What do these pic tell an experienced eye?

Delps8

Well-Known Member
I have done lst, but it's been a while. I was hoping to keep one alive and unmoldy.
I wasn't sure how much time I had to train on an auto. I was thinking not much. I'll be happy to hit the flower stage now:)

I wasn't planning on topping it, but I could. The training time thing again. It would keep it more even for sure.

I have done it with photo plants.
No reason not to top autos. They're just a cannabis hybrid. It's not that common a perspective here on RIU but another site that I frequent has a much older demographic and many growers there speak of autos in a very negative manner. My understanding is that the earlier "versions" of autos were pretty lame. I've only been growing since 2021 and my experience with autos has been excellent. In fact, the only grows that haven't worked out well were with photos and, in both cases, it was my own doing. One was ignorance (not enough fans to stave off bud rot but it was a very wet spring time) and the other was just plain stupid (I wanted to not have to clean my humidifier so I added a little H2O2 and then a little more and then a little more until I realized that I had kept the algae out of my humidifier but had damaged my plant).

The I did see some inconsistency between the sizes of plants from the same seed packet but, in my experience and per the folks at a cannabis site that has "auto flower" in the name, they're just another version of cannabis.

What I do like about them is that they grow really quickly but I stopped growing them because it's easier to influence plant size with photos since the grower gets to choose when to flip them. I have a 2' x 4' tent and I usually end up with <75% of the tent full. For my next grow, I'm going to grow two plants and it's easier to get a plant "just the right size" with photos.

One saying that I see on many sites is that "topping slows down growth". No one has ever provided any evidence, naturally. I have to doubt that topping causes any ill effect. My reasoning is that the grower is removing a tiny amount of plant material that has never contributed anything to the growth of the plant and, second, the wound is maybe 1 sq cm and heals within a couple of days. In return for removing the apical stem, the grower can easily achieve a flat canopy which makes it significantly easier to achieve a much more even distribution of light.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't justify not topping a cannabis plant.


Not real sure what a veg light is, I grew my vegging stuff under some cheap fluorescents and they did really well it seemed. The tomato's and peppers did really well under those lights also.
Other than that I just have amazon stuff. A100w mars hydro, sp1000 and sp2000 from spider farmer that came in tent kits.
Let's hear it for tent kits! They're an easy way to start growing.

Until the advent of the LED grow light, growers used a veg light and a flower light. The veg light has a lot of blue in the spectrum and blue light keeps plants short and bushy, with a lot of branches. Before LED's growers used a ceramic metal halide light ("CMH")…I think. When the plant was flipped to flower, growers would you HPS ("high powered sodium"?) which had almost no blue but lots of red and lots of infra red (heat, like in the cafeteria food line). The heat was a total PITA to deal with but the heavy red balance in the spectrum was more electrically efficient than blue lights and red didn't make plants short and bushy. Plants grew much faster in red which made growers call early flower "the stretch" because they started growing rapidly after being kept short by blue (which inhibits cell expansion).

I didn't start growing until the end of the "blurple" LED which were the first generation of LED that had blue light and red light but no green so the light was purple. I tested Photone against my blurple and Photone couldn't get a reading, even though I was using the blurple setting. I contacted the manufacturer of the light (Kind) and the PPFD map for that light was so bad that I put it back in the box (I bought it in 2017, did one grow, and then archived my tent until 2021) and put the box in the trash. The light was just a badly outdated design and I ended up with a Mars SP 3000. The older version was a good light (the new one is not) but then I started learning about grow lighting and decided to go with a veg LED and a flower LED because that's the best approach to getting maximum yield. The were $600 each but the results were quite something.

Only HLG makes "veg" and "flower" lights - they call them "B spec" and "R spec". A flower light will tend to create a plant that is very tall but, since there's so little blue, the plants don't develop that many branches. They look great, because they're tall but lacking being exposed to blue photons in veg, they just don't have the leaf structure that you would see in a plant that was vegged with a lot of blue.

A white LED, like the kind you have, has a balanced spectrum with a fair amount of blue, some green, and then more red. Smaller lights tend to have more blue and I assume that's because the blue weighted spectrum will keep plants shorter and the vendors want that because they don't want customers to have plants growing out of the tops of the 2' x 2' tents.

The big dog in the cannabis grow lighting world is Dr Bruce Bugbee (Google him) and his advice is to go with a white LED that has some "far red", which is "more red" than the deep red that's in most grow lights. Over the past year or so, more lights are coming out with far red but it adds to the price so most lights are still in the PAR range of 400 to 700nm.

Those light will do just fine. It's really up to the grower about how much work they want to put into a grow//what their expectations are. If you get the grow conditions squared away you'll be able to get your plants to 800-1000µmols and you can end up with an excellent harvest. Some growers have really good environments so they just have to not muck things up. Other growers, moi, have to improvise to keep temp and RH, the two hardest factors to control, so it's a bit more work. All in all, though, if you water them the right was, give them lots of food (light), and LTFA*, it's really amazing how much these plants will produce.

*LTFA is an RIU saying for "leave it the f*ck alone". I laughed the I first read it and it is so absolutely true.
 

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
I need to practice that last thing for sure. But there are all these neat gadgets with so many variables to control...

I do remember seeing brurple lights for sale on amazon. I thought it seemed like too much hype, plus I'm an electrician so I could see they didn't put out much. I watched some Bugbee youtube vid a while back.
Imagine one of those little grow chambers they have.

I have 6 cheap amazon 4ft single tube led lights that worked really well for vegging. I think they were only 15watts. Stuff grew fast under them though.
 

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
I’m still a killer I guess……
Idk. I’m sure removing soil and mixing in pearlite didn’t help.

I watered 32oz this morning. 1000 us/cm.
ph at 6.
Have kept temps and rh very well controlled.
I have no clue. It looks deficient but feeding didn’t help.
The tent is in an air conditioned shop, so it’s really nice in there.
 

Attachments

DaveT

Member
Not to ask the obvious first question,,, but... how did you have the plant when it was outside... just sitting in this black bag ?
 

7CardBud

Well-Known Member
I don't know if this is your first DTW grow, but here are some basics.

Don't water in small amounts. When the media is very light and just barely damp, water to 20% runoff and dump runoff immediately.
The top should be dry, but you should feel a little moisture if you stick a pinky finger down in her.
Try to grow in a container that will have full dryback in 2 days. Adjust media weight and amount to hit that mark,
this becomes easy to gauge as you get experience. As you pot up you may go a bit longer, but the plant will grow into
it fairly quickly.

The reason to only water in large amounts is to flush excess unused salts. Again, I always use the 20% rule.
If water in is 1000 us/cm, I'm looking for 1000-1200 out. If the runoff is constantly over the 20% I will dial back nutrient strength.
If the runoff EC is way over(like 2500), I will flush with half strength nutrient for 3x container volume. A 1 gallon pot would get 3 gallons of 500 us/cm
solution dumped through it. Then next water go back to regular nutrient strength and the following watering check runoff again and make
adjustments as needed. Now I rarely ever measure a thing, I just read the plants and feed between 800-1300 us/cm depending on the plant
size. EC test are only done when stuff is getting really fugly.

Dyna-Gro is made for well/municipal water with cal-mag present in the water.
If you're using RO or rain water you need to add the cal-mag to about 300 us/cm before adding Dyna-Gro to desired strength.

Here is one of my old moms in a 1 quart container. If I remember correctly, she was getting town water twice a day with Dyna-Gro
at 1100 us/cm.

IMG_0055[1].jpg
 

DaveT

Member
One note to what 7CardBud said. Due to the importance of Ca/Mg to both plants and humans, some RO equipment add back (remineralize) calcium and magnesium (My HydroGardener Pro Advanced Remineralizing Reverse Osmosis system adds back 15-30ppm of calcium and magnesium).
 

TheWholeTruth

Well-Known Member
No reason not to top autos. They're just a cannabis hybrid. It's not that common a perspective here on RIU but another site that I frequent has a much older demographic and many growers there speak of autos in a very negative manner. My understanding is that the earlier "versions" of autos were pretty lame. I've only been growing since 2021 and my experience with autos has been excellent. In fact, the only grows that haven't worked out well were with photos and, in both cases, it was my own doing. One was ignorance (not enough fans to stave off bud rot but it was a very wet spring time) and the other was just plain stupid (I wanted to not have to clean my humidifier so I added a little H2O2 and then a little more and then a little more until I realized that I had kept the algae out of my humidifier but had damaged my plant).

The I did see some inconsistency between the sizes of plants from the same seed packet but, in my experience and per the folks at a cannabis site that has "auto flower" in the name, they're just another version of cannabis.

What I do like about them is that they grow really quickly but I stopped growing them because it's easier to influence plant size with photos since the grower gets to choose when to flip them. I have a 2' x 4' tent and I usually end up with <75% of the tent full. For my next grow, I'm going to grow two plants and it's easier to get a plant "just the right size" with photos.

One saying that I see on many sites is that "topping slows down growth". No one has ever provided any evidence, naturally. I have to doubt that topping causes any ill effect. My reasoning is that the grower is removing a tiny amount of plant material that has never contributed anything to the growth of the plant and, second, the wound is maybe 1 sq cm and heals within a couple of days. In return for removing the apical stem, the grower can easily achieve a flat canopy which makes it significantly easier to achieve a much more even distribution of light.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't justify not topping a cannabis plant.



Let's hear it for tent kits! They're an easy way to start growing.

Until the advent of the LED grow light, growers used a veg light and a flower light. The veg light has a lot of blue in the spectrum and blue light keeps plants short and bushy, with a lot of branches. Before LED's growers used a ceramic metal halide light ("CMH")…I think. When the plant was flipped to flower, growers would you HPS ("high powered sodium"?) which had almost no blue but lots of red and lots of infra red (heat, like in the cafeteria food line). The heat was a total PITA to deal with but the heavy red balance in the spectrum was more electrically efficient than blue lights and red didn't make plants short and bushy. Plants grew much faster in red which made growers call early flower "the stretch" because they started growing rapidly after being kept short by blue (which inhibits cell expansion).

I didn't start growing until the end of the "blurple" LED which were the first generation of LED that had blue light and red light but no green so the light was purple. I tested Photone against my blurple and Photone couldn't get a reading, even though I was using the blurple setting. I contacted the manufacturer of the light (Kind) and the PPFD map for that light was so bad that I put it back in the box (I bought it in 2017, did one grow, and then archived my tent until 2021) and put the box in the trash. The light was just a badly outdated design and I ended up with a Mars SP 3000. The older version was a good light (the new one is not) but then I started learning about grow lighting and decided to go with a veg LED and a flower LED because that's the best approach to getting maximum yield. The were $600 each but the results were quite something.

Only HLG makes "veg" and "flower" lights - they call them "B spec" and "R spec". A flower light will tend to create a plant that is very tall but, since there's so little blue, the plants don't develop that many branches. They look great, because they're tall but lacking being exposed to blue photons in veg, they just don't have the leaf structure that you would see in a plant that was vegged with a lot of blue.

A white LED, like the kind you have, has a balanced spectrum with a fair amount of blue, some green, and then more red. Smaller lights tend to have more blue and I assume that's because the blue weighted spectrum will keep plants shorter and the vendors want that because they don't want customers to have plants growing out of the tops of the 2' x 2' tents.

The big dog in the cannabis grow lighting world is Dr Bruce Bugbee (Google him) and his advice is to go with a white LED that has some "far red", which is "more red" than the deep red that's in most grow lights. Over the past year or so, more lights are coming out with far red but it adds to the price so most lights are still in the PAR range of 400 to 700nm.

Those light will do just fine. It's really up to the grower about how much work they want to put into a grow//what their expectations are. If you get the grow conditions squared away you'll be able to get your plants to 800-1000µmols and you can end up with an excellent harvest. Some growers have really good environments so they just have to not muck things up. Other growers, moi, have to improvise to keep temp and RH, the two hardest factors to control, so it's a bit more work. All in all, though, if you water them the right was, give them lots of food (light), and LTFA*, it's really amazing how much these plants will produce.

*LTFA is an RIU saying for "leave it the f*ck alone". I laughed the I first read it and it is so absolutely true.
To say the very top tip of cannabis plant has contributed nothing isnt quite right. The very top tip contaings a high amount of growth hormone. Removing it means the plant has to now put energy into getting thal level back up and redistribute it back to the next growing tip. Depending on the way the plant has been bred and the genetics used, along with its health and how or how much of the growing tip has been cut and the conditions the plants in and diet ect will all influence how fast or slow the plant is able to go through this procces.
 

Delps8

Well-Known Member
To say the very top tip of cannabis plant has contributed nothing isnt quite right. The very top tip contaings a high amount of growth hormone. Removing it means the plant has to now put energy into getting thal level back up and redistribute it back to the next growing tip. Depending on the way the plant has been bred and the genetics used, along with its health and how or how much of the growing tip has been cut and the conditions the plants in and diet ect will all influence how fast or slow the plant is able to go through this procces.
Good point.

My thinking was re. photosynthesis - that's taking place lower down in the plant.

On one hand, I'd be interested in seeing data on the impact but, frankly, topping makes life so much easier than dealing with that apical stem.
 

DaveT

Member
I believe that photosynthesis is taking place in every leaf of the plant that is green... upper, middle, lower, etc
 

Delps8

Well-Known Member
I believe that photosynthesis is taking place in every leaf of the plant that is green... upper, middle, lower, etc
Yes, if it's got chlorophyll it can perform photosynthesis and, being new, the photosynthetic efficiency is very high so there is, more than likely, a drop in net P. The question is, how much of a loss and is it part of a discussion about topping/not topping. My reason not to include it follows.

The way I thought about it was surface area of the plant material (that is exposed to photons) being topped is minuscule when compared to the surface area of the rest of the canopy. In general terms, it's, what, maybe 1 sq cm? Or 2? All in all, it's a tiny amount. Compare that area to the surface area of the rest of a 21 day old plant, which is when I top my plants, and it's really "not much". And that's why I categorize it as "no loss". I think, in general, my point stands though it is not 100% accurate.

I will happily admit that I've never seen a study on this and the only study I've seen re. cannabis yield indicated that there was no yield difference when the plants were topped. Refer to the attached paper. Search for the string "top" and the surrounding text indicates that one batch of plants was topped while the other was not topped. Later in the paper, it says that the yields of the two batches were similar, or somesuch (I haven't read the study in some time so I can't be sure). The implication would seem to be that there was no difference of topped vs not topped. While I'm an advocate of topping and LST'ing all cannabis, photoperiod and autoflower, I see it as a way to make it easier to get a more even canopy rather than an attempt to increase yield.

I'd appreciate your/anyone's comments on the paper.

BTW, that was the first research I'd seen on the benefit of growing under "high light" conditions. I read the Chandra paper before I found this and my
comment was "I'm not harvesting net photosynthesis" so that paper left me somewhat adrift. The Frontiers paper addresses the limitations of Chandra and, since that time, have adopted the practice of giving my plants very high levels of light.
 

Attachments

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
Not to ask the obvious first question,,, but... how did you have the plant when it was outside... just sitting in this black bag ?
It mostly sat in the bag I think. I put the bag in a metal planter base that is about waist high and made out of decorative iron bars.
 

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
On the water thing.
City water, taste like chlorine. Comes in at 180ish ppm 7 ph or so. Outside plants and the lawn do ok on it. Leaves white deposits on stuff though.

My RO filtered water is also our drinking water, so it has the remineralizer cartridge. It's 80ppm same 7ish ph.


I also just ordered an extra ro membrane and 5gal pressure tank so I can have just ro water with no minerals. I don't actually know what specifically is in my city water. I don't know at what levels the demineralizing filter deposits either.

On hard water and ppm, do I use my water as zero, then add say 300ppm of nutes?
water=200
Nutes=300
Total= is 300 or 500. I have heard this both ways is why I ask. I tend to think water is a zero, but my plants look bad so?
 

DaveT

Member
My RO water (via a 800ft deep well) with 30ppm Ca/Mg remineralization reads 45-50 ppm TDS. A couple of ml of pH down brings my pH to a stable 5.8-6.0 pH, and ups TDS to ~80-90ppm. 60ml boost & 30ml grow (general hydroponics brand) brings the ppm up to ~900. The plant did bring it down into the 600ppm range over a few days the last round. I'm watching it this round hoping for the same since the roots are larger now. Course my grow isn't in dirt. All my dirt grows have been outside where nature and good soil tend to take perfect care of them.
 

DaveT

Member
A note on the bag thing... If outdoors, sun hitting the bag can roast the roots and hurt/kill the plant. I bury all my outdoor plant bags in order to keep the roots dark and cool... they like to be that way as they have evolved to thrive in those conditions. Maybe a bag in a grow chamber could subject roots to temps higher than they wish.
 

7CardBud

Well-Known Member
On the water thing.
City water, taste like chlorine. Comes in at 180ish ppm 7 ph or so. Outside plants and the lawn do ok on it. Leaves white deposits on stuff though.

My RO filtered water is also our drinking water, so it has the remineralizer cartridge. It's 80ppm same 7ish ph.


I also just ordered an extra ro membrane and 5gal pressure tank so I can have just ro water with no minerals. I don't actually know what specifically is in my city water. I don't know at what levels the demineralizing filter deposits either.

On hard water and ppm, do I use my water as zero, then add say 300ppm of nutes?
water=200
Nutes=300
Total= is 300 or 500. I have heard this both ways is why I ask. I tend to think water is a zero, but my plants look bad so?
EC is EC, doesn't matter how you get there. RO+calmag+fert at 500 is the same as well water+fert at 500.
As long as your final solution is in the ballpark of 100N-30P-120K-80Ca-40Mg plants will be happy.
 

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
I put the dynagro aside for a bit and grabbed the GH chemistry kit I used to use. .8 ec with si and cali mag. I put Diamond nectar in there, aside from the 3 part. Idk what it does, but it doesn’t raise ec and I have a full bottle

Looks better. I trimmed some nasty leafs and small stuff. I
don’t know if I dare risk topping this auto. I think I have stressed it enough.

I think I had better luck dwc.
 

Attachments

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
Should I just water and not feed?
It’s dry and will need something today.

It’s a peat/bark medium 1:1with chunky pearlite.
About 40 hrs ago I fed just under .8 ec in distilled water. Ph6.
 

Attachments

7CardBud

Well-Known Member
You always want to feed and flush in soilless. That plant is looking pretty good now. I would stick with the .8EC next time you get dryback.
 

Roy O'Bannon

Well-Known Member
Probably ready to harvest. Going to wait another 5 min.:)

Started feeding heavier a few feedings ago, Seems to be doing well. I am using the grow weed easy feed recommendations. I thought their recommendation seemed a lot stronger but that plant is heading towards the light and looking fairly healthy to me.

Might take some of the lower shaded bud sites off. I topped and trimmed it pretty aggressively a week ago.

A question on the lower bud sites. DO the buds need direct light on them or will the plant build them in the shade of itself? Or is only the buds directly being hit by the light that grow like you want?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MissinThe90’sStrains

Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t strip anything off that plant. I’d tie those branches down and outwards instead and give it another week or 2 of veg. You’ve got some tent space to work with, and itl fill in nicely, turning those lower budsites into nice little colas.
 
Top