Under Canopy Lighting?

[SimpleJak]

Back with another question.

Has anyone used Under Canopy Lighting and noticed it being a significant improvement to quality? I've heard its great for lower nugs and turning LARF into denser, fuller nugs. Have you noticed any other improvements/benefits to this or any negative aspects to this approach.

I am guessing the cost effectiveness of more lights versus the actual improvement of quality doesn't justify itself. I could be wrong and perhaps on a bigger scale it would produce enough extra quality buds that it would. LEDs aren't that expensive to run but again I am not sure how much improvement it gains.

Here is an example of it (not my picture, just a random example from the internet):


Thank you guys again for all the knowledge you guys share!

 

[Deleted member 2835]

I've been following a guy on Instagram can't remember his name but his plants looked great nothing but solid nugs up and down.

 

[SimpleJak]

I've been following a guy on Instagram can't remember his name but his plants looked great nothing but solid nugs up and down.

It's good to hear more confirmation on this. One guy was explaining how a plant would also be more efficient with its energy because it wouldn't need to bring energy from the top of the plant (that is receiving the light) down to the lower nodes or branches because light would already be photosynthesized at the lower nodes and could actually help send light up to the middle and upper nodes if the plant needed to. Plus you have double the surface area of light exposure (assuming the light penetrates to the middle of the plant from the bottom, somewhat) since the underside of the leave is soaking up light.

It's very interesting. I think most people don't realize a plant can capture light from the underside of the leaf. There is definitely a lot of bro science out there. But its been an interesting journey from mid 2000s when I was really beginning to research the cultivation aspect of Cannabis. Then I ended up reluctantly taking a break from diving into the cultivation side, and my research and knowledge was put on pause. Its been interesting to see where the "bro science" was at back then since WAY less was scientifically proven or industrialized, and to where we are now. I had my own hunches and suspicions of what seemed logical and realistic. Like UV helping resin production. Or how full circle grow styles have gone, from being as far from nature to realizing the power of nature.

 

[H.A.F.]

I think it's a neat idea for sure.

I would need to see a side by side with and without rather than "hey, these look good" because some strains are gonna be larfy down in the shade and others will make golfballs.

Like the 18/6 idea late in flower, it would also need to justify the added electricity cost with the added weight you get. With the cost of flowerr dropping and the cost of electricity increasing, I look for ideas that save on the energy I use.

I have 4 of Tom Hill's Deep Chunk from CSI growing an they were cultivated as shade plants during the helicopter days of the drug war. I have them in 3g pots in a 3x3 with a 100w full-spectrum light dialed back to 60w. I'm not gonna get massive weight, but if it's good smoke it cost next to nothing to grow.

 

[SimpleJak]

I agree the cost effectiveness will need to be able to justify the end product. I am hopeful (but definitely not certain) that the efficiency of LEDs will make this viable at some point. We will see.

If/when I do get to test these ideas, I'll definitely post it to this forum so I can get as much feedback/constructive criticism as possible. It will be hard to get a definitive result without a larger number of plants to test and compare, but it will be a start.

 

[H.A.F.]

I agree the cost effectiveness will need to be able to justify the end product. I am hopeful (but definitely not certain) that the efficiency of LEDs will make this viable at some point. We will see.

If/when I do get to test these ideas, I'll definitely post it to this forum so I can get as much feedback/constructive criticism as possible. It will be hard to get a definitive result without a larger number of plants to test and compare, but it will be a start.

Don't let me get you down LOL. I'm a skeptic at heart. You need a Devil's advocate? I'm your man

I trust no one - I am rarely disappointed that way, and occasionally pleasantly surprised.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

Don't let me get you down LOL. I'm a skeptic at heart. You need a Devil's advocate? I'm your man

I trust no one - I am rarely disappointed that way, and occasionally pleasantly surprised.

I’m with you on stuff like this. I’m not a scientist, so I don’t have the time, space, or expertise to run experiments like this. I’ll let people like Bruce Bugsby do all that and then will see what they figure out. Part of the problem with all the bro science stuff is it’s a bunch of weed growers coming up with their “proof” by doing their own experiments and not understanding how to actually conduct a study.

 

[H.A.F.]

I’m with you on stuff like this. I’m not a scientist, so I don’t have the time, space, or expertise to run experiments like this. I’ll let people like Bruce Bugsby do all that and then will see what they figure out. Part of the problem with all the bro science stuff is it’s a bunch of weed growers coming up with their “proof” by doing their own experiments and not understanding how to actually conduct a study.

The basic downfall of most is the size of the experiment. We don't trust a poll unless they have numbers AND we trust that it was the right questions. For science the more data points the better. And with weed, keeping the experiment pure means no variations in genetics or environment - including time of year if grown indoors.

First thing an indoor grower notices is that our summer and winter crops are different. Ambient barometric pressure and shit like that change throughout the year. Your distance from the sea, and from sea-level matter. Elevation is a thing. Our bro-science includes things as intricate as VPD, but even that only factors in the few things we can mechanically control. It doesn't even measure the stuff we can't control like the barometer. No factors listed for elevation. It's science, but not complete science. It's science to the point that we can sell monitoring and control equipment.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

I find it interesting that weed growers, particularly, try to come up with anything they can to improve their yield or the potency. You don’t see this in most other groups of gardeners. It’s been funny seeing weed growers get into growing mushrooms (myself included) because they go into shroom forums with these intricate grow tents with lights, fans, and humidity control and the majority of the mushroom growers just say “What the fuck are you doing? You just need a monotub and a fucking shelf to put it on.”

 

[H.A.F.]

For those of us with a monthly "weed budget" for growing, shifting to organic and saving tons of money means I have money to spend on other aspects of growing. I could easily dive down any number of rabbit holes that want my green money. And once you start they will sell you all kinds of stuff and "prove" to you that your grow is better.

The amount of weight needed to offset the added costs of most of those things is phenominal. You need biomass like a Big-ag producer to make it financially viable. But we see the extra money and we spemd it on our favorite plant and call it justified because "we are making it better!!!" (insert picture of southpark kid with finger up nose "I'm helping")

There are few industries that we also do on the small scale at home. No one tries to follow the practices of big-ag tomato producers because their tomatoes suck. Yet we take the bullshit they are trying to sell to all the "green rush" companies and try to downsize it and fit it in our grow.

 

[Fiddler's Green]

 

[SimpleJak]

I feel you guys on the whole thing. Don't worry you wont bring me down, although I appreciate the consideration. I'm a glass half full kind of guy and I appreciate all info because it's never bad to have a fresh perspective. I am definitely a bit more of a scientific person too, curiosity is going to get me. So I had to ask if there already was any experience with this. I figure someday in the general "rinse and repeat" of the grow, I'd spice some things up and set up a proper side by side of clones. But yeah it would never be a large enough test size nor easy to make each ones environment exact, even two identical lights in two separate grows could have differing outputs. I would have kicked myself if I didn't ask and someone had some insight on it. But yeah seriously, all opinions and thoughts are welcome!

I figure some of this knowledge (if viable) might be helpful to the smaller batch Craft growers who aren't going for competitive price per gram but rather quality, and cannabinoid profiles. Under canopy lighting could help them get more out of their small batches too.

It's amazing what mother nature can do and the surprises she has up her sleeves.

 

[NoWaistedSpace]

Back with another question.

Has anyone used Under Canopy Lighting and noticed it being a significant improvement to quality? I've heard its great for lower nugs and turning LARF into denser, fuller nugs. Have you noticed any other improvements/benefits to this or any negative aspects to this approach.

I am guessing the cost effectiveness of more lights versus the actual improvement of quality doesn't justify itself. I could be wrong and perhaps on a bigger scale it would produce enough extra quality buds that it would. LEDs aren't that expensive to run but again I am not sure how much improvement it gains.

Here is an example of it (not my picture, just a random example from the internet):
View attachment 132483

Thank you guys again for all the knowledge you guys share!

Yes, there's benefit, but having the light directly point up seems kinda "foolish" to me.
The tops of the leaves are the "solar panels" not underneath.
You'd want slightly angled "side lighting.
Think of your house blinds that you twist the rod to open them.
I always wanted to make a set of side lighting where you can adjust the angle.
Very simple to do and am surprised no one has came out with one.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

I feel you guys on the whole thing. Don't worry you wont bring me down, although I appreciate the consideration. I'm a glass half full kind of guy and I appreciate all info because it's never bad to have a fresh perspective. I am definitely a bit more of a scientific person too, curiosity is going to get me. So I had to ask if there already was any experience with this. I figure someday in the general "rinse and repeat" of the grow, I'd spice some things up and set up a proper side by side of clones. But yeah it would never be a large enough test size nor easy to make each ones environment exact, even two identical lights in two separate grows could have differing outputs. I would have kicked myself if I didn't ask and someone had some insight on it. But yeah seriously, all opinions and thoughts are welcome!

I figure some of this knowledge (if viable) might be helpful to the smaller batch Craft growers who aren't going for competitive price per gram but rather quality, and cannabinoid profiles. Under canopy lighting could help them get more out of their small batches too.

It's amazing what mother nature can do and the surprises she has up her sleeves.

There’s already a bunch of people doing side lighting. One of the members here, @ttystikk , grows his plants flat up a vertical trellis like vines and lights them from the sides https://chuckersparadise.com/threads/vertical-goodness-and-other-batshit-craziness.3186/page-6#post-176982

 

[1oldfart]

For those of us with a monthly "weed budget" for growing, shifting to organic and saving tons of money means I have money to spend on other aspects of growing. I could easily dive down any number of rabbit holes that want my green money. And once you start they will sell you all kinds of stuff and "prove" to you that your grow is better.

The amount of weight needed to offset the added costs of most of those things is phenominal. You need biomass like a Big-ag producer to make it financially viable. But we see the extra money and we spemd it on our favorite plant and call it justified because "we are making it better!!!" (insert picture of southpark kid with finger up nose "I'm helping")

There are few industries that we also do on the small scale at home. No one tries to follow the practices of big-ag tomato producers because their tomatoes suck. Yet we take the bullshit they are trying to sell to all the "green rush" companies and try to downsize it and fit it in our grow.

i'll agree with@ H.A.F.some4 chit just don't work out ,for me!1oldfarts larf! 4 little maters that fit in the palm of my hand ,don't cut ,it i'll take the big fist size mater that they would throw in the salsa bin . i dont care if it is bigger than the bread ,as long as it's sun grown, i can cure the ugly part with a knife!

 

[BigBallzWillie]

Back with another question.

Has anyone used Under Canopy Lighting and noticed it being a significant improvement to quality? I've heard its great for lower nugs and turning LARF into denser, fuller nugs. Have you noticed any other improvements/benefits to this or any negative aspects to this approach.

I am guessing the cost effectiveness of more lights versus the actual improvement of quality doesn't justify itself. I could be wrong and perhaps on a bigger scale it would produce enough extra quality buds that it would. LEDs aren't that expensive to run but again I am not sure how much improvement it gains.

Here is an example of it (not my picture, just a random example from the internet):
View attachment 132483

Thank you guys again for all the knowledge you guys share!

I call horse puckey on those lights or at the very least a waste of time.

IMO, it'd be smarter just to prune the bottoms out, or harvest the top half of the plant first, bottom later, or get a light that has balls enuff to get to the bottom of the tent.

 

[1oldfart]

For those of us with a monthly "weed budget" for growing, shifting to organic and saving tons of money means I have money to spend on other aspects of growing. I could easily dive down any number of rabbit holes that want my green money. And once you start they will sell you all kinds of stuff and "prove" to you that your grow is better.

The amount of weight needed to offset the added costs of most of those things is phenominal. You need biomass like a Big-ag producer to make it financially viable. But we see the extra money and we spemd it on our favorite plant and call it justified because "we are making it better!!!" (insert picture of southpark kid with finger up nose "I'm helping")

There are few industries that we also do on the small scale at home. No one tries to follow the practices of big-ag tomato producers because their tomatoes suck. Yet we take the bullshit they are trying to sell to all the "green rush" companies and try to downsize it and fit it in our grow.

my weed budget is a little slim, i try to pay attension to what i spend, i take a pass on sparkely crap, have near enough for a new boat motor ,but life sometimes cuts into that little back pocket account!backhoe mantince new heater hoses from cab to the engine35 ft. of i/2 heater hose to fix that than have to, repack the boom ram, got to have the hoe too much dirt to move may need, new water line to the house all ready had to splice 1 spot in 3/4 in. copper tubing, hell the place is only 30 years old

 

[H.A.F.]

my weed budget is a little slim,

I used to spend about $250/oz per month getting deals for bulk when I could - stretching it until the next hookup, etc. That's my weed part of the budget. That budget already covers bills and groceries and such. And if I need it for something else that's cool.

But this is my main hobby. It's almost like an entertainment expense now to keep me sane. Now that all my tents and lights are already bought, ventillation and fans, I am not buying fertilizers, ph meters, calmag, etc. I do buy inputs for the soil but those are way cheaper and stretch. I like Down to Earth for minerals and Build-a-soil for other stuff IF they have free shipping on it.

But I make my own castings and vermicompost, do ferments from thing I have collected or harvested, LAB from rice and old milk, Calcium from eggshells and vinegar . . . all that stuff.

Big thing for me is getting the mulch for my indoor compost right from the plant. If I don't smoke it, it goes right back into the soil in some form. even the little stems I pick from the buds get tossed in a bucket with chopped up trunks and woody limbs from harvest. I have made bio-char with it, but am saving up enough to do a little hugel bed or something. I am up to a gallon of less than one inch pieces LOL All the pruned stuff during the grow gets dried, ground up and amended back into the soil.

I save money but I spend time.

 

[1oldfart]

I used to spend about $250/oz per month getting deals for bulk when I could - stretching it until the next hookup, etc. That's my weed part of the budget. That budget already covers bills and groceries and such. And if I need it for something else that's cool.

But this is my main hobby. It's almost like an entertainment expense now to keep me sane. Now that all my tents and lights are already bought, ventillation and fans, I am not buying fertilizers, ph meters, calmag, etc. I do buy inputs for the soil but those are way cheaper and stretch. I like Down to Earth for minerals and Build-a-soil for other stuff IF they have free shipping on it.

But I make my own castings and vermicompost, do ferments from thing I have collected or harvested, LAB from rice and old milk, Calcium from eggshells and vinegar . . . all that stuff.

Big thing for me is getting the mulch for my indoor compost right from the plant. If I don't smoke it, it goes right back into the soil in some form. even the little stems I pick from the buds get tossed in a bucket with chopped up trunks and woody limbs from harvest. I have made bio-char with it, but am saving up enough to do a little hugel bed or something. I am up to a gallon of less than one inch pieces LOL All the pruned stuff during the grow gets dried, ground up and amended back into the soil.

I save money but I spend time.

i learn slowley (two brain bleeds seems to have made my old skull thicker) but i try to pay close attension to the way you do different things ,your posts have saved me several $$$ ,many thanks @H.A.F. have 2 jugs of milk just near worked off now ,labs !

 

[1oldfart]

I used to spend about $250/oz per month getting deals for bulk when I could - stretching it until the next hookup, etc. That's my weed part of the budget. That budget already covers bills and groceries and such. And if I need it for something else that's cool.

But this is my main hobby. It's almost like an entertainment expense now to keep me sane. Now that all my tents and lights are already bought, ventillation and fans, I am not buying fertilizers, ph meters, calmag, etc. I do buy inputs for the soil but those are way cheaper and stretch. I like Down to Earth for minerals and Build-a-soil for other stuff IF they have free shipping on it.

But I make my own castings and vermicompost, do ferments from thing I have collected or harvested, LAB from rice and old milk, Calcium from eggshells and vinegar . . . all that stuff.

Big thing for me is getting the mulch for my indoor compost right from the plant. If I don't smoke it, it goes right back into the soil in some form. even the little stems I pick from the buds get tossed in a bucket with chopped up trunks and woody limbs from harvest. I have made bio-char with it, but am saving up enough to do a little hugel bed or something. I am up to a gallon of less than one inch pieces LOL All the pruned stuff during the grow gets dried, ground up and amended back into the soil.

I save money but I spend time.

just hopeing i have some time left! MONEY saved makes my day!