are the mars hydro adlights worth it UV, IR, RED

I have a 3x3 flowering tent with a mars hydro evo 4800 as a light source. Was wondering if any of you guys use the IR,UV, RED adlights they sell (or any others)in your grows and if it's worth it to get them and add them to the fixture.

Uv will make the plant produce more resin

When people talk about "more resin" what is that based on?
Is it bigger trichs or more per cm³ how is "more" defined without a laboratory?

Star Dog said:

When people talk about "more resin" what is that based on?
Is it bigger trichs or more per cm³ how is "more" defined without a laboratory?

Click to expand...

I think all the testing by the lab people indicate that they work as described, BUT as Star Dog points how - are the results even noticable or do they truly stand out as serious upgrade to "regular" lighting. I don't want to spend couple hundred bucks if I can't really TELL the difference.

Star Dog said:

When people talk about "more resin" what is that based on?
Is it bigger trichs or more per cm³ how is "more" defined without a laboratory?

Click to expand...

More heads per cm.
Your not gonna get some insane numbers a few procent.unless you have money not really needed.
Allsoo uv could potentally make the plant more resistant to mold.

BigBudsBunny2 said:

I think all the testing by the lab people indicate that they work as described, BUT as Star Dog points how - are the results even noticable or do they truly stand out as serious upgrade to "regular" lighting. I don't want to spend couple hundred bucks if I can't really TELL the difference.

Click to expand...

I haven't found any research that indicates that UV, for example, has a measurable impact on cannabis but I'd love to read it if available.

The only reasearchers I've found on this are Bruce Bugbee, who touched on UV perhaps two years ago, and, earlier this year, Mitch Westmoreland, a PhD student under Bugbee, who discusses UV in the video he released in which he discusses UV as one of the topics he's doing for this dissertation.

Bugbee's comment was that the research that was done…30(?) years ago by, I think, Liden tested two sets of plants. One showed a change, one set didn't. His conclusion is that the results were "equivocal". Bugbee commented that he did look up the meaning of the word "equivocal" and, based on the meaning of the word and the test results, he wasn't able to say that there was a benefit.

Fast forward to earlier this years and Westmoreland, in his YT video, shares the results of his research and said that they could not find a benefit but, he assured the interviewer, that does not mean that there isn't a benefit it just means that even though they tried a variety of wavelengths, intensities and durations, they were not able to find a benefit.

Overall, Westmoreland recommends that growers give their plants "lotsa light" and present research that echoes what other researchers have demonstrated - crop yield increases as light levels increase so give your plants more light.

He also demonstrates that temperatures above 78° at the flower tops are very detrimental to cannabinoid levels.

I strongly recommend that growers watch his videos. They're a gold mine of "how to" in my opinion.

Back to UV.

I'm buying a new light for the flower portion of my upcoming grow. I'm replacing my Growcraft flower light with either a Vipar SE4500/G4500 or the Mars SP3000. I have no interest in buying UV lights because I've seen zero research that shows that they improve the quality of a cannabis grow. I understand that they're being heavily marketed but, lacking data, my wallet remains closed.

Why would companies sell a product without being able to demonstrate that it has a positive impact on your grow? One reason is because growers want them. They can, also, state that when Liden did his research, UV improved the something something in one of the sets of plants. That's completely true and to a marketing person, that's absolute justification to get products to market.

I don't think companies are wrong to so do - they're offering products that customers are willing to spend money on. And I don't think growers shouldn't spend money on UV lights, after all they're adults and are free to spend their money on whatever they want. And I'm quite sure that growers will say how much better their plants are doing.

The plural of the word "anecdote" is not "data".

My hobby horse is "just turn up the damned light" because there's scads of research that demonstrates that crop yield increases as light levels increase (until to the light saturation point) but that's a different topic.

Re. UV - for me, show me the data and I'm more than happy to write the check. Until that happens, I'll pass.

Delps8 said:

I haven't found any research that indicates that UV, for example, has a measurable impact on cannabis but I'd love to read it if available.

The only reasearchers I've found on this are Bruce Bugbee, who touched on UV perhaps two years ago, and, earlier this year, Mitch Westmoreland, a PhD student under Bugbee, who discusses UV in the video he released in which he discusses UV as one of the topics he's doing for this dissertation.

Bugbee's comment was that the research that was done…30(?) years ago by, I think, Liden tested two sets of plants. One showed a change, one set didn't. His conclusion is that the results were "equivocal". Bugbee commented that he did look up the meaning of the word "equivocal" and, based on the meaning of the word and the test results, he wasn't able to say that there was a benefit.

Fast forward to earlier this years and Westmoreland, in his YT video, shares the results of his research and said that they could not find a benefit but, he assured the interviewer, that does not mean that there isn't a benefit it just means that even though they tried a variety of wavelengths, intensities and durations, they were not able to find a benefit.

Overall, Westmoreland recommends that growers give their plants "lotsa light" and present research that echoes what other researchers have demonstrated - crop yield increases as light levels increase so give your plants more light.

He also demonstrates that temperatures above 78° at the flower tops are very detrimental to cannabinoid levels.

I strongly recommend that growers watch his videos. They're a gold mine of "how to" in my opinion.

Back to UV.

I'm buying a new light for the flower portion of my upcoming grow. I'm replacing my Growcraft flower light with either a Vipar SE4500/G4500 or the Mars SP3000. I have no interest in buying UV lights because I've seen zero research that shows that they improve the quality of a cannabis grow. I understand that they're being heavily marketed but, lacking data, my wallet remains closed.

Why would companies sell a product without being able to demonstrate that it has a positive impact on your grow? One reason is because growers want them. They can, also, state that when Liden did his research, UV improved the something something in one of the sets of plants. That's completely true and to a marketing person, that's absolute justification to get products to market.

I don't think companies are wrong to so do - they're offering products that customers are willing to spend money on. And I don't think growers shouldn't spend money on UV lights, after all they're adults and are free to spend their money on whatever they want. And I'm quite sure that growers will say how much better their plants are doing.

The plural of the word "anecdote" is not "data".

My hobby horse is "just turn up the damned light" because there's scads of research that demonstrates that crop yield increases as light levels increase (until to the light saturation point) but that's a different topic.

Re. UV - for me, show me the data and I'm more than happy to write the check. Until that happens, I'll pass.

Click to expand...

Kind of seeing the same thing, which is why I'm askin. What about the IR and Deep red - your thoughts on those?

BigBudsBunny2 said:

Kind of seeing the same thing, which is why I'm askin. What about the IR and Deep red - your thoughts on those?

Click to expand...

Deep red is part of the PAR spectrum so a "standard" LED grow light should generate a fair amount of light in that range. 660nm is where I'm used to seeing a spike in the spectrum.

This is the spectrum of the Growcraft (RIP) flower light. Lots of red, not much blue.


IR (>700nm?) is 730nm to my way of thinking and that's where the Emerson effect comes in, right?

While I haven't read the research, "the Emerson effect' has been around for…

OK, Google is your friend. This rang some bells for me.

I've seen it discussed has having two main impacts - it changes the sleep pattern of cannabis in a good way (love that science talk!) and I think the Emerson effect is that it enhances photosynthesis by acting in concert with deep red.

A vote for using a supplemental 730 is that Bugbee refers to it as a "flamethrower", in a positive way, that is. While I'm not one to latch on to appeals to authority, the guy does know his stuff.

One issue I have with the supplemental lights is that they don't generate a lot of light and their cost is relatively high. Per the Specs tab on this page, you're paying $80 for a light that has a PPF of 61µmol. Yes, they're 730nm but a PPF 61µmol? And the PPFD at the canopy level is…40µmol? Is that all that's needed to do great things? I really don't know. It does bear some investigation but, a lot of growers seem to be pretty strapped for cash so my thinking is that they're better off on getting a high powered light instead of adding 730 to something with limited output.

My perspective is, I'll admit, a bit of a "one note Sally" because of my focus on getting plants to high light levels within the PAR spectrum. My bias for that is because we're already paying for a light that, if we turn the dial up, will give us huge yields. It's all well and good to add in far red but, instead of spending another $X for a slight improvement, why not just turn up the dial?

Another issue is that I don't see a light that I want that has 730 in it. Based on what Westmoreland published this Spring - and I read his research re. cannabanoids three years ago and didn't act on it - I'm retiring my Growcraft flower light and getting the very high output SE/G4500 from Vipar. That's a 430 (or 480?) watt light for a 2' x 4' which is the same wattage as they put in their SE5000 (4' tent) IIRC. That's a beast.

The other light I'm considering is the Mars SP3000R, spectrum below. Unfortunately, the PPFD map is "unusual":





The rationale for these changes is that I've drunk the Westmoreland koolaid - get as much light as you can get on your plants with tent temps up to 85° through the second week of flower//when the plant stops building out its infrastructure. At that point, keep the temps at the tops of the flowers <78° to minimize cannabanoid loss. It's a really simple approach and he's got the data to support his argument.

Woud 730nm add to that? I have no doubt that it will. But (there's always a "but", right?) I would prioritize using 730nm lower down on the scale than max PPFD and controlled temps. But, now that you've brought it up, you've piqued my interest.

They make a diff.

@driver77 is using some mars uv/ir strips and could probably chipp in with opinions. In my opinion adding some uv and some "par uv" - violets lower than 440nm but still mainly within the par range is beneficial but you should be careful the lower you go in the uv range; you always need more of the more closer to par range than uva 365 or 285nm.

I added uva and ir to all my tents after trying it on one grow. I feel you need both uva and ir to get best results....ir alone can cause excessive internodal stretch...the uva counters it and adds it's own benefits of potency/terps, bud density, pest/disease suppression and won't damage the plant. Even in veg I think they add to growth rate.
Mine are the old style of combined MH uva/ir that are difficult to time independently...the new ones are much better. The only ill effect I get from running them too much is plants will start growing toward them instead of straight up.
I'm sure there is a formula to determine the % of each light required but smarter guys than me will, have to chime in for that.
Bottom line is I highly recommend adding whatever brand of uva, ir, and depending on your main light more 660 red too that suits you......just get it in your tent...you will be impressed with results....it is a noticeable improvement.