hempknightt
Active Member
Wow this is a really interesting thread aside from everyone bitching and fighting. But i mean theres a solid 12 pages or so that are on topic, im curious to know how this turns out.
12-1 lighting schedule, has anyone actually tried this?
- Thread starter LILBSDAD
- Start date
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
Not if you're not actually saving electricity.
if you use less light you will get less growth... plants do not grow as well in the dark as growth is not an important life process. the less light you give during the day the less the plant will do when you do turn the lights off completely. so placing a plant on 20/4 should see faster growth than on 18/6.
if you're saving electricity then logic says that you are also losing out on growth.
Not sure why greenhouses would need to use a 12/5.5/1/5.5 light cycle when they use the sun to grow. they do in my country anyway... in a greenhouse you grow using the sun, you only use lighting during the night if you want to prevent them from flowering.12/1 does not actually exist. 12/1 to me suggests 12 on and 1 off, 12 on and 1 off, over and over again. this method is actually 12/5.5/1/5.5. Not sure what commercial greenhouses you've visited, but they certainly don't do that here.
**edit** ah scratch that... you've actually READ about them. I'd be grateful of links to these commercial greenhouses so that i can see for myself. thanks.
hempknightt
Active Member
Heres my 2 cents with some info to go along with it.
First heres a quote from another fourm:
"One way in which plants are categorized is by the way they gather and handle carbon dioxide. Cannabis is a C3 plant. It uses the CO2 it gathers during the light period, when it is photosynthesizing. Plants designated C4 also gather CO2 during the dark period for use during the light period. Many C3 plants, including cannabis, do not need a rest period. They continue to photosynthesize as long as they are receiving light.
The plant's photosynthetic rate determines its growth rate because the sugars are used by the plant to build tissue and for energy. Cannabis under continuous light will grow 33% faster than the same plants on an 18-6 light regime."
Now with that said, from what ive read from peoples ACTUAL EXPERIENCES, was that when they had 2 grows side by side with diff light schedules they didnt notice much of a difference and the plants finished at the same time.
Ive also heard that the dark period promotes root growth and other functions of the plant. Its also true that plants CAN get TOO MUCH light.
Now I dont have any experience with any diff light cycles but ive come to the conclusion that they all work generally the same. But it should be considered what will work best for YOUR grow might not be for someone elses. Things like temps, electric costs, and speed are all things that can be affected by picking a diff light cycle.
Props to everyone on this thread that gave insight and had good points. To everyone bitching, making pointless negative comments, and complaining about words contradicting GTFO
So yeah back to
First heres a quote from another fourm:
"One way in which plants are categorized is by the way they gather and handle carbon dioxide. Cannabis is a C3 plant. It uses the CO2 it gathers during the light period, when it is photosynthesizing. Plants designated C4 also gather CO2 during the dark period for use during the light period. Many C3 plants, including cannabis, do not need a rest period. They continue to photosynthesize as long as they are receiving light.
The plant's photosynthetic rate determines its growth rate because the sugars are used by the plant to build tissue and for energy. Cannabis under continuous light will grow 33% faster than the same plants on an 18-6 light regime."
Now with that said, from what ive read from peoples ACTUAL EXPERIENCES, was that when they had 2 grows side by side with diff light schedules they didnt notice much of a difference and the plants finished at the same time.
Ive also heard that the dark period promotes root growth and other functions of the plant. Its also true that plants CAN get TOO MUCH light.
Now I dont have any experience with any diff light cycles but ive come to the conclusion that they all work generally the same. But it should be considered what will work best for YOUR grow might not be for someone elses. Things like temps, electric costs, and speed are all things that can be affected by picking a diff light cycle.
Props to everyone on this thread that gave insight and had good points. To everyone bitching, making pointless negative comments, and complaining about words contradicting GTFO
So yeah back to
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
this bit is correct. this was all done years ago, proven when the old arguments against 24/0 were raging. side by sides were done and the extra growth was shown, although 33% may be a little heavy, i'm not sure. Plants are reactionary, give them lots of nutes and they will grow better to compensate, so giving them lots of light may also work the same in that you get actual boosts to regular growth.
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
some more from that ridiculous article. this was published in treating yourself magazine. Just read that shit.
haulinbass
Well-Known Member
theres allot more on this in issue 7.3 of skunk that just came out. Apparently it worked down to either 15 or 30 minutes on 30 off for the first 12 hours 5.5 off 1on and 5.5 off without putting a plant into flower. the reasoning beind less stress is that the plants dont get light shocked from the lack of light switching to 12/12( the article suggests going 11/13 and dropping 15 minutes a week). I have no bias on this other than im cheap
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
how do you know (generally speaking) that you are not putting the plant into flower?
as i've stated previously, i have lots of experience placing seedlings directly onto 12/12 and they can sometimes take 4 weeks or even longer to actually start flowering. even clones, although this article rather craftily concentrates on seeedlings and only suggests with clones that you place them straight under HID. it specifically avoids mentioning them. However, even clones can sometimes sit for a week or two before they begin flowering, depending a lot on genetics and root mass. some cuts just take time settling in. seen it over and over again.
as i've stated previously, i have lots of experience placing seedlings directly onto 12/12 and they can sometimes take 4 weeks or even longer to actually start flowering. even clones, although this article rather craftily concentrates on seeedlings and only suggests with clones that you place them straight under HID. it specifically avoids mentioning them. However, even clones can sometimes sit for a week or two before they begin flowering, depending a lot on genetics and root mass. some cuts just take time settling in. seen it over and over again.
snew
Well-Known Member
Those are really nice. Some people freak when You have a yellow leaf here or there. Its just part of life. But smack me I'm gonna smoke it.
Those look very mature for 35 days.
azman
Active Member
i can totally get some people are sceptics even plain ignorant.
i know of 3 people here that have tried and tested 2 have shown this with pics,
even a grow journal with pics from another site thats not even linked in anyway to this site but still its not possible?
when asked to try for himself the comment gets blanked,
btw lilbsdad them girls look fantastic for 35 days rep for that, i also like to push my girls as a 10 oz crop just doesnt quite cut it for me.
btw skunk another article for you please do read it:
http://www.cannabisdynamics.com/2011/08/29/121-lighting-for-optimum-growth-and-savings/
i know of 3 people here that have tried and tested 2 have shown this with pics,
even a grow journal with pics from another site thats not even linked in anyway to this site but still its not possible?
when asked to try for himself the comment gets blanked,
btw lilbsdad them girls look fantastic for 35 days rep for that, i also like to push my girls as a 10 oz crop just doesnt quite cut it for me.
btw skunk another article for you please do read it:
http://www.cannabisdynamics.com/2011/08/29/121-lighting-for-optimum-growth-and-savings/
Dr Gruber
Well-Known Member
Interesting, Joseph Pietri is the guy i heard talking about this in a medical MJ show in Michigan. He said it was the industry standard in commercial grow op's....i didnt find out if that was true or not but...with our google friend im sure we can find out.
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
the .pdf from treating yourself magazine is far more informative than that link and i've taken that apart already at two different sites now. None of my points have been tackled at this forum. Instead i've suffered insults and outright ignorance from what i can only describe as children for the most part. simply for arguing against this method i'm classed as a hater. This place has gone right down hill since i left 3 years ago.
Obviously plants are not going to die from this method, i've never said they would. It just isn't what it is claimed it is. FYI i will be testing this method some time in the future, but not for the reasons you would think. i'm going to test it to see if the hour really does break up flowering or not. The evidence presented by members here and even the creator of this method suggest to me that it doesn't.
azman
Active Member
i am glad you will be at least trying this for your self.
i wont be using any other lighting schedule in the future. time will tell!
snew
Well-Known Member
Nice reference Azman.
I'm still looking for 1 person with bad results from this type of grow. Every where I look I find good results from growers.
asilsweater
Active Member
Too many know it all jerks here who think they know everything there is to know about growing cannabis,grow up let the man try his experiment with 12~1 and lets all use his feedback and maybe we ll learn something, even myself dnt know everything and ive been growing for 12 yrs, cheers to u whos willing to try something new!!!!
legallyflying
Well-Known Member
In terms of a plant "having to rest" I think there are a couple things people should realize as plants never really rest..they are always doing something unless they are lacking primary elements..and even then they are doing something albeit breaking down. Plants are not simple machines that just react to light. Where you turn the light on they kick into photosythetic carbon aquisition and sugar production and when the lights are turned off..click...they change to respiration, sequester oxygen from the trunk, roots, and leaves and utilize stored carbohydrates.
There is a highly, highly, fucking highly complex systems going on in terms of chemical reactions and hormone production and expression. One such complex system is the circadian rythmm or biological clock. There have been numerous studies that have shown that even when exposed to constant light, a plants photsytheyic rate will rise and fall along "natural" timelines. It does shift to adjust to 24 hour light but it never fully goes all on..24-7 carbohydrate production It HAS to assimilate the sugars, just like you can only eat so much before you shit, a plant at some point has to respire, absorb oxygen and produce energy from stored carbons. the plat actually oscilates between respiration and transpiration..yes, even when the lights are on. Photosynthesis IS a light dependent process and MOST of the time when light is present the plant will be fixing carbons, but this occurs at different rates.
This mostly relates to the notion of 24/7 light and growth but it also addresses the 12-5-1-5 regime. Of course plants grow more with 24/7 light. It's 25% more light and thus 25% more opportunity to produce sugars. HOWEVER, the actual photosynthetic rate slows down after 18 hours of light, and really slows down after 20-21 I honestly can't remember but it was in the low 20's. So while your plant does indeed grow more...it is growing much less efficiently. So in lamens terms, your getting something for the extra 6 hours of light, but the ROI is actually lower per watt. This is where the recommendation for 18 hours of light comes from..your achieving the highest growth RATE given light inputs. I think that 33% figure is completely bunk BTW. It simply doesn't jive with the processes that are going on. Ergo...it has been proven that photosythetic rate decreases over prolonged light saturation yet you are claiming a 33% increase from 25% more light. Anyways, not going to dwell on that. I did a metric fuckload of research on 24 hour light and very little was from MJ forums. There is a wealth of published literature on the subject. It is a google away.
So this brings us back to the proposed light schedule. I would think that Reducing the light so dramatically would result in a commensurate loss in carb production as photosynthesis in c3 plants is entirely light dependent. Based on the studies that I have read, there is nothing that suggests photo syn rates are significantly higher during initial or early "lights on" periods that would dictate that you would get an equal amount of growth using less light simply by altering the schedule that the light was received.
So while I totally believe you can grow plants just fine using the 12-5-1-5 schedule it really only seems attractive to those that need to run their lights less for whatever reason. and yes, you will have a successful grow. But the bottom line to me is that it in the same amount of time, you will have produced less plant matter simply due to less opportunity to fix carbohydrates. Which, let's face it, is a compromise. I would love to see a side by side grow using the same set up and plants. The best method would be to weigh the actual plants at the end. My set up does not allow for such comparative grows.
There is a highly, highly, fucking highly complex systems going on in terms of chemical reactions and hormone production and expression. One such complex system is the circadian rythmm or biological clock. There have been numerous studies that have shown that even when exposed to constant light, a plants photsytheyic rate will rise and fall along "natural" timelines. It does shift to adjust to 24 hour light but it never fully goes all on..24-7 carbohydrate production It HAS to assimilate the sugars, just like you can only eat so much before you shit, a plant at some point has to respire, absorb oxygen and produce energy from stored carbons. the plat actually oscilates between respiration and transpiration..yes, even when the lights are on. Photosynthesis IS a light dependent process and MOST of the time when light is present the plant will be fixing carbons, but this occurs at different rates.
This mostly relates to the notion of 24/7 light and growth but it also addresses the 12-5-1-5 regime. Of course plants grow more with 24/7 light. It's 25% more light and thus 25% more opportunity to produce sugars. HOWEVER, the actual photosynthetic rate slows down after 18 hours of light, and really slows down after 20-21 I honestly can't remember but it was in the low 20's. So while your plant does indeed grow more...it is growing much less efficiently. So in lamens terms, your getting something for the extra 6 hours of light, but the ROI is actually lower per watt. This is where the recommendation for 18 hours of light comes from..your achieving the highest growth RATE given light inputs. I think that 33% figure is completely bunk BTW. It simply doesn't jive with the processes that are going on. Ergo...it has been proven that photosythetic rate decreases over prolonged light saturation yet you are claiming a 33% increase from 25% more light. Anyways, not going to dwell on that. I did a metric fuckload of research on 24 hour light and very little was from MJ forums. There is a wealth of published literature on the subject. It is a google away.
So this brings us back to the proposed light schedule. I would think that Reducing the light so dramatically would result in a commensurate loss in carb production as photosynthesis in c3 plants is entirely light dependent. Based on the studies that I have read, there is nothing that suggests photo syn rates are significantly higher during initial or early "lights on" periods that would dictate that you would get an equal amount of growth using less light simply by altering the schedule that the light was received.
So while I totally believe you can grow plants just fine using the 12-5-1-5 schedule it really only seems attractive to those that need to run their lights less for whatever reason. and yes, you will have a successful grow. But the bottom line to me is that it in the same amount of time, you will have produced less plant matter simply due to less opportunity to fix carbohydrates. Which, let's face it, is a compromise. I would love to see a side by side grow using the same set up and plants. The best method would be to weigh the actual plants at the end. My set up does not allow for such comparative grows.
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
great post leagallyflying, very informative.
when i say plants are reactionary i mean it in a much more in depth way. This is why i'm suspiscious of this hour break in the middle of the dark period from a 12/12 cycle. the reports fromt he growers using this method are saying that flower is induced much easier, the article at treating yourself magazine claims that flower finishes one to two weeks earlier.
if you have ever gone straight to 12/12 from seed then you would find that they don't flower right away. they can take up to 4 weeks and even longer to actually start flowering anyway. i'm going to test this on some clones as soon as i get chance and see if it really does stop flowering.
when i say plants are reactionary i mean it in a much more in depth way. This is why i'm suspiscious of this hour break in the middle of the dark period from a 12/12 cycle. the reports fromt he growers using this method are saying that flower is induced much easier, the article at treating yourself magazine claims that flower finishes one to two weeks earlier.
if you have ever gone straight to 12/12 from seed then you would find that they don't flower right away. they can take up to 4 weeks and even longer to actually start flowering anyway. i'm going to test this on some clones as soon as i get chance and see if it really does stop flowering.
LILBSDAD
Well-Known Member
Everything you say is based on what you have "read", which is the same thing I am basing this on. Until you can actually prove it wrong, STFU. I did not make up this lighting schedule, I just "read" about it, which is what you are basing everything you say on. Since the start of this thread I have had people saying that it wont work, my plants will hermie, it goes against everything they have "read", and blah blah blah. If you want to prove it wrong, then prove it wrong. I am not a fucking scientist, nor do I claim to be, I am just doing this to see if it works. I am trying to save a little bit of electricty and lower my temps during the day, is there really something wrong with that?
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
stop being such a baby and get used to people having different opinions. you may be able to shout/beat your wife into submission, but here you can't do that.
what you have read is not science, but invented by a stoner. what LF wrote was actually written by scientists for the most part. is real biology and not pretend.
what you have read is not science, but invented by a stoner. what LF wrote was actually written by scientists for the most part. is real biology and not pretend.
azman
Active Member
i like how skunk has put a like on this even tho earlier on it simply wasnt possible?
anyhoo, i will finish my lighting schedule using this and will report to this thread what the yield was,
but for what i am saving using 3x600 watts over my veg period and reducing my norma 5 weeks veg to only 4 weeks has saved me a good amount of power usage,
according to my maths this has saved me 15 hrs a day in power, ie 5 hours a day per light (3 lights), x7 days of the weeks, x4 weeks of veg is 420 hours also take into accout the extra week i have saved in veg
is a total of 541 hours which imho is not to be sniffed at. plus to me my plants look better in 3 weeks than they normally do at this stage.
and btw skunk i am using clones always do.
anyhoo, i will finish my lighting schedule using this and will report to this thread what the yield was,
but for what i am saving using 3x600 watts over my veg period and reducing my norma 5 weeks veg to only 4 weeks has saved me a good amount of power usage,
according to my maths this has saved me 15 hrs a day in power, ie 5 hours a day per light (3 lights), x7 days of the weeks, x4 weeks of veg is 420 hours also take into accout the extra week i have saved in veg
is a total of 541 hours which imho is not to be sniffed at. plus to me my plants look better in 3 weeks than they normally do at this stage.
and btw skunk i am using clones always do.
legallyflying
Well-Known Member
^ yeah, jesus lilbsdad, go change your fucking diaper. I'm sorry that you seem so utterly vested in people accepting this method that you discovered. The difference between your "reading" and my "reading" is that my reading in regards to light utilization, photosynthetic rates, and circadian rhythms was done from peer reviewed journal articles. your light schedule reading came from grower websites and forums.
What I often find to be the case is that unless I know a particular forum poster, a slightly higher level of scrutiny is needed in order to determine ..is this actually the case or is this guy full of shit. On the flip side, journal articles are peer reviewed and they have measurements and detailed information on how the experiments were carried out and what the results were.
The reason for my post was to further the knowledge of plant physiology and try to help people understand the processes at work. And to a larger extent.. perhaps spur someone to do the proper research and show the botanical principles that underlie the success of this technique. Basically, if this works so well then WHY does this work. Simply pasting links to articles that say "try this it works great" does not accomplish that. Jesus, in the MJ growing realm, I could post links to people saying "this is the best way to do this" when it actually isn't until my fingers turn into bloody stumps.
When someone disagrees with you..or better yet, when you perceive that they do..there is no need to jump all over there shit. I am guilty of this as well, just part of my nature (try actually writing a peer reviewed article sometime), but if you go back and read my post, I said that sure the schedule will work..its just not optimal, or at least I fail to see WHY someone would claim it is optimal. This is with the understanding that the goal is to grow the biggest most productive plants in the shortest amount of time, NOT reduce temps or costs. I can buy shit that does that.
What I often find to be the case is that unless I know a particular forum poster, a slightly higher level of scrutiny is needed in order to determine ..is this actually the case or is this guy full of shit. On the flip side, journal articles are peer reviewed and they have measurements and detailed information on how the experiments were carried out and what the results were.
The reason for my post was to further the knowledge of plant physiology and try to help people understand the processes at work. And to a larger extent.. perhaps spur someone to do the proper research and show the botanical principles that underlie the success of this technique. Basically, if this works so well then WHY does this work. Simply pasting links to articles that say "try this it works great" does not accomplish that. Jesus, in the MJ growing realm, I could post links to people saying "this is the best way to do this" when it actually isn't until my fingers turn into bloody stumps.
When someone disagrees with you..or better yet, when you perceive that they do..there is no need to jump all over there shit. I am guilty of this as well, just part of my nature (try actually writing a peer reviewed article sometime), but if you go back and read my post, I said that sure the schedule will work..its just not optimal, or at least I fail to see WHY someone would claim it is optimal. This is with the understanding that the goal is to grow the biggest most productive plants in the shortest amount of time, NOT reduce temps or costs. I can buy shit that does that.