GPW? Should we start focusing on GSQM instead?

[Prawn Connery]

4'x4', 800w, 4lb, 9 weeks total (add an extra week for flower from seed)

The fact you even need to contemplate that this "proves out" is quite boggling.

 

[canadian1969]

4'x4', 800w, 4lb, 9 weeks total (add an extra week for flower from seed)

The fact you even need to contemplate that this "proves out" is quite boggling.

Its a mathematical exercise in comparing different grow methods using grams/kWh/m-2 and time to harvest as the metric.
If you dont grow this way or dont care about the metric, why are you even talking? Jesus dude, wtf is your problem? You are acting like I was arguing that sog wasn't efficient, I'm not, never did.
Is that dry weight?
If you know of some good sog journals that are perpetual please point me to them. I will use that data too.

 

[brewbeer]

In places where adult use is legal and cannabis is being grown by corporations in warehouses, I can guarantee you there are actuaries who have developed / are developing an efficiency measurement on which to base grow performance, in order to make business model/budget projections as part of capital investment acquisition.
I agree that this type efficiency calculation is overkill for a small personal use type of set up where maximizing quality is the goal.

 

[Prawn Connery]

In warehouse grows they use and calculate cubic space and lighting is based on total surface area. Too much light is a waste of energy, too little light is a waste of space. That is why most efficient warehouse grows feature racks or vertical grows using as much available space as is economically viable with proportional lighting based on the needs of each plant variety.

Its a mathematical exercise in comparing different grow methods using grams/kWh/m-2 and time to harvest as the metric.
If you dont grow this way or dont care about the metric, why are you even talking? Jesus dude, wtf is your problem? You are acting like I was arguing that sog wasn't efficient, I'm not, never did.
Is that dry weight?
If you know of some good sog journals that are perpetual please point me to them. I will use that data too.

Dry - no commercial pot grower calculates wet yield, because it is never sold as such.

 

[canadian1969]

In places where adult use is legal and cannabis is being grown by corporations in warehouses, I can guarantee you there are actuaries who have developed / are developing an efficiency measurement on which to base grow performance, in order to make business model/budget projections as part of capital investment acquisition.
I agree that this type efficiency calculation is overkill for a small personal use type of set up where maximizing quality is the goal.

Here is a photo of Canada's largest commercial grower, located in Smith Falls Ontario (Tweed or on the stock exchanges Canopy growth Corp.)
I have to question is they actually strive for efficiency. (or quality for that matter as I have heard complaints from medical users) plus there are recalls and pesticide use and likely a plethora of other issues yet to come to light.

They use high bay HID in the flower rooms, floro above in veg. They also have greenhouses, but not germane to this convo.

Unfortunately we cannot compare quality over the internet, only equipment, process and yields. For the personal grower in Ontario, we are only allowed 4 plants, so maximizing yield and minimizing energy use actually is very important. Further to that, I have not seen any pot in recent memory that I would call shitty, the quality is pretty good across the board in my area, I am guessing thats due to the quality of genetics you can buy online these days and of course better grow lights. I actually do not know anyone that is using fluorescent lights anymore, even the outdoor guys which setup seedling/clones indoors for veg before moving them outdoors in the spring are using LEDs now. The commercial guys seem to be the ones living in the past. Just an observation.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Depends on the commercial growers. Canopy obviously has more dollars than sense - ie; huge margins to play with. In areas where there is a lot more competition, or the margins are lower, there is more incentive to be efficient. Eventually, the canna industry will go the same way as every other agro-industry. Otherwise they'll be squeezed out by the competition.

 

[wietefras]

Veg time and method obviously do matter and grams per watt doesn't tell the whole story..

No they don't. Also indeed g/w does not tell the whole story. THAT'S BY DESIGN!

Professional growers use a separate veg area. So it's not just "one grow". For hobby growers it rarely is as well.

In the end they really only care about where the money gets made and not about a few bucks more or less overhead. It costs say $40 in lost yield per m2 to have a flowering room go empty for a single day. Then you also have all the costs that keep piling on even when nothing is flowering in there. While on the other hand it would only costs 80 cents to run a veg room for a day. So yes, they will spend a buck extra to prevent losing a multiple of $40. That doesn't mean their flowering room suddenly started performing less.

All the veg room needs to do is to have plants ready when the flowering room empties up. The flowering area simply needs to produce as much yield as possible. Whatever metric is then more important for the flowering area (g/W, g/m2 and or flowering time for the strain) will depend on the situation (bound by max power use, bound by max floor space, price/g for the strain etc).

People need to grow the fuck up.

You need to start to actually try to understand the full picture. Just make an attempt to actually understand the economics of it all. Don't just look it from the perspective of your own shoe box sized grow with one or at best two yields per year.

BTW the numbers in your example are a complete mess too. Someone with double the g/w and much higher g/m2 from a shorter grow yet still a lower g/bullshit/m2? Not just lower, but only about half of it.

The last two examples are completely useless. You imagine double the g/W and then of course you double the g/bullshit/m2. So g/W alone as a comparison would suffice. Without all the bullshit you would have your answer already. Why divide it by bullshit to arrive at the same answer?

Great examples demonstrating how poorly it works.

 

[canadian1969]

Dry

Number of plants 64
Total time to harvest 70
Grams per Watt 2.265
Grams per kWh 2.696428571
Grams per meter squared 1216.107383
Grams Per kWh per m-2 1.809683605
Total Annual Yield 9448.285714
Annual harvests 5.214285714

Twice what our test user could do and in less than half the space
10X what I could optimally do with 4 plants scrogged, but of course doing this would put me in jail for 10 months, lol
And of course you need a infinite supply of feminized seeds, but even with regular seeds and assuming 50% loss to males...

Number of plants 32
Total time to harvest 70
Grams per Watt 1.1325
Grams per kWh 1.348214286
Grams per meter squared 608.0536913
Grams Per kWh per m-2 0.904841802
Total Annual Yield 4724.142857
Annual harvests 5.214285714

So compared to the test subject and my grow we can conclude that my energy efficiency and crop density make my results about half as efficient as the example SOG, about on par if I managed to double my yield (which I am certain is doable) but the kicker being veg time and I can only get 2.14 crops in a year for a theoretical 858 grams/annum.

Conclusion, grams per watt and/or grams per m-2 are insufficient metrics from which to compare grows to each other. You must take power consumption and time (time to harvest, yearly yields) into account as well. I have calculated all metrics as its easy to do in a spreadsheet, but really all you need are:

Grams Per kWh per m-2 1.809683605 (yield/kWh/area)
Total Annual Yield 9448.285714 (yield x annual harvests)
Annual harvests 5.214285714 (365/time to harvest)

We can also further conclude that with additional space and power for a mother clone area the first metric would obviously decrease with the additional space and power, but who cares when you have eliminated veg time almost entirely and can do 20 pounds a year. If only ;-(

As you have previously stated 'veg time doesn't matter and is mostly related to how many plants you have' (I'm paraphrasing), doesn't hold true, if there is actually an irrelevant piece of information it's the number of plants. Veg time (or the near elimination of it in the case of SOG from seed) obviously makes a huge difference when comparing the efficiencies of one grow to another, even of the same method because one persons SOG may not be as electrically or spatially efficient as the other.

 

[canadian1969]

Depends on the commercial growers. Canopy obviously has more dollars than sense - ie; huge margins to play with. In areas where there is a lot more competition, or the margins are lower, there is more incentive to be efficient. Eventually, the canna industry will go the same way as every other agro-industry. Otherwise they'll be squeezed out by the competition.

Would be cool if that was cannabis, I have seen stacked vertical in cannabis but never more than 2 tiers, yet.

 

[wietefras]

As you have previously stated 'veg time doesn't matter and is mostly related to how many plants you have' (I'm paraphrasing), doesn't hold true

Yes, when you imagine you could simply double your yield.

SOG and SCROG do the same thing. They fill the room with plant. SCROG is if you want a low plant count (lower fines or based on maximum amount of plants allowed). SOG is if you don't want to veg very long (or not at all)

In the end you have the same amount of plant matter under the light when you switch to flowering. So the yield will be the same too.

Yes you will see people get 0.5 g/W up to 2.2 g/W, but that is not related to either SOG or SCROG. They are doing something else wrong or right.

The YOR database with data for 175 grows (with a few outliers removed) shows on average 33.9 g/sfqt with SCROG and 32,4 with SOG. That difference is well within standard deviation. ie not significant. Average over the whole is 34g/sqft. So both are not wildly off from that either.

The idea that veg has a huge impact on flowering performance is just not true.

 

[sethimus]

example , grow in a scrog, veg time is much longer with fewer plants + with all the training, uses more power, also creates larger yield for that area, yes it matters. I dont understand how veg time can be dismissed, it makes no sense to me. SOG, many more plants, much shorter veg time, still take it into account. I dont think anyone is arguing that some methods are more or less efficient than others, I am not. IN a SOG you have to have big mother to clone from, more area and power to keep them alive, gotta take that into account too imo.

I pondered that the other day actually , m-3, then realized taller plants take more time to get that way, more time, more power. Didn't seem necessary as time and power consumption are being taken into account.

Who makes more money:

the person who has mother plants, takes cuttings, vegs them or the person who buys clones and using all his available space to flower?

 

[canadian1969]

Who makes more money:

the person who has mother plants, takes cuttings, vegs them or the person who buys clones and using all his available space to flower?

No idea, I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about efficiency. Obviously there is a cost to electricity and a cost to buying clones or seeds etc, would depend on your area, situation and negotiating skills I suppose.

 

[Prawn Connery]

As you have previously stated 'veg time doesn't matter and is mostly related to how many plants you have' (I'm paraphrasing), doesn't hold true, if there is actually an irrelevant piece of information it's the number of plants.

Honestly, you just cannot see the wood for the trees - pun intended!

The two metrics are inextricably linked: If you have more plants, you need less veg time for the same flowering area and flowering light.

Can you honestly not see that after all we've just been through?

You waste all this time with all these bullshit calculations (and again, I'm with wietefras on this one), and yet you cannot seem to grasp a simple concept like individual plant numbers influencing veg time.

I am honestly trying to help you understand this, but Jesus-fucking-Christ you have blinkers.

 

[sethimus]

No idea, I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about efficiency. Obviously there is a cost to electricity and a cost to buying clones or seeds etc, would depend on your area, situation and negotiating skills I suppose.

if you are space constrained then you try to have minimum veg space and maximum grow area. vegging = loss of growing area = less product in the long run --> SOG > everything else

 

[Prawn Connery]

SOG and SCROG do the same thing.

The only difference is, unlike a SOG, you can sit under a Canadian SCROG and wait for an apple to fall on your head . . . After you have vegged it for a few years, of course.

 

[Prawn Connery]

<Ahem> Further apologies and disclaimer to all other Canadians reading the above post: "Canadian" as in the pro-noun, not the pro-adjective.

 

[canadian1969]

I do not need to know how many plants a guy is growing to evaluate his grows efficiency. Therefor the number of plants is the irrelevant part to the calculation. I DO need to know how much time, electricity and space he is using. I can not say, veg time doesn't matter, and can be negated and that grams per watt is an acceptable metric for comparing the efficiency of one grow to another.

If everyone grew the same way without difference in technique/method/genetics then you could probably say larger quantities of younger lighter plants with faster harvests vs heavier older plants with fewer harvest in the same area cancel each other out equally for yield, but thats only yield and hardly realistic. I could grow 4 plants in a generic way and get a certain yield and in the next grow another 4 plants, train them extensively doubling the yield while only adding 25% more veg time, therefor it matters.

In the sog example it achieved 2.2 g/W, other people can achieve that with fewer harvests and longer times, co2, etc, but we know thats not a fair comparison and would be less efficient than the sog. Same with grams per square meter. You have to incorporate the wattage's and times (time in veg at lower wattage's, time in flower at higher wattage's, time to harvest) and the area and the yield. This seems so blatantly obvious to me I just do not get were you guys are coming from.

If you think I have no idea what I am talking about, then you tell me what metric you would use to fairly compare grows to each other , any grow to any other. The way I am calculating it seems logical to me, but I have never said its the only way. Offer up an alternative.

 

[wietefras]

I could grow 4 plants in a generic way and get a certain yield and in the next grow another 4 plants, train them extensively doubling the yield while only adding 25% more veg time, therefor it matters.

What?!?!?! You start with 12/12 when the plants are ready. You cannot simply add some more veg time and double your yields. How do you come up with this?

Either way the amount of plant matter present at that moment of switching to 12/12 is what really determines the outcome. Plant count, veg time, growth control etc barely have any influence on yield.

Which means that whether it took you longer veg to get to that start situation is irrelevant for the end result from that moment on. A properly filled tent is what you need and then you start flowering.

When averaging data for 175 grows there is no significant difference between SOG, SCROG or other methods in g/sqft.

Of course individually there will be growers who get half that and people who get double that. That's anecdotal evidence. On average over 56 SCROG and 17 SOG grows they both got around 33g/sqft.

That's Empirical evidence. As opposed to you simply pretending that you can all of a sudden double your yield by vegging a couple weeks longer. Your imagination is not a valid example let alone evidence.

If you think I have no idea what I am talking about, then you tell me what metric you would use to fairly compare grows to each other , any grow to any other.

g/W and g/m2 do.

Additionally you could look at flowering days, but that's pretty much strain dependent and not something you can control. You work that into the price/value anyway. Or you pick another strain if you're unhappy with it's results.
Veg time is irrelevant for flowering. You can measure that separately if you must.

 

[canadian1969]

What?!?!?! You start with 12/12 when the plants are ready. You cannot simply add some more veg time and double your yields. How do you come up with this?

Either way the amount of plant matter present at that moment of switching to 12/12 is what really determines the outcome. Plant count, veg time, growth control etc barely have any influence on yield.

Which means that whether it took you longer veg to get to that start situation is irrelevant for the end result from that moment on. A properly filled tent is what you need and then you start flowering.

When averaging data for 175 grows there is no significant difference between SOG, SCROG or other methods in g/sqft.

Of course individually there will be growers who get half that and people who get double that. That's anecdotal evidence. On average over 56 SCROG and 17 SOG grows they both got around 33g/sqft.

That's Empirical evidence. As opposed to you simply pretending that you can all of a sudden double your yield by vegging a couple weeks longer. Your imagination is not a valid example let alone evidence.

g/W and g/m2 do.

Additionally you could look at flowering days, but that's pretty much strain dependent and not something you can control. You work that into the price/value anyway. Or you pick another strain if you're unhappy with it's results.
Veg time is irrelevant for flowering. You can measure that separately if you must.

https://www.growweedeasy.com/cannabis-plant-training
thats just the first thing that came up googling cannabis training, they are saying 40%

I'm not averaging anything btw, defeats the purpose of comparison. Link to the source of that study please, it does sound like an interesting read.

You say there will be people that get better and worse than others then call that statement untrue/unreliable, wtf

I know for a fact that training increases bud sites and yields. I have done it many times. I fimmed the crap out of a purple kush that eventually went outdoors for flower, 18 huge colas, no way that plant would have produced as much in the same time had I simply left it alone.

 

[wietefras]

https://www.growweedeasy.com/cannabis-plant-training

Doesn't say anything contradicting my claims.

The fact that they list all those methods as an option for improving yield basically confirms my claims. They all work. Or not, whatever way you look at it.

Besides if one method would actually yield a lot more then the others, they would have said so. They don't. So ... ehm ... what does that say? Or why bother even listing all those when just adding 25 days to veg will double your yield?

Trouble is that not doing anything works too. They left that out, but in most cases the plants will adjust themselves to maximum yields too.

Just this little pearl of bullshit though:

It is because indoor grow lights are heavily affected by the inverse square law of light.

I guess the problem is that you simply don't grasp the whole concept. Unfortunately I doubt you ever will. Head too far in the sand.

There are a lot of myths too though. People think a lot of things will yield them massively more than they did so far. Just like that you think you can simply double your yield with a simple trick.

There is much more to it why some people get better yields than others.

Point is, it's not in the duration of veg. Well apart from timing the switch to 12/12 right I guess.