3500k vs 4000k vs 5000k ?

Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Well this has long been established. You are the only outlier really.

Scientific tests have shown that the yield difference caused by spectrum up to 4000K is 5% at most.
Click to expand...
I have stated this before. There is lots of anecdotal evidence. There are lots of other factors we are looking for here other than just pure yield.
Please read the full post next time.
We will find out if this is true.
Please link your sources, everyone will be highly interested to see them with lab results I do hope.
 
Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
Trippyness said:
I have stated this before. There is lots of anecdotal evidence. There are lots of other factors we are looking for here other than just pure yield.
Please read the full post next time.
We will find out if this is true.
Please link your sources, everyone will be highly interested to see them with lab results I do hope.
Click to expand...
If you do know of a side by side of this caliber comparing these kelvin spectrum's with lab results with the same proven strains please do share, otherwise this thread of for proven data. thats what i set out to do.
Thanks for stopping by. Enjoy the grow.
 
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
Whatever the results are from a given spectrum, the plants growing under them will always render slightly different results on every grow -even the same, exact genetics.

No one (outside of a huge, commercial grow-op) would even want to grow the same strain over and over and over again with no variability...and there is a noticeable variability among different genetics...so whatever a test result comes out to be for a given spectrum and a given plant, the results will be different for the next. One genetic line will respond to spectrum 'A' better than it will to spectrum 'B'. Another genetic line will respond to spectrum 'C' better than spectrum 'B' ....and so on.

These graph and chart 'wars' that happen all the time around here and all that comes of them is that people get agitated on one side of the fence or the other....and the plants don't really care. :)

It's hard to tell if an extra 5% increase in yield comes from a different spectrum....or maybe the grower just spent a little more time around the plants and they got a little more CO2.

The single-best lighting for different growth stages of all genetics is impossible to determine because everything in the organic world is constantly varying. And even if you could run the tests in a test laboratory with absolutely consistent environmental conditions, what would it determine? No one grows plants in laboratory conditions.

Get a good, bright light source within a reasonable spectral range (no yellow, fluorescent bug lights or black lights, xenon strobe lights, etc.) and your plants will do fine -as long as you pay attention and attend to all aspects of growing.
 
Last edited:
Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
Trippyness said:
I have stated this before. There is lots of anecdotal evidence. There are lots of other factors we are looking for here other than just pure yield.
Please read the full post next time.
We will find out if this is true.
Please link your sources, everyone will be highly interested to see them with lab results I do hope.
Click to expand...
The thing is, your test will be no more definitive than that of anyone else who's gone as far as getting labs done. The scientific method requires far, far, FAR more than one grower, in one environment, with any given strain, or any given grow-method. It requires years of detailed research, across multiple environments, myriad strains, and every conceivable growing method. Any growers who think they can put this question to bed with their own personal tests (except to put it to bed for themselves, in their own garden), is sadly mistaken. So no, "we" will not find out if this is true. You will find out if you believe it to be true for your garden, but that doesn't make it undisputable evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying you're on the wrong track. I admire anyone who's willing to go to such lengths for more data. I just know better than to give too much credit to data, without greater context than one tester can supply. Best of luck in your experiments, and I do look forward to seeing your results.
 
Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
hillbill said:
Different bulbs or any light source at 3000k or 4000k or whatever k rating may have wildly different spectrums which makes the test relevant only to similar bulbs from same maker, if that! K rating is not spectrum.
Click to expand...
Thats is true, hence why i am running this only on DE at the moment.
This will give some solid info that I can translate to other lighting technology and see how it compares and tweak from there.
 
Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
tstick said:
Whatever the results are from a given spectrum, the plants growing under them will always render slightly different results on every grow -even the same, exact genetics.

No one (outside of a huge, commercial grow-op) would even want to grow the same strain over and over and over again with no variability...and there is a noticeable variability among different genetics...so whatever a test result comes out to be for a given spectrum and a given plant, the results will be different for the next. One genetic line will respond to spectrum 'A' better than it will to spectrum 'B'. Another genetic line will respond to spectrum 'C' better than spectrum 'B' ....and so on.

These graph and chart 'wars' that happen all the time around here and all that comes of them is that people get agitated on one side of the fence or the other....and the plants don't really care. :)

It's hard to tell if an extra 5% increase in yield comes from a different spectrum....or maybe the grower just spent a little more time around the plants and they got a little more CO2.

The single-best lighting for different growth stages of all genetics is impossible to determine because everything in the organic world is constantly varying. And even if you could run the tests in a test laboratory with absolutely consistent environmental conditions, what would it determine? No one grows plants in laboratory conditions.

Get a good, bright light source within a reasonable spectral range (no yellow, fluorescent bug lights or black lights, xenon strobe lights, etc.) and your plants will do fine -as long as you pay attention and attend to all aspects of growing.
Click to expand...
We will see as I will be running this test several times on many different strains after the initial test.
However, I run the same genetics for quite a while without any variance. I can understand that different genetics will give differant results, but the point is to give a good baseline instead of the repeated garbage without even a baseline
 
Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
Humple said:
The thing is, your test will be no more definitive than that of anyone else who's gone as far as getting labs done. The scientific method requires far, far, FAR more than one grower, in one environment, with any given strain, or any given grow-method. It requires years of detailed research, across multiple environments, myriad strains, and every conceivable growing method. Any growers who think they can put this question to bed with their own personal tests (except to put it to bed for themselves, in their own garden), is sadly mistaken. So no, "we" will not find out if this is true. You will find out if you believe it to be true for your garden, but that doesn't make it undisputable evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying you're on the wrong track. I admire anyone who's willing to go to such lengths for more data. I just know better than to give too much credit to data, without greater context than one tester can supply. Best of luck in your experiments, and I do look forward to seeing your results.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of this. I have said this above. This is just the start here.
The point is to get a baseline.
Once that is finished. Will run more tests under different strains in other gardens as well.
Point of this is to give a good baseline on which DE bulb spectra work best.
This is just an experiment, not claiming this is the end all of comparisons.
Just want to get some baselines for further testing.
 
hillbill

hillbill

Well-Known Member
Back in the way back I grew with old Philips Mastercolor CMH and HPS alone and combined and found the 4000k CMH made looser, stinkier and less bud with more leaf material than HPS. Having tried several “super” HPS bulbs the name brand street light bulbs did as well!
 
Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
hillbill said:
Back in the way back I grew with old Philips Mastercolor CMH and HPS alone and combined and found the 4000k CMH made looser, stinkier and less bud with more leaf material than HPS. Having tried several “super” HPS bulbs the name brand street light bulbs did as well!
Click to expand...
Ive heard that. Want to put it to a test and get soem data for us. This will not be the end of this test. Will only be more to come.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Trippyness said:
I have stated this before. There is lots of anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...
It's not anectdotal evidence. Actual scientists have been comparing different lights.

But by all means, keep pretending that you didn't simply do something wrong in your poorly executed test.
 
Trippyness

Trippyness

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
It's not anectdotal evidence. Actual scientists have been comparing different lights.

But by all means, keep pretending that you didn't simply do something wrong in your poorly executed test.
Click to expand...
My yields are fine. Again you provide no sources.
Im comparing Kelvin in HPS and MH technology.
Please provide sources to backup your claims.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
hillbill said:
Back in the way back I grew with old Philips Mastercolor CMH and HPS alone and combined and found the 4000k CMH made looser, stinkier and less bud with more leaf material than HPS. Having tried several “super” HPS bulbs the name brand street light bulbs did as well!
Click to expand...
Are you saying hortilux bulbs aren't better than others? Check out these results i think they might say otherwise https://growershouse.com/blog/hid-bulb-test-comparison-review-hortilux-ushio-digilux-baddass-solistek-lumatek-maxlume-growlite-ultra-sun/
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
I used the Sylvania bulbs in my HydroFarm 400 watt MH fixture from the 80's....horizontal mount and no glass. The last replacement bulb I bought was last year....cost me $21 per bulb....not bad at all!

I also grew under fluorescent tubes (in the distant past) as well as trying some reputable LED fixtures. My findings are that....every single grow was different for one reason or another no matter what type of light I used. I also continue to make adjustments here and there within the growing environment until the plants are happy and growing well. They like bright light and they don't seem to be that particular to what type of light source they are getting it from. The plants are adaptable, too, and they adjust to whatever light they are presented as long as it is bright and consistent.

I'm always onto growing "the next strain" (whatever it might be) so any kind of spectral experiment that could be done, now, wouldn't have any relevance a year from now when I'm onto the next and the next and the next strain.

There is no magic light-spectrum that will take mediocre marijuana and turn it into superior quality marijuana. That can only happen on a genetic level. So I believe that it's better for growers to invest in the best genetic lines and search for the best phenotypes rather than buying into the idea that a certain spectrum of light will make any kind of realistic, qualitative improvements.
 
Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
tstick said:
I used the Sylvania bulbs in my HydroFarm 400 watt MH fixture from the 80's....horizontal mount and no glass. The last replacement bulb I bought was last year....cost me $21 per bulb....not bad at all!

I also grew under fluorescent tubes (in the distant past) as well as trying some reputable LED fixtures. My findings are that....every single grow was different for one reason or another no matter what type of light I used. I also continue to make adjustments here and there within the growing environment until the plants are happy and growing well. They like bright light and they don't seem to be that particular to what type of light source they are getting it from. The plants are adaptable, too, and they adjust to whatever light they are presented as long as it is bright and consistent.

I'm always onto growing "the next strain" (whatever it might be) so any kind of spectral experiment that could be done, now, wouldn't have any relevance a year from now when I'm onto the next and the next and the next strain.

There is no magic light-spectrum that will take mediocre marijuana and turn it into superior quality marijuana. That can only happen on a genetic level. So I believe that it's better for growers to invest in the best genetic lines and search for the best phenotypes rather than buying into the idea that a certain spectrum of light will make any kind of realistic, qualitative improvements.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. I think all the to-do over spectrum is just a bit much. Seems like chasing the tail.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
PSUAGRO. said:
you do realize that you can do 3 Philips/Sylvania bulb swaps @ the same price of 1 horti? also nate didn't test them.........wonder why?hmmmm
Click to expand...
That does not change the fact that hortilux bulbs are 10% better than the next best, so yeah you can change out cheap bulbs if you'd like but you won't get the same results.
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
That does not change the fact that hortilux bulbs are 10% better than the next best, so yeah you can change out cheap bulbs if you'd like but you won't get the same results.
Click to expand...
Read my post again, he didn't test those bulbs so we don't know, not fact ;lol. Osram Sylvania/Royal Philips are the leading hid bulb manufacturers worldwide, fact . Are you swapping out pricey horti bulbs every run? you can with these^^ @ $25+/- a piece wholesale...you do realize what happens to a bulb after every strike?
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
PSUAGRO. said:
Read my post again, he didn't test those bulbs so we don't know, not fact ;lol. Osram Sylvania/Royal Philips are the leading hid bulb manufacturers worldwide, fact . Are you swapping out pricey horti bulbs every run? you can with these^^ @ $25+/- a piece wholesale...you do realize what happens to a bulb after every strike?
Click to expand...
no i don't swap those out after every run, right now i'm mostly using CMH and LED lighting but hortilux are the best bulbs it's a well known fact, no 25$ cheapo bulb will come close.
 
hillbill

hillbill

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
no i don't swap those out after every run, right now i'm mostly using CMH and LED lighting but hortilux are the best bulbs it's a well known fact, no 25$ cheapo bulb will come close.
Click to expand...
Lots of quality bulbs for street lighting come very close. Not talking cheap imports but Sylvania, Philips or GE will. They just do despite well known “facts”. Ushio did seem a bit better but not worth the bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top