THC, CBD, Terpene test results – UVA vs UVB vs none

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
As some of you might know, former member Or_Gro did a side-by-side comparing three different types of LED boards with supplementary UV reptile bulbs. He also did a control grow without any UV at all. The test results are interesting because UV clearly works – an increase of almost 20%!

But perhaps the most surprising thing is, you don't need UVB to do it. UVA and near-UV (400-420nm) appear to be just as effective.

The following are the results comparing a 4'x4' tent full of QB96 boards and a 4'x4' tent full of QB288 boards – both of which had 30% UVA and 6% UVB supplements (fluorescent reptile bulbs) – and a 4'x4' tent full of High Light boards and a 3'x3' with QB96 boards, both of which had no supplementary UV.

The High Light boards do have a small amount of UVA and some near-UV (400-420nm) incorporated into the boards themselves (Sunlike 415nm-pump LEDs).

The 3'x3' served as the baseline, as it had no UV or near-UV.


6 x QB96 Elite, 1 x 28 diode FR bar, 2 x 4’ T5 30% UVA & 6% UVB
Total THC: 19.8%
Total CBD: 0.7%
Total Terpenes: 4.7%


8 x QB288, 4 x QB35, 1 x 28 diode FR bar, 2 x 4’ T5 30% UVA & 6% UVB
Total THC: 18.7%
Total CBD: 0.63%
Total Terpenes: 5.0%


8 x High Light UV
Total THC: 19.1%
Total CBD: 0.64%
Total Terpenes: 4.8%


Control – 3'x3' room with 4 x QB96, 4 x rapidled FR pucks, NO UV
Total THC: 16.6%
Total CBD: 0.52%
Total Terpenes: 3.9%


I think we can safely say that UV works. However, UVA and near-UV (400-420nm) seems to work just as well as UVB. Empirical evidence, my friends :D
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
On a related note, I just wanted to mention that my – until now – "silent partner" has just opened a Sponsor account on RIU to answer any future questions about High Light boards.

He has also started a new venture at www.growlightsaustralia.com

I don't have anything to do with the business and from now on @Grow Lights Australia will be dealing with any questions or queries about the boards.

I've been on RIU for over six years. I go right back to the old overgrow.com and cannabisworld.com days circa 2001. I even owned and ran my own grow site, planetganja.com, for five years. I've always been a grower and I want to keep it that way.

I did have a hand in designing and testing the High Light boards, but I wasn't the only one involved. I think it's time those who were involved take a leading role so that I can go back to growing and don't have to worry about all this sales and marketing guff! I never set out to start a business – I only wanted to build a better LED board. But there you go. Turns out, the boards had a life of their own.

Thanks to everyone who's supported us over the past six months or so. I'm happy to keep answering questions, but I really don't want to be a spammer, so if you've got any questions about where to get the boards etc, please refer them to @Grow Lights Australia. Cheers.
 

nachooo

Well-Known Member
As some of you might know, former member Or_Gro did a side-by-side comparing three different types of LED boards with supplementary UV reptile bulbs. He also did a control grow without any UV at all. The test results are interesting because UV clearly works – an increase of almost 20%!

But perhaps the most surprising thing is, you don't need UVB to do it. UVA and near-UV (400-420nm) appear to be just as effective.

The following are the results comparing a 4'x4' tent full of QB96 boards and a 4'x4' tent full of QB288 boards – both of which had 30% UVA and 6% UVB supplements (fluorescent reptile bulbs) – and a 4'x4' tent full of High Light boards and a 3'x3' with QB96 boards, both of which had no supplementary UV.

The High Light boards do have a small amount of UVA and some near-UV (400-420nm) incorporated into the boards themselves (Sunlike 415nm-pump LEDs).

The 3'x3' served as the baseline, as it had no UV or near-UV.


6 x QB96 Elite, 1 x 28 diode FR bar, 2 x 4’ T5 30% UVA & 6% UVB
Total THC: 19.8%
Total CBD: 0.7%
Total Terpenes: 4.7%


8 x QB288, 4 x QB35, 1 x 28 diode FR bar, 2 x 4’ T5 30% UVA & 6% UVB
Total THC: 18.7%
Total CBD: 0.63%
Total Terpenes: 5.0%


8 x High Light UV
Total THC: 19.1%
Total CBD: 0.64%
Total Terpenes: 4.8%


Control – 3'x3' room with 4 x QB96, 4 x rapidled FR pucks, NO UV
Total THC: 16.6%
Total CBD: 0.52%
Total Terpenes: 3.9%


I think we can safely say that UV works. However, UVA and near-UV (400-420nm) seems to work just as well as UVB. Empirical evidence, my friends :D
Interesting to notice also the increase in CBD with the UVA/UVB suplemental...about a 20% or more
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Yes, surprising how consistent it is: 20% increases in both THC and CBD. I have posted this before, but here is a link showing similar increases after two controlled tests using LEDs and HPS with and without near-UV. Near-UV (<420nm) seems to have almost the same effect as UVA/UVB. That's a bit of a game-changer, IMO, because it means UVA and UVB LEDs – which have much shorter lives than other LEDs – may be redundant (or perhaps not worth the extra expense).

It was actually these tests we used to base our decision on using the Sunlike LEDs in the High Light boards: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030

EDIT: I do wish the mods would allow GLA to post here so he can answer all this.
 

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
Congrats on the results and the business opportunity. Great to finally see some current results re uva-uvb. Imo this is one of the most interesting boards around. It combines the a bit better spread out diodes than most current designs with great efficiency and great spectrum.
Having seen the or-gro side by side id say these boards where a clear winner with all similar yields but the High-lights finishing both faster and better; bag appeal and budsize was extremely on point. They also have nice dimensions to make them fit both metric and feet-tents.
 

lukio

Well-Known Member
Nice one, Prawn. All the best to your buddy.

i need to see it more than once, in multiple environments...then i might buy some!

Shame Or Gro threw a political wobbly, could do with seeing more grows like that. big ups for the effort
 
Last edited:

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
did all rooms get the same ppfd?
Yes. Or_Gro matched the PPFD as closely as he could with his Sekonic PAR/Spectrometer in each room to ensure it was an even match-up.

He was using CO2, so his target was 1400-1500 PPFD. The 96s got a higher dose earlier on in the grow until they were adjusted.

The interesting thing is the yields were pretty even after 12 weeks of flowering.

Flowering times:
High Lights = 82 days
288s = 86 days
96s = 89 days

Wattage:
High Lights = 674w
288s + supplemental lighting = 730w
96s + supplemental lighting = 666w

Yields
High Lights = 1212g
288s = 1271g
96s = 1230g

I'll come back later and do a kw/h calculation for each of the different set-ups, but gpw ranged from 1.74 (288s) to 1.8gpw (High Lights) to 1.84gpw (96s). All the strains, nutrients, plant numbers, veg times and everything else were identical, so the gpw also has to be weighed against the reduced finishing times.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Nice one, Prawn. All the best to your buddy.

i need to see it more than once, in multiple environments...then i might buy some!

Shame Or Gro threw a political wobbly, could do with seeing more grows like that. big ups for the effort
Cheers mate. I agree – the more grows to compare, the better. But I believe @Frank Cannon just finished up a grow and he got similar numbers under the High Lights than he did under his QB96s but with about 100W less power (960W vs almost 1100W). I don't want to talk out of school, so I'll leave it to Frank to correct me if I'm wrong.
 

lukio

Well-Known Member
Cheers mate. I agree – the more grows to compare, the better. But I believe @Frank Cannon just finished up a grow and he got similar numbers under the High Lights than he did under his QB96s but with about 100W less power (960W vs almost 1100W). I don't want to talk out of school, so I'll leave it to Frank to correct me if I'm wrong.
it does sound promising. I'm moving into the extracts world so i'll be keeping an eye on it all for sure. all the best
 

Horselover fat

Well-Known Member
Yes. Or_Gro matched the PPFD as closely as he could with his Sekonic PAR/Spectrometer in each room to ensure it was an even match-up.

He was using CO2, so his target was 1400-1500 PPFD. The 96s got a higher dose earlier on in the grow until they were adjusted.

The interesting thing is the yields were pretty even after 12 weeks of flowering.

Flowering times:
High Lights = 82 days
288s = 86 days
96s = 89 days

Wattage:
High Lights = 674w
288s + supplemental lighting = 730w
96s + supplemental lighting = 666w

Yields
High Lights = 1212g
288s = 1271g
96s = 1230g

I'll come back later and do a kw/h calculation for each of the different set-ups, but gpw ranged from 1.74 (288s) to 1.8gpw (High Lights) to 1.84gpw (96s). All the strains, nutrients, plant numbers, veg times and everything else were identical, so the gpw also has to be weighed against the reduced finishing times.
Those are pretty awesome yields... >70g per sqf :o How did the control tent do?
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Those are pretty awesome yields... >70g per sqf :o How did the control tent do?
He didn't publish yields for the control tent, as I think he's done s few of those before (straight QB96s, no UVB or far red supplements) so has a fair idea what that should yield on their own.

They're good figures – the guy knows how to grow (he's a proper farmer) – but you need to remember he used CO2, the plants were in DWC, and the flowering times were 12-13 weeks (sativa strain).
 

Horselover fat

Well-Known Member
He didn't publish yields for the control tent, as I think he's done s few of those before (straight QB96s, no UVB or far red supplements) so has a fair idea what that should yield on their own.

They're good figures – the guy knows how to grow (he's a proper farmer) – but you need to remember he used CO2, the plants were in DWC, and the flowering times were 12-13 weeks (sativa strain).
Impressive nonetheless! I'd expect the yield was similar for the control anyway.
 
>
Top