would work. I didn't discuss any other lighting schedules besides 24/0.


When %Pfr goes down, there's an immediate change in gene expression.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

churchhaze said:


> When %Pfr goes down, there's an immediate change in gene expression.


translate to plain English por favor!


----------



## churchhaze (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> translate to plain English por favor!


High %Pfr (percent of total phytochromes in Pfr form) means low stretch and while low %Pfr causes exponentially more stretch. (while in veg).

Pfr will slowly turn to Pr in darkness.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 23, 2017)

churchhaze said:


> High %Pfr (percent of total phytochromes in Pfr form) means low stretch and while low %Pfr causes exponentially more stretch. (while in veg).
> 
> Pfr will slowly turn to Pr in darkness.


much better! thanks!! that i understand.


----------



## Jimdamick (Aug 23, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> Funny, the horticulture professor I discussed this with said the plants will actually keep growing- not just stretching, but growing- in the dark for as long as all the basic environmental conditions are met. Those conditions include access to nutes and water, reasonable environment and sufficient stored sugars in the plant- which generally take 12-16 hours or more to deplete.
> 
> When I mentioned the short day cycle I'm running (6 on/2 off) he said that would work fine and the stronger the light the better it would work. I didn't discuss any other lighting schedules besides 24/0.


That's why every day in the morning, I adjust my lights, because most actual growth occurs in the dark period.
That is my firm belief. (I run 11/13 bloom and 18/6 veg)


----------



## whitebb2727 (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> here ya go: from Mr Rosenthal
> *Need the dark*
> 
> By Ed Rosenthal - Thursday, October 23 2003 Tags:
> ...


Everyone quotes the c3 plant thing. That really doesn't mean anything. 85% of all its are c3. The quotes never go beyond saying they are c3 and it deals with the way they use c02.

Its much more complicated. I won't post anything in particular. Just Google c3 plant and read. Its much more in depth than that.

I grow numerous house plants under low voltage leds under 24/0. Just like cannabis they handle it just fine.

Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. My opinion is they need a rest period. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> more to peruse:
> 
> "The following information is straight from Greg Green's "The Cannabis Grow Bible"
> 
> ...


I think we're splitting hairs here. It's clear they're happy in both regimes.

Whatever advantage there might be one way or the other is relatively small.


----------



## BobCajun (Aug 24, 2017)

I got better growth with less bleaching after changing from 24/0 to 23/1. I wouldn't go longer than that with the dark though, because they put out too much moisture when respiring in the dark. An hour worked out real nice. Weird nobody tried that before, just 24/0 or 20/4. You'd be surprised how much just an hour off helps reduce light damage. The dark hour seems to revitalize them, probably related to light saturation.


----------



## rkymtnman (Aug 24, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> Cannabis under continuous light will grow 33% faster than the same plants on an 18-6 light regime.





ttystikk said:


> Whatever advantage there might be one way or the other is relatively small.


too each his own. and i don't need a veg timer, so there! lol. grower preference for sure though.


----------



## ANC (Aug 24, 2017)

20/4 for vegging 12/12 for bloom. I have been told by a friend that he does 11/13 as it brings out more differences between phenos. Haven't tested this myself yet.


----------



## SonsOfAvery (Aug 24, 2017)

I had read a few articles, (forgive me I can't remember where exactly) that stated root growth excels during dark periods. So that may be a reason to have a schedule like 18/6.
Also, I think for many people it saves money having the lights out for a certain amount of time.

I'm tempted to switch my schedule from 18/6 to 6/2/6/2/6/2. To help deal with humidity spikes. 
I've got about two weeks of veg left, is it worth it? Will it have any negative side effects?
I appreciate everyone has their opinions, but I'd prefer facts if possible


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 24, 2017)

SonsOfAvery said:


> I had read a few articles, (forgive me I can't remember where exactly) that stated root growth excels during dark periods. So that may be a reason to have a schedule like 18/6.
> Also, I think for many people it saves money having the lights out for a certain amount of time.
> 
> I'm tempted to switch my schedule from 18/6 to 6/2/6/2/6/2. To help deal with humidity spikes.
> ...


I ran it for quite awhile and I'd recommend the 6/2 schedule to anyone.

Except maybe @rkymtnman lol


----------



## churchhaze (Aug 24, 2017)

24/0 also means you can buy a smaller lamp.


----------



## a mongo frog (Aug 24, 2017)

Is 6 on 2 off really a thing for veg? Who does it? Interesting stuff guys, good thread!!!


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 24, 2017)

a mongo frog said:


> Is 6 on 2 off really a thing for veg? Who does it? Interesting stuff guys, good thread!!!


I did and it worked great for me. I think it works better for those who veg under high intensity rather than those who veg with low light levels.


----------



## torontoke (Aug 24, 2017)

a mongo frog said:


> Is 6 on 2 off really a thing for veg? Who does it? Interesting stuff guys, good thread!!!


A few fellow members have tried it and had success with it. 
The thread was about reduced light cycles but alternative light cycles in general is an interesting topic.
I'm fascinated by how different everyone does things


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 24, 2017)

torontoke said:


> A few fellow members have tried it and had success with it.
> The thread was about reduced light cycles but alternative light cycles in general is an interesting topic.
> I'm fascinated by how different everyone does things


I'm still planning the cycle we discussed some months ago. When I'm free of my legal entanglements I'll be giving it a shot.


----------



## torontoke (Aug 24, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> I'm still planning the cycle we discussed some months ago. When I'm free of my legal entanglements I'll be giving it a shot.


That's awesome I can't wait to see how it does.
I've been doing a lot of reading on those arduino controllers and I have a few ideas in mind aswell.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 24, 2017)

torontoke said:


> That's awesome I can't wait to see how it does.
> I've been doing a lot of reading on those arduino controllers and I have a few ideas in mind aswell.


I can't wait to see what you do with it!


----------



## WeedSexWeightsShakes (Aug 24, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> I did and it worked great for me. I think it works better for those who veg under high intensity rather than those who veg with low light levels.


think if you have low level lights its better to go more hours of light on?
i have 4 18w 6k led tubes so 72w in my 4x2
been doing 18/6 i think lol


----------



## ANC (Aug 24, 2017)

My only apprehension with the short cycle is that electronics normally fail when you turn it on or off.
The fewer cycles there are the longer it lasts.

Also, plants don't go into light or dark phase instantly, there is a period of time in which hormones build up telling it that it is dark or light and that it is time to change its transpiration.
I would imagine doing this a few times a day can lose some growing time, even if it is just 10 or 15 minute blocks, they add up. This is an untested theory for me, so it is something I'd watch.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 24, 2017)

ANC said:


> My only apprehension with the short cycle is that electronics normally fail when you turn it on or off.
> The fewer cycles there are the longer it lasts.
> 
> Also, plants don't go into light or dark phase instantly, there is a period of time in which hormones build up telling it that it is dark or light and that it is time to change its transpiration.
> I would imagine doing this a few times a day can lose some growing time, even if it is just 10 or 15 minute blocks, they add up. This is an untested theory for me, so it is something I'd watch.


I didn't see any evidence of this.

The theory behind the 6/2 schedule under high intensity lighting is to avoid the midday pause; the plants can only take so much and then they stop growing because they're fighting the effects of excess light. If they get a break, they recover and can grow at full speed. For lower light levels this isn't a problem so in that case 24/0 might be a better option.

I wanted high light intensity so the plants were ready for the light levels in bloom.

I had no problems with the extra cycling, whether I was using LED or HID lighting.


----------



## ANC (Aug 24, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> I didn't see any evidence of this.
> 
> The theory behind the 6/2 schedule under high intensity lighting is to avoid the midday pause; the plants can only take so much and then they stop growing because they're fighting the effects of excess light. If they get a break, they recover and can grow at full speed. For lower light levels this isn't a problem so in that case 24/0 might be a better option.
> 
> ...


This is true, but I am unsure if it is because of the light itself or if there just isn't enough CO2 to help drive photosynthesis.

In planted aquariums some people do a 4-hour cycle as it messes with algae that need a bit more than 4 hours to process photosynthates, forcing them to have to restart over and over until they die.
What is also common is running lower wattage for longer hours, as well as another method which has the light levels ramp up over midday and then decrease towards night time using TC420 controllers.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 24, 2017)

ANC said:


> This is true, but I am unsure if it is because of the light itself or if there just isn't enough CO2 to help drive photosynthesis.
> 
> In planted aquariums some people do a 4-hour cycle as it messes with algae that need a bit more than 4 hours to process photosynthates, forcing them to have to restart over and over until they die.
> What is also common is running lower wattage for longer hours, as well as another method which has the light levels ramp up over midday and then decrease towards night time using TC420 controllers.


I don't recommend supplemental CO2 in veg for an interesting reason; it turns out that the plants grow fewer stomata in conditions of high CO2 levels. This works against the effectiveness of supplementing with it, so I ran my veg in ambient CO2 and use flow through ventilation.

Only in bloom did I run a fully sealed space.


----------



## ANC (Aug 24, 2017)

I wonder why terrestrial plants would be different in this regard. You should see how plants grow under water when given CO2.

To me, light is like the gas pedal. The harder you step on it the more fuel it uses. Our fuel for the plants are CO2 and the other elements taken up by the roots like a car needs gasoline and oxygen.
Except this car breaks when you step on the pedal too hard because it can't provide fuel fast enough.

I was not saying you need to add CO (for veg), I was trying to convey that the only way to get by with "too high" light levels was adding CO2. The alternative is simply dialing down the light through distance or adjustment.


----------



## SonsOfAvery (Aug 25, 2017)

@ttystikk I know this was originally about reduced schedules, so do you have any experience with say a 5/3, meaning total of 15hrs light in 24. This could possibly work for the higher intensity lights.. just a thought.


----------



## ANC (Aug 25, 2017)

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=CvfxCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=transition+from+light+to+dark+in+plants+minutes&source=bl&ots=Vo9g3Vmyh9&sig=7voeWUKKZcC0w8xzIxp8250ojmU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrv8CNrfLVAhWlCcAKHWRQA7wQ6AEIUzAM#v=onepage&q=transition from light to dark in plants minutes&f=false
Would be interested in your take on the conclusions (g)


----------



## BobCajun (Aug 25, 2017)

On the subject of reduced light hours, I suppose if you increased intensity then it would work out similar to longer hours of lower intensity. So with an 8 hour light period you would need 50% more wattage, ppfd or whatever. Maybe plants can take more intensity if it's for a shorter time. At the same power though, my guess is almost linear decrease in growth with decreasing hours. I don't know of any studies showing which is better for short day plants, longer or shorter days of the same total light. It would be something to try. I guess it would be different from one species to another.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 25, 2017)

SonsOfAvery said:


> @ttystikk I know this was originally about reduced schedules, so do you have any experience with say a 5/3, meaning total of 15hrs light in 24. This could possibly work for the higher intensity lights.. just a thought.


I used a timing schedule that would give the plants the most light with the shortest break, in order to maximize DLI and growth.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 25, 2017)

ANC said:


> https://books.google.co.za/books?id=CvfxCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=transition+from+light+to+dark+in+plants+minutes&source=bl&ots=Vo9g3Vmyh9&sig=7voeWUKKZcC0w8xzIxp8250ojmU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrv8CNrfLVAhWlCcAKHWRQA7wQ6AEIUzAM#v=onepage&q=transition from light to dark in plants minutes&f=false
> Would be interested in your take on the conclusions (g)


It wouldn't load the book for me.


----------



## ANC (Aug 25, 2017)

GUess google screws up some times, I will see if I can sort it out some time. Busy with a steak braai over some Namibian camel thorn acacia coals.
Going to have some chips and mushroom sauce with it. Maybe a light cucumber and onion salad.


----------



## ttystikk (Aug 25, 2017)

ANC said:


> GUess google screws up some times, I will see if I can sort it out some time. Busy with a steak braai over some Namibian camel thorn acacia coals.
> Going to have some chips and mushroom sauce with it. Maybe a light cucumber and onion salad.


Sounds lovely!


----------



## hillbill (Sep 1, 2017)

10 1/4 on and my buds are bigger in less time with more frost and less kilowatt hours. Did not quite expect to be this happy! Just do it!


----------



## Lucky Luke (Sep 4, 2017)

Q for the 24 guys.
Does it take longer for the plant to react to 12/12 after being under light for so long?

Ive just switched from 24 to 12/12 and the stretch didnt seem to happen as fast as i thought it would.


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 5, 2017)

Lucky Luke said:


> Q for the 24 guys.
> Does it take longer for the plant to react to 12/12 after being under light for so long?
> 
> Ive just switched from 24 to 12/12 and the stretch didnt seem to happen as fast as i thought it would.


When I ran a 24/0 veg it took several weeks for stretch to happen.


----------



## Lucky Luke (Sep 5, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> When I ran a 24/0 veg it took several weeks for stretch to happen.


Thats some gold info right there. Ive never seen it mentioned before.


----------



## berten-ernie420 (Sep 5, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> cannabis has been a plant for many years.


This tho


----------



## ruwtz (Sep 5, 2017)

I'm interested in running 6/2 on my next veg round in a few weeks; won't be introducing it to the current veg crop.

Anecdotally at least I can attest to that "midday slump" kinda thing under full power cobs.

And besides, that extra lights-off period gives me an ideal window for my foliar treatments.


----------



## Gquebed (Sep 10, 2017)

ruwtz said:


> I'm interested in running 6/2 on my next veg round in a few weeks; won't be introducing it to the current veg crop.
> 
> Anecdotally at least I can attest to that "midday slump" kinda thing under full power cobs.
> 
> And besides, that extra lights-off period gives me an ideal window for my foliar treatments.


I can attest to the cob slump too. So this coming round i plan to set up a light cycle where i will rotate shutting down two light bars at a time for 45 mins or so... so the plants get a break from the intensity of direct light above them. 

Like:

X0
0X

Then
0X
X0


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 10, 2017)

Gquebed said:


> I can attest to the cob slump too. So this coming round i plan to set up a light cycle where i will rotate shutting down two light bars at a time for 45 mins or so... so the plants get a break from the intensity of direct light above them.
> 
> Like:
> 
> ...


Interesting- this amounts to a day with scattered cloud cover.


----------



## Gquebed (Sep 10, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> Interesting- this amounts to a day with scattered cloud cover.


Thats exactly what i was thinking. 
Get my spray bottle out and i can make it rain too!


----------



## berten-ernie420 (Sep 10, 2017)

My current light schedule
Veg =18/6 

Flower = (on/off)
13.5/10.5 for 1st week
13/11 for 2nd week
12.5/11.5 for 3rd week
12/12 for 4th week
11.5/12.5 for 5th week
11/13 for 6th week till harvest. 

Running this setup since i started growing with my diy leds. Works like a charm to somewhat mimmick the days shortening. Plants seem to love it.


----------



## thccbdhealth (Sep 20, 2017)

ruwtz said:


> I'm interested in running 6/2 on my next veg round in a few weeks; won't be introducing it to the current veg crop.
> 
> Anecdotally at least I can attest to that "midday slump" kinda thing under full power cobs.
> 
> And besides, that extra lights-off period gives me an ideal window for my foliar treatments.


So then ehat are yourbplans for flower?
6 Hours on
6 hour off
repeated for a 24hr cycle?


----------



## ruwtz (Sep 20, 2017)

thccbdhealth said:


> So then ehat are yourbplans for flower?
> 6 Hours on
> 6 hour off
> repeated for a 24hr cycle?


I aint messing with the dark cycle in bloom, this is only for veg.


----------



## SonsOfAvery (Sep 21, 2017)

I've just recently build a small veg cabinet, (approx 1ft X 2.5ft X 2ft) and I'm going to be running my colones / seedlings in it with a 5/3 light cycle. 
Because I'm quite limited on height I'm hoping that the cycle will allow for a slower growth until I can move them to my larger tent (7ft height) for a final week of veg and then flip them to flower.
Think I might start a grow journal with my next seeds, Strawberry Diesel.


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 21, 2017)

SonsOfAvery said:


> I've just recently build a small veg cabinet, (approx 1ft X 2.5ft X 2ft) and I'm going to be running my colones / seedlings in it with a 5/3 light cycle.
> Because I'm quite limited on height I'm hoping that the cycle will allow for a slower growth until I can move them to my larger tent (7ft height) for a final week of veg and then flip them to flower.
> Think I might start a grow journal with my next seeds, Strawberry Diesel.


Slow them down by running less light intensity.


----------



## SonsOfAvery (Sep 21, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> Slow them down by running less light intensity.


I'm running quite low intensity anyway, approx 20w/sqft.
so you think I should just stick with a regular light cycle?


----------



## Abiqua (Sep 21, 2017)

I have been running 20/4 in my veg for about 6 months solid....I only veg S1-2's clones and I have gone back to mostly seed about 80% each run....
I have been finding more than two,so a few, semi autos in my s1 and s2's....under this new light regime....and I rarely would find them before and I am running a couple different lines of bx's....so its kinda cool actually imho, I like finding weird chit.....

I have vegged at 16/8 pretty reliably at times too....Sativa's or NLD's or whatever you want to call them, something that comes from the equator, probably likes this veg time a lil better especially IBL's....softens them up a bit......It is not surprising that weird things happen when you drop from 18/6 to 13/12/11 On...and these type of plants rarely like it straight up and they have a good percentage in modern hybrids again imho, so thats where I lean, but it can be boring and exhausting work at the same time too....gotta love it


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 21, 2017)

SonsOfAvery said:


> I'm running quite low intensity anyway, approx 20w/sqft.
> so you think I should just stick with a regular light cycle?


Shorter light cycles won't slow them down unless you're running fewer hours. You could run 3 on and 5 off for a total of 9 hours of light a day and that would slow them down without risking them blooming.


----------



## thccbdhealth (Sep 22, 2017)

ruwtz said:


> I aint messing with the dark cycle in bloom, this is only for veg.


I just did a flower with a split squduale.
5.5 on
.5 off
5.5 on
12.5 off

Most of harvest is still hanging.
will get back to you with gpw.


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 22, 2017)

Well, most of this thread is talking about light cycles for veg time. That makes little difference for the vegging plants.

For flowering, you want to give your plants light for as long as you can while still maintaining flowering. The 12 hours OFF is what makes them maintain flowering, but if you can maintain it while giving only 11 hours of darkness, you will get higher THC in your cannabinoid profile.


I know it was written over 30 years ago, and the research cited is older than that, I'm still going with Rob Clarke's Marijuana Botany. I give my flowering plants 13 hours of light and 11 hours of darkness.


Rob Clarke says that less than 12 hours of light per day will result in less THC produced. So here it is, like I've copied in threads on this board for years:


Marijuana Botany said:
"Research has shown (Valle et al. 1978 ) that *twice as much THC* is produced under a 12-hour photoperiod than under a 10-hour photoperiod."
(emphasis added)

So you can give your plants 10 hours of light per day, and they will produce *half* of the THC they would produce under 12 hours.

Therefore, I give my plants* as much* light as I can give them, while keeping them in flowering.


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 22, 2017)

Ha! I just did a couple of searches of this site, and I have posted this info 28 times before today!

In 11 years!

Now 29.


----------



## rkymtnman (Sep 22, 2017)

rollitup said:


> but if you can maintain it while giving only 11 hours of darkness,


how do you know if a strain will remain flowering with 11? trial and error? wouldn't some strains revert back to veg mode with 11?


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 22, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> how do you know if a strain will remain flowering with 11? trial and error? wouldn't some strains revert back to veg mode with 11?



If a flowering plant does not revert to vegetative growth, then it continues flowering. Some strains will continue flowering with only 10 hours of darkness.


----------



## rkymtnman (Sep 22, 2017)

rollitup said:


> If a flowering plant does not revert to vegetative growth, then it continues flowering. Some strains will continue flowering with only 10 hours of darkness.


gotcha!
let's say that you try 11 OFF and it starts flowering. good so far. is it possible that at maybe week 6 it could revert back to veg? or once it starts flowering at 11, it will stay in flowering all the way to the end and you don't have to worry


----------



## torontoke (Sep 23, 2017)

rollitup said:


> Well, most of this thread is talking about light cycles for veg time. That makes little difference for the vegging plants.
> 
> For flowering, you want to give your plants light for as long as you can while still maintaining flowering. The 12 hours OFF is what makes them maintain flowering, but if you can maintain it while giving only 11 hours of darkness, you will get higher THC in your cannabinoid profile.
> 
> ...


Well seeing as your a mod I will simply say I disagree strongly with the 30year old research.
I have grown a dozen different strains over the last few years using only 8hrs to flower and if I'm missing half the thc then I think I'd have noticed. 
I am legally allowed to purchase from government producers, dispensarys and my own has smashed it so either I'd be the greatest 12/12 grower ever or this is yet another example of old research being proven wrong.
I'm leaning to the latter but then again as always I will take the high road and simply say we can all agree to disagree.


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 23, 2017)

Yeah, right! Your 12 strains that you have grown certainly disprove documented research.

Maybe everyone should listen to you!


----------



## torontoke (Sep 23, 2017)

rollitup said:


> Yeah, right! Your 12 strains that you have grown certainly disprove documented research.
> 
> Maybe everyone should listen to you!


And how many have u tried


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 23, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> gotcha!
> let's say that you try 11 OFF and it starts flowering. good so far. is it possible that at maybe week 6 it could revert back to veg? or once it starts flowering at 11, it will stay in flowering all the way to the end and you don't have to worry


That's not entirely correct. Once a plant is flowering, it can be reverted to vegetative growth at any time. Some growers induce their plant to flowering to determine sex, and then increase the light hours to cause them to purposely revert to veg growth so she will continue to grow and get bigger before flowering again.

You can tell when a plant is reverting because the foliage will change, from mature leaves back to single leaflet leaves, then grow some 3-leaflet leaves, and so on. A plant can take a month or more to revert fully and continue vegging. It is typically not worth the time and effort.

When we control the photo period, we can make the plant do whatever we wish.


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 23, 2017)

torontoke said:


> And how many have u tried



How many have I tried? I don't know what you are asking. If you want my history, I started growing pot in the early '70s, and have grown over 100 crops. I set up my first Hydro garden in '78 when virtually no one even knew what Hydro was. I've been helping other growers for 20 years.

If you are talking about how many crops flowering using less than 12 hours of light, of course I've never done it, because of what I just posted about here. I read Dr. Clarke's book 30 years ago, so naturally I would not waste a crop by doing that. Like I said, I want my plants to be the best that I can make them perform. Why would I want to produce bud that is less than optimal cannabinoid profile?

I'll leave stuff like that to the newbie growers.


----------



## torontoke (Sep 23, 2017)

rollitup said:


> How many have I tried? I don't know what you are asking. If you want my history, I started growing pot in the early '70s, and have grown over 100 crops. I set up my first Hydro garden in '78 when virtually no one even knew what Hydro was. I've been helping other growers for 20 years.
> 
> If you are talking about how many crops flowering using less than 12 hours of light, of course I've never done it, because of what I just posted about here. I read Dr. Clarke's book 30 years ago, so naturally I would not waste a crop by doing that. Like I said, I want my plants to be the best that I can make them perform. Why would I want to produce bud that is less than optimal cannabinoid profile?
> 
> I'll leave stuff like that to the newbie growers.


Yes I just started.
Total newb clearly
Your years of experience with growing using a completely different method is not at all what I was asking.
My humble experience has shown different results then what your research has told you but tbh I am not trying to sell anything nor do I recommend how anyone else grows.
I think everyone is entitled to an opinion and I'm not arguing this topic any longer.


----------



## DimeBagDilly420 (Sep 23, 2017)

I started my girls at 18/6 did that with a bunch of lst for 4 weeks. Then went to knocking off an hour and a half per week till I got to 12/12. I use LEC lights in a 4x4 and the strain is Jack's cleaner.


----------



## WeedSexWeightsShakes (Sep 24, 2017)

rollitup said:


> How many have I tried? I don't know what you are asking. If you want my history, I started growing pot in the early '70s, and have grown over 100 crops. I set up my first Hydro garden in '78 when virtually no one even knew what Hydro was. I've been helping other growers for 20 years.
> 
> If you are talking about how many crops flowering using less than 12 hours of light, of course I've never done it, because of what I just posted about here. I read Dr. Clarke's book 30 years ago, so naturally I would not waste a crop by doing that. Like I said, I want my plants to be the best that I can make them perform. Why would I want to produce bud that is less than optimal cannabinoid profile?
> 
> I'll leave stuff like that to the newbie growers.


Ever thought research from 30 years ago could be wrong? Sorry but the way you communicate isn’t like a mod. Making immature comments at torantoke isn’t proving anything. Just my opinion tho.


----------



## potroastV2 (Sep 24, 2017)

Well, some of you guys have your "opinions," and you think it's "logical" to do what you do. 

I guess that's the only way you can justify ignoring research. After all, gravity is just a theory, right?


----------



## churchhaze (Sep 27, 2017)

It doesn't take a research paper to see that 11 hours of light will have a lower DLI than 13 hours of light. How do plants yield more mass with less energy? Why not cut off some fan leaves to speed up flowering?

I still think the recent RIU trend is backwards and that 13/11 will yield more.


----------



## churchhaze (Sep 27, 2017)

Cannabis doesn't transition into the stretch. The stretch is the transition itself and the response happens IMMEDIATELY after switching the light period.

*The stretch response is part of the veg cycle!* When the plants are fully switched into flowering mode, they will not respond to the shade avoidance effect anymore.


----------



## stnr420 (Sep 28, 2017)

torontoke said:


> Over the last yr or so I keep reading more n more posts about people trying alternative light cycles in their rooms and rather then having the results and info scattered I thought why not start a thread.
> 
> So if your running a schedule other then 18/6 to veg or 12/12 to flower please feel free to post your results and experiences.
> 
> If you haven't tried anything then please skip to the next hps is better than led thread and argue there Instead.


I run 18/6 under fluorescent for 2-3 weeks..then under mh i run 16/8 for 2-3 weeks...then the week b4 flip 14/10....then at flip i run 11/13 all the way till the last week then 10/14....works great and saves energy...also i think it may reduce stretch and allow a faster finish...


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 28, 2017)

stnr420 said:


> I run 18/6 under fluorescent for 2-3 weeks..then under mh i run 16/8 for 2-3 weeks...then the week b4 flip 14/10....then at flip i run 11/13 all the way till the last week then 10/14....works great and saves energy...also i think it may reduce stretch and allow a faster finish...


A lot of people say that GLT (gaslight timing) accelerates the transition into bloom. 12 hours on, 5.5 hours off, 1 hour on, 5.5 off and repeat.

Have you tried anything like this?


----------



## thccbdhealth (Sep 29, 2017)

I just did that on my last run.
but reversed to your description.
5.5 on 
.5 off
5.5 on
12.5 off


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 29, 2017)

thccbdhealth said:


> I just did that on my last run.
> but reversed to your description.
> 5.5 on
> .5 off
> ...


The only difference is 30 minutes of light in the middle instead of an hour.


----------



## rkymtnman (Sep 29, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> A lot of people say that GLT (gaslight timing) accelerates the transition into bloom. 12 hours on, 5.5 hours off, 1 hour on, 5.5 off and repeat.
> 
> Have you tried anything like this?


have you done any historical searching on GLR? i remember google searching for it and the one thing that wasn't really explained was if the K value of the light source is important? back in the day, it really was a gas lantern that they'd light up to break up the dark period which i would think would be very red in K value. wonder if that makes a difference or just the fact that the dark period was broken up was what kept them on the brink of flowering? thoughts?


----------



## ttystikk (Sep 29, 2017)

rkymtnman said:


> have you done any historical searching on GLR? i remember google searching for it and the one thing that wasn't really explained was if the K value of the light source is important? back in the day, it really was a gas lantern that they'd light up to break up the dark period which i would think would be very red in K value. wonder if that makes a difference or just the fact that the dark period was broken up was what kept them on the brink of flowering? thoughts?


Hadn't thought about it. Since I was looking for stretch in veg, it was natural for me to use red heavy light. 

I tried GLT with 4100K CMH lights and didn't like it because I got basically no stretch.


----------



## hillbill (Sep 30, 2017)

I have enough trouble maintaining standard 18/6 or 20/4 light cycles. Simple guy, simple schedule, KISS type guy here. Really liking 10/14 in flower for every reason I can think of.


----------



## pedrovski (Sep 30, 2017)

Using a one of the sonoff wifi timers make all these custom light schedules super easy to set up.

I do however have a question about this glt schedule. 
Ive got 730nm leds in a tent with 3500k 90cri citizen cobs that i would generally run for 10 mins on lights out on a 12-12.

Any suggestions on adding these 730nm leds into this lighting schedule?

Maybe just an extra 5 mins after the hour on?


----------



## torontoke (Sep 30, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> The only difference is 30 minutes of light in the middle instead of an hour.


There's a lot more difference then that.
A standard glr is 12 on 5.5 off 1 on 5.5 off
He is running almost the opposite.
Except for the 30mins vs 60in the middle.



rkymtnman said:


> have you done any historical searching on GLR? i remember google searching for it and the one thing that wasn't really explained was if the K value of the light source is important? back in the day, it really was a gas lantern that they'd light up to break up the dark period which i would think would be very red in K value. wonder if that makes a difference or just the fact that the dark period was broken up was what kept them on the brink of flowering? thoughts?


I don't think the k is as important as just having something break up the dark. 
As tty said tho glr does seem to produce more horizontal growth instead of stretch.
Glr is definitely not a solution for all grow ops but it does have advantages in shorter areas and for those on limited power.


----------



## torontoke (Sep 30, 2017)

pedrovski said:


> Using a one of the sonoff wifi timers make all these custom light schedules super easy to set up.
> 
> I do however have a question about this glt schedule.
> Ive got 730nm leds in a tent with 3500k 90cri citizen cobs that i would generally run for 10 mins on lights out on a 12-12.
> ...


What is a glt schedule?


----------



## pedrovski (Sep 30, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> A lot of people say that GLT (gaslight timing) accelerates the transition into bloom. 12 hours on, 5.5 hours off, 1 hour on, 5.5 off and repeat.
> 
> Have you tried anything like this?


This lighting schedule mentioned a little earlier in the thread 



torontoke said:


> What is a glt schedule?


----------



## torontoke (Sep 30, 2017)

pedrovski said:


> This lighting schedule mentioned a little earlier in the thread


Sorry 
My mix up it's usually called glr gas light routine so I wasn't sure what the t was for.
What is it your hoping the 730nm do? Most talk of added initiators are based on flowering not veg from what I've read


----------



## thccbdhealth (Sep 30, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> The only difference is 30 minutes of light in the middle instead of an hour.


Flipped... 11 hours light
rather then the 12

Thus was recommended to me by the breeder of one of the strains i was running.
that one strain is the fire, out of the 4

It was suggested as a means to keep heat and humidity in check in a sealed environment, in my cenario.

I did experience flowers setting in on the 8th-10th day.


----------



## mr. childs (Oct 1, 2017)

hillbill said:


> I have enough trouble maintaining standard 18/6 or 20/4 light cycles. Simple guy, simple schedule, KISS type guy here. Really liking 10/14 in flower for every reason I can think of.


smellier girls than 12/12 ?


----------



## hillbill (Oct 1, 2017)

mr. childs said:


> smellier girls than 12/12 ?


Maybe but a lot of smells right now with Space Monkey running long for seed and three Sour Bubble at 6 weeks. Sour Bubbles are very much like each other and short with wide leaves, tight buds and spacing. All are deep green and very frosty. Will not train next time. Reminds me of Hindu Kush. One Sour Bubble had sex with her brother and looks seeded.

The 10/14 may even be increasing yield while shortening flower time on some strains. Biggest difference beyond this is using something like 15% less electricity. No negatives at my house!


----------



## Hotwired (Oct 2, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> A lot of people say that GLT (gaslight timing) accelerates the transition into bloom. 12 hours on, 5.5 hours off, 1 hour on, 5.5 off and repeat.
> 
> Have you tried anything like this?


I have been using this method for 3 years. I don't usually post about what I do because the kids here start shouting and it makes my ears hurt, but I'll make an exception in this post.

I originally read about this method on this site many years ago. It was posted for people who wanted to save money on electricity. So I decided to give it a shot. I set a tent aside, put some clones in it, and set the timer for 12 hours on, 5.5 off, 1 hour on, and 5.5 off under 450 watts in a 4 x 4. They stretched a bit the first week but once the bigger fan leaves grew in they looked perfectly normal. I kept them in veg for the usual 4 weeks and then put them under a 600 watt hps to flower. They took off quickly and were flowering in a few days. Needless to say I was impressed.

I then changed my cloning method to the "12/1" schedule as well and they stopped any stretch in the first week of veg. I love how even clones can be trained. Over time I made changes to the flower schedule and shaved an hour off lights on with NO change at all in density, size or strength. The only time I had a problem was with a pure sativa clone. Seemed like she wanted to flower while being cloned and didn't like the light schedule at all. I just cut off the tops and put them under a 16/8 to finish cloning. They vegged fine under the "12/1" method once they had their roots. Otherwise ALL indica and hybrid strains have worked 100% with this method.

The savings in my bill were very good and made the method all the more worth while for me. It's very hot where I live and the cooling costs alone are enormous. This method works, you lose nothing, and you save on electric. 

All I can say is stop arguing, try out whatever you want, and be happy while doing it. That's all that really matters in the end


----------



## ttystikk (Oct 2, 2017)

Hotwired said:


> I have been using this method for 3 years. I don't usually post about what I do because the kids here start shouting and it makes my ears hurt, but I'll make an exception in this post.
> 
> I originally read about this method on this site many years ago. It was posted for people who wanted to save money on electricity. So I decided to give it a shot. I set a tent aside, put some clones in it, and set the timer for 12 hours on, 5.5 off, 1 hour on, and 5.5 off under 450 watts in a 4 x 4. They stretched a bit the first week but once the bigger fan leaves grew in they looked perfectly normal. I kept them in veg for the usual 4 weeks and then put them under a 600 watt hps to flower. They took off quickly and were flowering in a few days. Needless to say I was impressed.
> 
> ...


Sounds like it worked great for you!

I gave up on it in favor of another schedule because it was not giving me the stretch I needed to fill the big vertical trellis panels I was growing on.

That other schedule was 6 on and 2 off three times a day. It worked very well and helped keep the temperatures and RH levels more even in my veg space.


----------



## ruwtz (Oct 3, 2017)

I'm trialling 6/2 in veg for the the first time on a current run of Platinum GSC and Ghost OG (OG Kush pheno), the latter of which seems already sluggish in veg but really booms in flower. The GSC has no such issues: seems to love being topped and trained, aggressive rooting and will eat everything I give her.

Lets see how well they do together under 6/2.


----------



## potroastV2 (Oct 4, 2017)

W.

T.

F.

Over???


----------



## SonsOfAvery (Oct 4, 2017)

rollitup said:


> W.
> 
> T.
> 
> ...


I get it, you're an old school grower and stick to what you know. But you're also a staff member/forum admin, and I don't think this is the best way to conduct yourself to be honest.
On this thread people are discussing theories and sharing experiences of grow and techniques. This is literally how thing advance, by people trying something new and sharing their results, wether they work or not. 
I understand that you believe it doesn't work, but some people here are saying otherwise. So best we leave it at that and let this thread continue?


----------



## SonsOfAvery (Oct 4, 2017)

nxsov180db said:


> Maybe he's drunk?


Hopefully that's an explanation...but I'd expect High not drunk


----------



## Raven121415 (Oct 9, 2017)

rollitup said:


> If a flowering plant does not revert to vegetative growth, then it continues flowering. Some strains will continue flowering with only 10 hours of darkness.


I induced and maintained flowering with 14/10 with 2 diferwnt kush strains.


----------



## Gaz29 (Oct 12, 2017)

I been using the 'gas lantern routine' for veg =12 on 5.5 off , 1 hour on & 5.5 off, then switch to 11/13 for flowering and elsewhere I've got another grow on 20/4 veg & 11/13 flowering. Both are doing fine.. happy growing 
Gaz


----------



## hillbill (Oct 13, 2017)

nxsov180db said:


> Awesome, and have you experienced this fabled loss of THC content from less than 12 hours of light?


Not just "No" but "HELL NO!"


----------



## Gaz29 (Oct 13, 2017)

nxsov180db said:


> Awesome, and have you experienced this fabled loss of THC content from less than 12 hours of light?


Not that I've noticed.. 
Gaz


----------



## potroastV2 (Oct 13, 2017)

nxsov180db said:


> Awesome, and have you experienced this fabled loss of THC content from less than 12 hours of light?


Do you have any documented research to prove what you say? 

Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."

How about you test your "feelings" in a lab, and then get back to us.

Until then, let's hear some more of your "feelings."


----------



## torontoke (Oct 13, 2017)

rollitup said:


> Do you have any documented research to prove what you say?
> 
> Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."
> 
> ...


Where’s your lab results?
Maybe post anything remotely close to the numbers you claim before expecting it from others.
We understand your standing by your book that was written before hid lighting was even used but seriously why bother posting in this thread if it’s just going to be a pissed off granny mod rant.

This is exactly the reason more and more people are leaving these forums.
No sense trying to help get any new stats or opinions let’s just continue to measure dicks and sling insults like the petty mods do
If there’s no conversation to be had here then why bother?


----------



## potroastV2 (Oct 13, 2017)

In my first post was a quote by Dr. Clarke that started "research has shown." Then he cited the source.

"before hid lighting was even used," HA! that gave me a really good laugh! I imagine that you were not even born when Rob published his research, so you would not know about the use of HID lights.

Let's hear some more of your "feelings."


----------



## torontoke (Oct 13, 2017)

rollitup said:


> In my first post was a quote by Dr. Clarke that started "research has shown." Then he cited the source.
> 
> "before hid lighting was even used," HA! that gave me a really good laugh! I imagine that you were not even born when Rob published his research, so you would not know about the use of HID lights.
> 
> Let's hear some more of your "feelings."


I won’t attempt to debate someone’s 40 year old research that isn’t even your own.
Clearly genetics and light tech haven’t changed at all since then so the same blanket data must stay true forever.
Everyone else must be wasting their time
None of us would be able to tell our end product is missing a measly 50% of the thc because we aren’t as old as you


----------



## potroastV2 (Oct 13, 2017)

torontoke said:


> I won’t attempt to debate someone’s 40 year old research that isn’t even your own.
> Clearly genetics and light tech haven’t changed at all since then so the same blanket data must stay true forever.
> Everyone else must be wasting their time
> None of us would be able to tell our end product is missing a measly 50% of the thc because we aren’t as old as you



That's absolutely correct, now you're talking! You are threatened by my knowledge and experience.

So it's time for me to *thank you*, and tell you how much I appreciate your growing skills. Because of that every time someone smokes my bud, they say it's the best they've ever had! 

Thanks again!


----------



## Flowki (Oct 18, 2017)

Today at work I had trouble. I went to the toilet in a nearby restaurant and it felt like I was having a number one from my number two, but the type of number one experienced after you've fornicated. There's more. I was the only person to go to the toilet in that time and when I tried to flush, it didn't work. I took the lid off the top bit and started yanking on the floating device, I remember doing that as a child flooding the bathroom, seemed like an option.. but nothing happened. I walked out feeling very bad knowing the young waitress was not going to get an early finish today. Tomorrow my face is probably on a poster pinned to every post in town ''wanted for shit and run''.

Still, not the lowest point of the day.. night guys.


----------



## ttystikk (Oct 18, 2017)

Flowki said:


> Today at work I had trouble. I went to the toilet in a nearby restaurant and it felt like I was having a number one from my number two, but the type of number one experienced after you've fornicated. There's more. I was the only person to go to the toilet in that time and when I tried to flush, it didn't work. I took the lid off the top bit and started yanking on the floating device, I remember doing that as a child flooding the bathroom, seemed like an option.. but nothing happened. I walked out feeling very bad knowing the young waitress was not going to get an early finish today. Tomorrow my face is probably on a poster pinned to every post in town ''wanted for shit and run''.
> 
> Still, not the lowest point of the day.. night guys.


That's rough, bro. Hope everything works itself out soon...


----------



## berten-ernie420 (Oct 18, 2017)

rollitup said:


> Do you have any documented research to prove what you say?
> 
> Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."
> 
> ...


Both flowered under shortened flower periods. So by your logic, these strains if flowered under 12, would've doubled levels? C'mon guy. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## OLD MOTHER SATIVA (Nov 11, 2017)

rollitup said:


> Marijuana Botany said:
> "Research has shown (Valle et al. 1978 ) that *twice as much THC* is produced under a 12-hour photoperiod than under a 10-hour photoperiod."
> (emphasis added)


this quote from RobClarke and the apparent 'research' is ridiculous.

please think about this "twice as much statement "first..not all research is correct

let me rephrase that because no i do not have documented info to support my claim

and i thank the mod for inserting a bibliography[of one]

so this means that the two hr period is responisble for 50% of producing thc

Does this also mean that 13, 14 , [18 hrs, 24 hrs]yah know those auto's

will increase it even more or is the magic number with all cannabis 12 hrs?


----------



## deno (Nov 11, 2017)

50% less does sound suspect, but devaluing research because it is old is ridiculous. If it was just one study, than it is anything but confirmed. Its a data point to consider. At the same time, anecdotal evidence is not useless, but is suspect as well (among other things largely due to conformation bias we humans all suffer from). That 'going into an ice age' thing was a result of the media hyping it up. These wasn't a scientific consensus - not even close. It was one researcher who said it, and the media ran with it. The media does what the media does - tries to be interesting so they make more money. It's been bandied about by climate change deniers recently, holding it up as a false equivalence. Understand how the scientific method works, and you won't get conned by politicians (and their shills).


----------



## hillbill (Nov 12, 2017)

I'm not doing a scientific experiment. I am though growing more herb in less days with less electricity since I cut my light period to 10 hours several months ago. I thought I would try it and here I am. I do grow under high quality full spectrum white COBs and LEDs, not street lights. 

Gotta go enjoy some anecdotal herb. My lights finally turned on!

Global warming is very real, very serious and an incredible threat.


----------



## deno (Nov 12, 2017)

hillbill said:


> I'm not doing a scientific experiment. I am though growing more herb in less days with less electricity since I cut my light period to 10 hours several months ago. I thought I would try it and here I am. I do grow under high quality full spectrum white COBs and LEDs, not street lights.
> 
> Gotta go enjoy some anecdotal herb. My lights finally turned on!
> 
> Global warming is very real, very serious and an incredible threat.


No one is suggesting you are. We all make decisions based on limited info. I think the anti-science sentiments so many people express are cute. They act as if its something to despise, as if their lives would be better without it. They act like a spoiled brats, thinking if he breaks his toy another even better one will magically appear. A brat with absolutely no appreciation of what he has, or how he got it. I'll stick with running the light as long as possible while still keeping the plant in bloom for yield reasons.


----------



## hillbill (Nov 12, 2017)

My yield is noticeably up. It just is. Potency is at least as good and plants flower time is a couple days shorter. Been doing some same strains for years. Only time I ever was under 12 hours before was down to just over eleven hours to try to finish full bleed Sativas. Too many folks here are having similar results to dismiss. I just like spending less on power with better results, faster.


----------



## deno (Nov 12, 2017)

hillbill said:


> My yield is noticeably up. It just is. Potency is at least as good and plants flower time is a couple days shorter. Been doing some same strains for years. Only time I ever was under 12 hours before was down to just over eleven hours to try to finish full bleed Sativas. Too many folks here are having similar results to dismiss. I just like spending less on power with better results, faster.


Oh, I'm not dismissing your experience. It's got me, and probably a lot of other people thinking about this. But surely you are getting better with each grow. And you probably grow various strains. There are other variables in play, and we are talking about subtle things here. The thing I have difficulty accepting is that a plant that gets more light will have a smaller yield than one that gets less light. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think it's an open question, and I won't jump to conclusions either way.

Sounds like you have a lot of experience with the strains you are growing. It would be interesting if you made an adjustment to maximize the light during bloom on your next run. You should see either an increase in yield, or decrease. When you're accustomed to a certain technique, subtle differences become more apparent. That would carry a lot of weight in this debate.


----------



## hillbill (Nov 12, 2017)

deno said:


> Oh, I'm not dismissing your experience. It's got me, and probably a lot of other people thinking about this. But surely you are getting better with each grow. And you probably grow various strains. There are other variables in play, and we are talking about subtle things here. The thing I have difficulty accepting is that a plant that gets more light will have a smaller yield than one that gets less light. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think it's an open question, and I won't jump to conclusions either way.
> 
> Sounds like you have a lot of experience with the strains you are growing. It would be interesting if you made an adjustment to maximize the light during bloom on your next run. You should see either an increase in yield, or decrease. When you're accustomed to a certain technique, subtle differences become more apparent. That would carry a lot of weight in this debate.


I was surprised with the results myself but at this point I'm not suddenly getting that much better. From all I can gather, it is working in intensely lit areas. I'm at just over 10 on at about 45 watts/sqft. COBs.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 13, 2017)

hillbill said:


> I was surprised with the results myself but at this point I'm not suddenly getting that much better. From all I can gather, it is working in intensely lit areas. I'm at just over 10 on at about 45 watts/sqft. COBs.


Your experience is far from unique.


----------



## Mareh (Feb 22, 2018)

rollitup said:


> I know it was written over 30 years ago, and the research cited is older than that, I'm still going with Rob Clarke's Marijuana Botany. I give my flowering plants 13 hours of light and 11 hours of darkness.
> 
> 
> Rob Clarke says that less than 12 hours of light per day will result in less THC produced. So here it is, like I've copied in threads on this board for years:
> ...


Well the research is about
EFFECT OF LIGHT QUALITY ON CANNABINOID CONTENT IN *VEGETATIVE LEAVES
Nothing about buds
*


----------

