Under Canopy Lighting?

[Streetpro09]

I agree that we should always keep some sort of skepticism and even do our own testing/research to validate the facts (We should always welcome anyone who can prove something to be wrong). I also agree with you that I wish we could have transparency as to the funding and their intentions of the investors.

I only use him as a reference because there aren't many people in the research game who are setting up "properly run" tests rather than just an observation by a home grower (which doesn't mean that home grower is wrong, they just might be less scientific, and have more variables to account for, etc). There are other studies that prove this. Any part with chlorophyll will photosynthesize, including stems. Light can also pass through layers of the leaf until the light is absorbed by chloroplasts (which contain chlorophyll) and are located in the middle of the leaf structure. Bruce just seems like the most reputable person in the cannabis world to pull info from, which is why I site him.

Here is a diagram showing that Dicots (cannabis is a dicot) have a layer on the bottom of the leaf that also contains chlorophyll. Now my theory of why I disagree and agree with what he is saying is that I do believe (of my own opinion from what i've gathered) is that the top layer does a much better job of absorbing the light, thus being more efficient. But because light can permeate through leaf layers, if the bottom of the leaf (or even top for this instance) doesnt capture all the light and some goes through that layer, the next layer is there to help collect the majority of the rest. This would explain why it seems just as affective at photosynthesis from the bottom. Its not meant for that but I think it ends up working anyways a "whole unit".

View attachment 136630

You grow some mean plants man, I wish you would go an find contradictions. I feel like your experience would give you the eye to see results fairly accurately. I always welcome anyone who can contradict a previously known fact. Truth above all!

Probably unrelated but if all that is true then why when a plant is exposed to too much light it turns its leaves over? If there's no sun protection on the underside.

 

[H.A.F.]

You grow some mean plants man, I wish you would go an find contradictions. I feel like your experience would give you the eye to see results fairly accurately. I always welcome anyone who can contradict a previously known fact. Truth above all!

Thanks, and I guess being a skeptic sums it up. After the lies we've all been told by those in power or in positions of authority I trust no one and even question how accurately history has been reported now that we know how crooked everyone is to maintain their own level of comfort...


Anyway, as far as the plants go I have been growing gardens all my life. Weed only the last 6 years or so. When we do things indoors that contradict what happens in nature my fuckery alarm starts going off. This covers vertical lighting as well.

The top of a leaf is different from the bottom on every plant I have ever seen and the top is usually shinier and darker like it has UV protection that the bottom doesn't. If a plant has light continuously hitting it from the side it will bend that direction, showing the top of the plant to the light.

With vertical lighting they can use this to increase canopy like I said before, but you are still lighting tthe flowers from the top and the time spent vegging that much scrog space would have to be weighed against the number of harvests you lose per year over a flat canopy scrog. I think most people have done it out of boredom, just to do something different.

 

[H.A.F.]

Probably unrelated but if all that is true then why when a plant is exposed to too much light it turns its leaves over? If there's no sun protection on the underside.

I have had a few that turn the fan leaves sideways- which makes a lot of sense

 

[H.A.F.]

Here's the rub for me. We already have public safety laws covering produce so why are there "weed laws"? There are only three categories it can fall into and the public is already safe from the evil-doers.

It could be produce. It's tomatoes. Grow it at home and do whatever you want, but if you want to sell it at the grocery store there's expenses and loopholes. But the farmers market is fine.
It could be associated with tobacco regulations since that is combusted and smoked, but the safety regs have been on that until they realized it was cheaper to just put a warning label on it and let adults live their lives.
Since it is an intoxicant, alcohol safety regs with age restrictions also lets adults decide, then it's about getting access to those underage who need the medicine.

So all these scientists are being paid by those trying to make bank off the stupid. Buy my 12-pack of nutrients, buy my special spectrum light, etc.

 

[SimpleJak]

Probably unrelated but if all that is true then why when a plant is exposed to too much light it turns its leaves over? If there's no sun protection on the underside.

My assumption is to become as vertically oriented as possible so less surface area is receiving intense lighting, even a fold or twist or crumple has less absorption potential. I have noticed this happening with too much wind too, where seems as those the leaf is trying to turn so its more aerodynamic and not catching as much wind, rather than being flat and catching as much as possible.

 

[H.A.F.]

If people thought they could get rich off tomatoes you'd have PhD's talking about them on a thousand podcasts. Mainly I see home gardeners trying to get likes for tips and tricks, or seed companies helping you grow what you bought.

The fact that illegal weed is/was expensive, dickweed investors created the "green rush" and mids were invented
But their business models were based on selling weed at illegal prices.
Legality increases regulations, inspections, testing, labelling, packaging and loads of other overhead expenses that all reduce profit margin-
on top of removing any illegal weed 'hazzard pay' associated with the chance of doing time for selling the pack.

The rona quarantines along with states getting full rec-legality created a perfect storm for the internet stars of weed.

 

[H.A.F.]

My assumption is to become as vertically oriented as possible so less surface area is receiving intense lighting, even a fold or twist or crumple has less absorption potential. I have noticed this happening with too much wind too, where seems as those the leaf is trying to turn so its more aerodynamic and not catching as much wind, rather than being flat and catching as much as possible.

I have seen leaves that a fan tucked under a limb and it got stuck there upside down

 

[SimpleJak]

Thanks, and I guess being a skeptic sums it up. After the lies we've all been told by those in power or in positions of authority I trust no one and even question how accurately history has been reported now that we know how crooked everyone is to maintain their own level of comfort...


Anyway, as far as the plants go I have been growing gardens all my life. Weed only the last 6 years or so. When we do things indoors that contradict what happens in nature my fuckery alarm starts going off. This covers vertical lighting as well.

The top of a leaf is different from the bottom on every plant I have ever seen and the top is usually shinier and darker like it has UV protection that the bottom doesn't. If a plant has light continuously hitting it from the side it will bend that direction, showing the top of the plant to the light.

With vertical lighting tiy can use this to increase canopy like I said before, but you are still lighting tthe flowers from the top and the time spent vegging that much scrog space would have to be weighed against the number of harvests you lose per year over a flat canopy scrog. I think most people have done it out of boredom, just to do something different.

Nothing wrong with skepticism. I agree with you. And i think we are in a time that this is crucial. Its dangerous to not be talking about things, and questioning. I enjoy your skepticism because it forces me to think and even research. Not take things at face value.

And you are not wrong to assume someone has their hand involved for selfish reasons. History has shown us that we should be skeptical. Heck most people can't trust themselves. So how much should we trust others to make our own decisions.

 

[NoWaistedSpace]

I agree that we should always keep some sort of skepticism and even do our own testing/research to validate the facts (We should always welcome anyone who can prove something to be wrong). I also agree with you that I wish we could have transparency as to the funding and their intentions of the investors.

I only use him as a reference because there aren't many people in the research game who are setting up "properly run" tests rather than just an observation by a home grower (which doesn't mean that home grower is wrong, they just might be less scientific, and have more variables to account for, etc). There are other studies that prove this. Any part with chlorophyll will photosynthesize, including stems. Light can also pass through layers of the leaf until the light is absorbed by chloroplasts (which contain chlorophyll) and are located in the middle of the leaf structure. Bruce just seems like the most reputable person in the cannabis world to pull info from, which is why I site him.

Here is a diagram showing that Dicots (cannabis is a dicot) have a layer on the bottom of the leaf that also contains chlorophyll. Now my theory of why I disagree and agree with what he is saying is that I do believe (of my own opinion from what i've gathered) is that the top layer does a much better job of absorbing the light, thus being more efficient. But because light can permeate through leaf layers, if the bottom of the leaf (or even top for this instance) doesnt capture all the light and some goes through that layer, the next layer is there to help collect the majority of the rest. This would explain why it seems just as affective at photosynthesis from the bottom. Its not meant for that but I think it ends up working anyways a "whole unit".

View attachment 136630

You grow some mean plants man, I wish you would go an find contradictions. I feel like your experience would give you the eye to see results fairly accurately. I always welcome anyone who can contradict a previously known fact. Truth above all!

You need to have the 10th man way of thinking. People like HAF(me also) do the research and find key points that should be discussed.
Been around led tech for quite some time and Bruce is/was one of early scholars involved.
Now, it's about the 490nm add. Deep absorption benefits.

 

[NoWaistedSpace]

Probably unrelated but if all that is true then why when a plant is exposed to too much light it turns its leaves over? If there's no sun protection on the underside.

They turn over right before a rain also.

 

[NoWaistedSpace]

Plants need "horizon to horizon" progression of light for most benefit. stem elongation etc.

 

[Greenthumbskunk]

I think those were called staduim grows? It's like a sideways, 3-sided scrog. I think the thing on those were that the flowers were still all facing the light. It was a fight between them growing against gravity normally (up) and phototropism or growing towards the light. It was probably good stress for that part, but it mainly did one side of every plant and things were pulled to that side, same as a scrog but not. Your lowers got fat was the main thing because everything got the same light, and you tripled your canopy by having three 4x4-ish side canopies instead of the one top canopy all from the same square footage.

But that's not really under-canopy lighting since it was still aimed at the "tops" of the plant even though they were on the sides.

Purely opinion but I don't think having your main lights up top, and your grow focused towards that light gets any benefit from having side or floor lighting. The underside of the leaf does not photosynthesize anything, and it could cause over-lighting problems that bring out the deficient looking leaves way easier, and it's extra electricity for minimal return.

I have found that once a plant is in flower it is going to get you "X" weight of dried flower (within reason) no matter how it's trained. If it spends energy making larfy lower flowers that's energy that doesn't go to the tops. Your end weight for a plant might be exactly the same, but trimming away the larf as soon as it's identified means the make-up of that harvest will be different. Less flowers with more weight each type of thing.

Purely anecdotal but I bet it could be proven if I was given a grant and some acreage LOL

I used to grow in a stadium style several years back. Had 3 1000 watt lights on a mover going back and forth. Think I had around 4 or 5 shelves holding 1 gal bags. Had around 250+ plants if I remember right. It was a just a mass of flowers on each side the end and I also had some I had to move to go in and water every day. I had another room beside it that had 4 1000 watt lights in a regular grow and it was half the yield as the stadium grow.

It was a super pain in the ass to water and only grew like that for a couple years.

It was nothing as impressive as the Ukrainian dude grow though. His was a circular cage with the light going up and down. Looked like maybe a 6 ft tall cage and had huge yields off of that single 600 watt light

 

[1oldfart]

I used to grow in a stadium style several years back. Had 3 1000 watt lights on a mover going back and forth. Think I had around 4 or 5 shelves holding 1 gal bags. Had around 250+ plants if I remember right. It was a just a mass of flowers on each side the end and I also had some I had to move to go in and water every day. I had another room beside it that had 4 1000 watt lights in a regular grow and it was half the yield as the stadium grow.

It was a super pain in the ass to water and only grew like that for a couple years.

It was nothing as impressive as the Ukrainian dude grow though. His was a circular cage with the light going up and down. Looked like maybe a 6 ft tall cage and had huge yields off of that single 600 watt light

if my old skull is right the old cat from ukrain, had two bulbs in the silo grow, a 600 at the lower end and a 300watter at the top! He said most of his weight came from the middle of the plants, not the top buds!

 

[H.A.F.]

Plants need "horizon to horizon" progression of light for most benefit. stem elongation etc.

I thought about this - like the light movers and such.

But that progression is not hitting everywhere for all 12-ish hours of daylight. One side gets it in the morning, the other side evening.

Think phototropism.

With under canopy or side lighting you are keeping them on at all times the light is on. Outside a plant will lean towards the light all day, showing the tops of it's leaves to the sun. If you have light coming in from 360 degrees there's no escape.

Stadium grows still focus all the light on tops.

 

[1oldfart]

I thought about this - like the light movers and such.

But that progression is not hitting everywhere for all 12-ish hours of daylight. One side gets it in the morning, the other side evening.

Think phototropism.

With under canopy or side lighting you are keeping them on at all times the light is on. Outside a plant will lean towards the light all day, showing the tops of it's leaves to the sun. If you have light coming in from 360 degrees there's no escape.

Stadium grows still focus all the light on tops.

the silo grow seemed to be well thought out and looked inpressive when in full flower.poor ole boy thought that putin wouldn't invade ,hope they lived thru it,said he was 30km from border!

 

[1oldfart]

I thought about this - like the light movers and such.

But that progression is not hitting everywhere for all 12-ish hours of daylight. One side gets it in the morning, the other side evening.

Think phototropism.

With under canopy or side lighting you are keeping them on at all times the light is on. Outside a plant will lean towards the light all day, showing the tops of it's leaves to the sun. If you have light coming in from 360 degrees there's no escape.

Stadium grows still focus all the light on tops.

in the silo every thing is aimed at the light and spread across the screen fencing ,air delivered from below up thru the plants and across the lights.

 

[NoWaistedSpace]

I thought about this - like the light movers and such.

But that progression is not hitting everywhere for all 12-ish hours of daylight. One side gets it in the morning, the other side evening.

Think phototropism.

With under canopy or side lighting you are keeping them on at all times the light is on. Outside a plant will lean towards the light all day, showing the tops of it's leaves to the sun. If you have light coming in from 360 degrees there's no escape.

Stadium grows still focus all the light on tops.

I think the plant benefits from "following the sun" instead of 360 degrees light, but 360 has it's own benefits too I suppose.
I will try it at some point, most likely.
I thought about light movers, but would they be worthy it? I'm still on the fence about that one.
I like my "bleacher style" set up. I get a few more square feet, plus
it's easy to control those different size plants we always end up with.