LM301H vs LM301H-EVO

If shopping for a new light, would you rather a 3500K LM301H or an LM301H-EVO in 3000K/5000K mix?

  • LM301H 3500K

    Votes: 14 34.1%
  • LM301H-EVO 3000K/5000K Mix

    Votes: 27 65.9%

  • Total voters
    41

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
Hi RIU,

New research is emerging that is showing that the old tried and true 3500K + 660nM is still the go to for full cycle/flowering.

The irony is, many innovators in the LED space started their R&D right here (ourselves included back in the Timber days) about a decade ago when CXB3590 COBs were all the rage. Many have gone on to continue our work in the industry in varying capacities. And many of those espoused the benefits of using 3500K + 660 nM so much so that they even built entire companies around the concept.

When LM301H-EVO and mint white started being talked about we looked but were skeptical. The information flew in the face of years of research on different spectrum usages in growing cannabis, and it always came back to deep red, specifically in the 630-660 nM range for flowering.

To make up for a lack of 3500K in the color temperature options, many manufacturers have gone to a 3000K/5000K mix with additional discrete spectra like 660 nM, 730 nM and even UV added to more approximate the McCree spectrum, the ideal benchmark for cannabis and other flowering/fruiting plants.

We are moving to a 3500K + 660 nM model lineup for a few reasons mentioned above. But mainly because while it might not be as "efficient", we believe based on feedback from growers we trust that have tested various color temperatures, that 3500K + 660 nM performs the best on cannabis.

What are your thoughts? We would love to hear your feedback.
Theres a few to many questions in there to be answered easily.
Seems like your asking :
1 Is far red/uv really needed or improving crops?
2 Is it better with all diodes on the same circuit or having separate channels for uv/far red?
3 What is the best base spectrum?

Each of those questions depends on the answer of the previous one.
1: need far red/uv? Uv or any blue between 400-440 seems beneficial generally. It hits one clorophyll while 450 seems to hit the other. This seems to result in better growth and less of plants doing that "led-deficiency" thing
Far red seems to be able to balance out the effect of more blue. I know i saw growmau5 trying them under his new HLG regime and said the wattage in and yield increase pointed favorably to using far red in flower: i think using 5% of watts supplementing far red gave about 7% increase in yield. But this will only be really noticeable if your diodes are about as efficient as your base white. If youre doing boards in china i would be a bit iffy on their diodes. If you can control the diode purchase and pick and place i would defo say its beneficial.

2 that really depends on you and your clients. Personally id like separate channels but uv diodes being a bit shitty in lifespan it would be best if they could have a separate strip or board.
On the other hand seems like the market likes a full solution with everything on the board. Not too sure myself. Maybe just a very high red spectrum with one blue and uv channel would be nice. Adding the uv on a separate channel has the marketing benefit in that it wont be counted towards ppf/w and not draw that number down. Of course a low cct can also draw these numbers down.

3 if youre final spectrum is somewhere around the RGB of 3500k + 660nm then your probably close to optimal. If using a separate uv channel then maybe starting with base white a bit lower is recommendable. But if going for a full solution on the board then you might wanna go a different way.

I wouldnt go for 3000k 80cri and 5000k EVO. This would push base spectrum towards very blue. Maybe with 3:1 diodes against the EVOs to compensate. Or just go 3500k 80cri plus 3000k EVO: they would be similar in blue level and give you something similar to 3500k in blue levels if mixed, but with a wider blue peak. Personally i would prefer something close to 400nm added.
 
Last edited:

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Hello @Prawn Connery
My question - do you think it advantageous to add these diodes to a main board in lieu of broader white spectrum diodes due to the relative differences in both energy output as well as overall spectral enhancements? My thoughts are along the same lines however having them as true supplementary spectrum to be used only at certain points during the grow cycle. This gives the main light the benefit of having the higher PPF output without having to give up the inherent benefits proven in a 3500K + 660 set up.

in fairness, this is a more complicated route that I am describing however some growers may not find the need nor want for additional overhead in the garden. Alternatively/ spectrum hunters would most assuredly like the idea.
Hey Dan, LED Teknik and I have this duscussion all the time: spectrum vs efficiency.

Teknik is a LED guru. I'm a grower (and have been for 30+ years). Much of what I've learned about LEDs is through him, and much of what he's learned about growing is through me, so we bounce ideas off each other all the time. To his credit, Teknik was the one who suggested bumping the far red to much higher levels than even I thought we should after I noted some observations about growing with it. The main things I observed were:

1. Faster flowering times – up to a week faster finishing times with the same yield (ie; accelerated flowering and an increase in yield over cultivation time = defacto yield increase).
2. Bigger leaves (shade avoidance/photomorphogrnic response)
3. Longer internodes . . . except in the presence of UVA. Which, incidentally, is what I have always noticed about growing outdoors: sunlight may be 25% far red, but you don't see outdoor plants stretching in full sun because there is also UV, which is responsible for cell contraction (as opposed to cell expansion).
4. Happy, healthy plants – pretty much all the plants I've put under our high-far red spectrum have thrived. Especially shade-loving tropicals and ornamentals, like aroids.

I've been interested in UV ever since I noticed the difference in growing under Metal Haldie vs High Pressure Sodium vs comnbing the two at a ratio of 2 HPS to 1 MH. CMH came along later and pretty much combined the two.

But I also took note 20 years ago when some local hemp farmers I was freindly with started complaining about their Chinese seed stock showing elevated THC levels when grown under the Australian sun. The Chinese had tested their stock at <0.3% THC (below the legal limit), but once exposed to the higher UV index in Australia, those levels spiked to 0.5-1.0%.

We've since done our own tests that show a small amount of UV exposure does indeed increase cannabinoid levels, but it is not as simple as "UV or not UV" (little Shakespearean pun there, lol). There is some debate about the merits of UVA in relation to cannabinoids, but the most frequently cited experiments were not ideal – they only exposed the plants to UVA and UVB in the last 20 days of flowering and they also have very defined spectral bands. Still, there were more visible trichomes on the UV samples.

But I digress. This is perhaps not the thread for an in-depth discussion about UV or Far Red.

What you – and I suspect every other grower and/or light manufacturer wants to know – is, is it worthwhile sacrificing efficiency for spectrum?

My answer is yes. And there are several reasons for it:

* Broader spectra seem to grow healthier plants with fewer signs of nutrient lock-out (possibly transpiration or photo-oxidative stress related) and better quality in relation to yield.

* LED technology is advancing all the time. Efficiency will always improve – so you are always chasing your tail in that respect – whilst spectral balance has real benefits. My ultimate aim is to find the best spectra that works under most (typical) indoor conditions with cannabis as the primary crop and then pursue efficiency. And the reason for that is, we may find it hard to produce far red or cyan or 420-430nm violet now, but that may not always be the case. Once we have cracked the spectral code (so to speak), then it is simply a matter of sourcing the most efficienct diodes (as they continue to improve) to make that spectra.

* Lastly, sunlight is "true" full spectrum. LED is not. Sunlight may be dynamic – it's UV/RGB/IR ratios may change at different times, seasons, latitudes, altitudes, atmospheric conditions – but plants have evolved under FULL SPECTRUM. They have mechanisms for handling all sorts of radiant conditions that we don't truly understand yet, but are learning as we experiment. You are not going to discover the advantages of this spectrum or that spectrum by seeking the most efficient white phosphor/monochromatic red combination, because you are missing large parts of the spectrum (cyan for excample) or particular wavelengths altogether (far red, violet, UVA, UVB).

Spectrum vs efficiency is very much at odds at times – especially in relation to medicinal cannabis. Ultimately, producers want to sell either flowers or extracts. These two aims can compete when you are chasing dry yield over cannabinoid content or vice versa. It may well be in the interests of producers to grow the most cannabinoid content for the least amount of dry yield, as it makes processing easier and more cost-effiective.

So now it becomes a matter of, does a high-efficiency LED light produce more dry yield per joule of energy, or more cannabinoids per joule of energy, and how much extra energy is required to process each crop? If you could produce a spectrum that made trimming easier, that would save a lot of energy!

I guess in my case, there is no real mystery to producing a highly efficient LED grow light . . . but there is still plenty of mystery when it comes to finding the ideal spectrum that works for any given aim or crop. So that's what I'm mostly interested in.

But hey, that's just me. :bigjoint:
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
One question about multi-channel LED lights: Does anyone here REALLY know when to use each channel?

IMO, until people REALLY know what they're doing, it's all guesswork. For example, UV is highest outside in summer – during the vegetative period of short-day cannabis – so should we be using more UV during veg or flower? UVA or UVB or near-UV (violet)? At what ratio? The same as sunlight?

Do we really need Far Red on a separate channel when most photomorphogenic response seems to happen in relation to the red:far red ratio?

Should we have UV on a spearate channel to Far Red when we know UV can supress some facets of shade avoidence?

Why do we need more blue light during veg when red light grows faster??? < this is not "bro science".

Simply put, I don't think most growers are ready for it. Multi-channel LEDs add to cost and complexity for what REAL gain?
 

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
Hey Dan, LED Teknik and I have this duscussion all the time: spectrum vs efficiency.

Teknik is a LED guru. I'm a grower (and have been for 30+ years). Much of what I've learned about LEDs is through him, and much of what he's learned about growing is through me, so we bounce ideas off each other all the time. To his credit, Teknik was the one who suggested bumping the far red to much higher levels than even I thought we should after I noted some observations about growing with it. The main things I observed were:

1. Faster flowering times – up to a week faster finishing times with the same yield (ie; accelerated flowering and an increase in yield over cultivation time = defacto yield increase).
2. Bigger leaves (shade avoidance/photomorphogrnic response)
3. Longer internodes . . . except in the presence of UVA. Which, incidentally, is what I have always noticed about growing outdoors: sunlight may be 25% far red, but you don't see outdoor plants stretching in full sun because there is also UV, which is responsible for cell contraction (as opposed to cell expansion).
4. Happy, healthy plants – pretty much all the plants I've put under our high-far red spectrum have thrived. Especially shade-loving tropicals and ornamentals, like aroids.

I've been interested in UV ever since I noticed the difference in growing under Metal Haldie vs High Pressure Sodium vs comnbing the two at a ratio of 2 HPS to 1 MH. CMH came along later and pretty much combined the two.

But I also took note 20 years ago when some local hemp farmers I was freindly with started complaining about their Chinese seed stock showing elevated THC levels when grown under the Australian sun. The Chinese had tested their stock at <0.3% THC (below the legal limit), but once exposed to the higher UV index in Australia, those levels spiked to 0.5-1.0%.

We've since done our own tests that show a small amount of UV exposure does indeed increase cannabinoid levels, but it is not as simple as "UV or not UV" (little Shakespearean pun there, lol). There is some debate about the merits of UVA in relation to cannabinoids, but the most frequently cited experiments were not ideal – they only exposed the plants to UVA and UVB in the last 20 days of flowering and they also have very defined spectral bands. Still, there were more visible trichomes on the UV samples.

But I digress. This is perhaps not the thread for an in-depth discussion about UV or Far Red.

What you – and I suspect every other grower and/or light manufacturer wants to know – is, is it worthwhile sacrificing efficiency for spectrum?

My answer is yes. And there are several reasons for it:

* Broader spectra seem to grow healthier plants with fewer signs of nutrient lock-out (possibly transpiration or photo-oxidative stress related) and better quality in relation to yield.

* LED technology is advancing all the time. Efficiency will always improve – so you are always chasing your tail in that respect – whilst spectral balance has real benefits. My ultimate aim is to find the best spectra that works under most (typical) indoor conditions with cannabis as the primary crop and then pursue efficiency. And the reason for that is, we may find it hard to produce far red or cyan or 420-430nm violet now, but that may not always be the case. Once we have cracked the spectral code (so to speak), then it is simply a matter of sourcing the most efficienct diodes (as they continue to improve) to make that spectra.

* Lastly, sunlight is "true" full spectrum. LED is not. Sunlight may be dynamic – it's UV/RGB/IR ratios may change at different times, seasons, latitudes, altitudes, atmospheric conditions – but plants have evolved under FULL SPECTRUM. They have mechanisms for handling all sorts of radiant conditions that we don't truly understand yet, but are learning as we experiment. You are not going to discover the advantages of this spectrum or that spectrum by seeking the most efficient white phosphor/monochromatic red combination, because you are missing large parts of the spectrum (cyan for excample) or particular wavelengths altogether (far red, violet, UVA, UVB).

Spectrum vs efficiency is very much at odds at times – especially in relation to medicinal cannabis. Ultimately, producers want to sell either flowers or extracts. These two aims can compete when you are chasing dry yield over cannabinoid content or vice versa. It may well be in the interests of producers to grow the most cannabinoid content for the least amount of dry yield, as it makes processing easier and more cost-effiective.

So now it becomes a matter of, does a high-efficiency LED light produce more dry yield per joule of energy, or more cannabinoids per joule of energy, and how much extra energy is required to process each crop? If you could produce a spectrum that made trimming easier, that would save a lot of energy!

I guess in my case, there is no real mystery to producing a highly efficient LED grow light . . . but there is still plenty of mystery when it comes to finding the ideal spectrum that works for any given aim or crop. So that's what I'm mostly interested in.

But hey, that's just me. :bigjoint:
Another way of going about this is that efficiency only gives you more of the same light. The same can be achieved by raising wattage a bit. But you cannot change spectrum by adding more watts.

Here in my region it seems like theres a clear trend towards oversaturating the market with mid quality product. Is it more attractive to get 10% more yield or quality increase with an equal 10% value? To me, here at current time, id defo prefer the quality: less work trimming for same value and easier to stand out in the marketplace.
If you get to the spectrum without losing too much efficiency; great. But make sure to add some extra wattage per squarefoot so you can turn them up to 11. Good spectrum will not compensate poor intensity.

As for Prawns reply re multichannel: i think the best compromise is to add blues/violets/uv to a separate channel and balance 660/730nm within the main spectrum. These diodes can usually be put in parallel with eachother which means that if you can build in any specific ratio in your light without changing designs much.
Also @Prawn Connery :
The best 425nm diode i ever found was by prolight opto, but i dont think they had it on their web, i only found it at distributors. Iirc correct it was 600mw at 1120mW power which is better than most other offerings. I would be very interested in how prolight opto did in tests, seems like they got good bang for buck especially in uv.
 

RainDan

Well-Known Member
Another way of going about this is that efficiency only gives you more of the same light. The same can be achieved by raising wattage a bit. But you cannot change spectrum by adding more watts.

Here in my region it seems like theres a clear trend towards oversaturating the market with mid quality product. Is it more attractive to get 10% more yield or quality increase with an equal 10% value? To me, here at current time, id defo prefer the quality: less work trimming for same value and easier to stand out in the marketplace.
If you get to the spectrum without losing too much efficiency; great. But make sure to add some extra wattage per squarefoot so you can turn them up to 11. Good spectrum will not compensate poor intensity.

As for Prawns reply re multichannel: i think the best compromise is to add blues/violets/uv to a separate channel and balance 660/730nm within the main spectrum. These diodes can usually be put in parallel with eachother which means that if you can build in any specific ratio in your light without changing designs much.
Also @Prawn Connery :
The best 425nm diode i ever found was by prolight opto, but i dont think they had it on their web, i only found it at distributors. Iirc correct it was 600mw at 1120mW power which is better than most other offerings. I would be very interested in how prolight opto did in tests, seems like they got good bang for buck especially in uv.
Spectacular feedback thank you. Very valid point about the ability to increase overall photon flux without having bearing on spectrum.

I agree with your point about separate supplemental lighting - it is an addition rather than a deletion, and gives superior controllability from a spectral tuning perspective.

I implore others to chime in with their interpretations and preferences based on usage. We can never have too much information.

✌
 

effexxess

Well-Known Member
the testing is done by samsung themselves
This is the study using EVOs to which Samsung refers. But it's lettuce :|:|

Effects of White LED Lighting with Specific Shorter Blue and/or Green Wavelength on the Growth and Quality of Two Lettuce Cultivars in a Vertical Farming System
From conclusion, "At the same electrical power, the new specific W LEDs with shorter blue peak wavelength (437 nm) provided a higher PPFD, increasing the growth and development of lettuce compared to the plants grown under normal W LEDs and combined RB LEDs."
 

RainDan

Well-Known Member
This is the study using EVOs to which Samsung refers. But it's lettuce :|:|

Effects of White LED Lighting with Specific Shorter Blue and/or Green Wavelength on the Growth and Quality of Two Lettuce Cultivars in a Vertical Farming System
From conclusion, "At the same electrical power, the new specific W LEDs with shorter blue peak wavelength (437 nm) provided a higher PPFD, increasing the growth and development of lettuce compared to the plants grown under normal W LEDs and combined RB LEDs."
Thank you for posting. Clearly lettuce is not a C3 annual fruiting nor flowering plant like cannabis. Wildly different life cycle.

Good intel nonetheless as it underscores the fact that LED manufacturers may say they have a horticultural chipset however it is largely developed for the non-cannabis horticultural market. Same as CXB and other COBs - general lighting is and will always be the focus due to market size.

Interesting to note - when we were working with Citizen on their 1212 and 1818 chips they explicitly did not want us to say they were for cannabis cultivation else they weren’t comfortable supplying the chips.

Our co-development of the Zelion Hort light with Osram AG was similar - they would only test on flowering annuals. They would support with test equipment but would have no ties directly to cannabis cultivation nor testing.
 

RainDan

Well-Known Member
Theres a few to many questions in there to be answered easily.
Seems like your asking :
1 Is far red/uv really needed or improving crops?
2 Is it better with all diodes on the same circuit or having separate channels for uv/far red?
3 What is the best base spectrum?

Each of those questions depends on the answer of the previous one.
1: need far red/uv? Uv or any blue between 400-440 seems beneficial generally. It hits one clorophyll while 450 seems to hit the other. This seems to result in better growth and less of plants doing that "led-deficiency" thing
Far red seems to be able to balance out the effect of more blue. I know i saw growmau5 trying them under his new HLG regime and said the wattage in and yield increase pointed favorably to using far red in flower: i think using 5% of watts supplementing far red gave about 7% increase in yield. But this will only be really noticeable if your diodes are about as efficient as your base white. If youre doing boards in china i would be a bit iffy on their diodes. If you can control the diode purchase and pick and place i would defo say its beneficial.

2 that really depends on you and your clients. Personally id like separate channels but uv diodes being a bit shitty in lifespan it would be best if they could have a separate strip or board.
On the other hand seems like the market likes a full solution with everything on the board. Not too sure myself. Maybe just a very high red spectrum with one blue and uv channel would be nice. Adding the uv on a separate channel has the marketing benefit in that it wont be counted towards pof/w and not draw that number down. Of course a low cct can also draw these numbers down.

3 if youre final spectrum is somewhere around the RGB of 3500k + 660nm then your probably close to optimal. If using a separate uv channel then maybe starting with base white a bit lower is recommendable. But if going for a full solultion on the board then you might wanna go a different way.

I wouldnt go for 3000k 80cri and 5000k EVO. This would push base spectrum towards very blue. Maybe with 3:1 diodes against the EVOs to compensate. Or just go 3500k 80cri plus 3000k EVO: they would be similar in blue level and give you something similar to 3500k in blue levels if mixed, but with a wider blue peak. Personally i would prefer something close to 400nm added.
Such valued feedback, thank you. Wonderful points, all of them.
 

cdgmoney250

Well-Known Member
I would like to see more people growing under more Sun-like LED’s (most of them are <95-99CRI) like Bridgelux Thrive, Yuji high CRI, or Seoul Sunlike LEDs. I’d love to see similar light recipes (ex. 3000/5000, 3500 +660nm) between the 80CRI higher efficiency chips vs 98CRI lower efficiency chips, but at the same radiant outputs, total watts be damned.

As far as I know, only a few people have tried and had talked about their results being great under the (broader spectrum chips).

Since it sounds like many people are not pushing their plants to light levels much higher than 1000 -1200 ppfd on the high side (I personally run higher intensity), shouldn’t the focus of grow lights be how to deliver the broadest spectrum relative to sunlight, at the highest efficiency available? And how to manipulate spectrum throughout each day, let alone life cycle? Like mentioned earlier, efficiency will inherently increase due to advances in chip technology. Nothing groundbreaking will be learned by using the same light recipes over and over. In terms of optimizing indoor plant lighting, there is still very much work to be done.
 

RainDan

Well-Known Member
One question about multi-channel LED lights: Does anyone here REALLY know when to use each channel?

IMO, until people REALLY know what they're doing, it's all guesswork. For example, UV is highest outside in summer – during the vegetative period of short-day cannabis – so should we be using more UV during veg or flower? UVA or UVB or near-UV (violet)? At what ratio? The same as sunlight?

Do we really need Far Red on a separate channel when most photomorphogenic response seems to happen in relation to the red:far red ratio?

Should we have UV on a spearate channel to Far Red when we know UV can supress some facets of shade avoidence?

Why do we need more blue light during veg when red light grows faster??? < this is not "bro science".

Simply put, I don't think most growers are ready for it. Multi-channel LEDs add to cost and complexity for what REAL gain?
Another really insightful post. I agree with you and this sort of lends an ear towards how the grower interacts with the equipment. This speaks to the largesse of the ability of the light to perform regardless if it is in the hands of a spectral tuning wizard using it or a grower who is simply enjoying the hobby for other reasons and is less interested in tuning lights.

It is perhaps the greater discussion even more so than efficiency or diodes selection. No lighting manufacturer can be everything to every customer, which is why there are many different companies, some offering more complicated, and de facto expensive, solutions than others.

My $.02 is that the industry in general has been pivoting towards the needs of the commercial grower while paying less attention to the serious hobbyist/small batch/home grower. This is evident in the selection of diodes that support efficiency, and PPE/J above other aspects.

Efficiency is nice and when applied with economies of scale as in a commercial, or even multi-tiered grow, it can save a huge amount on electrical operating expense. In a home grow, it might make the difference of maybe $1-2 a day operating expense, on the high end.

When Timber was running, customers had the option of selecting color temperature. At the end of the day, fully 85% of our customers opted for 3500K. Were we able to cost effectively offer add-on 660 nM back then, I am confident folks would have embraced the concept as they do nowadays.

Providing the customer with a well built light, long warranty, safe operation and more power than necessary with the proper spectrum is, in my humble opinion, the best solution for most growers. Beyond this, design aesthetic and quality of materials are the main differentiators, as is the most obvious, build quality.

Eager to hear more folks opinions on the matter. Thanks so far to all that have contributed.
 

KitnerPush

Active Member
This is the study using EVOs to which Samsung refers. But it's lettuce :|:|

Effects of White LED Lighting with Specific Shorter Blue and/or Green Wavelength on the Growth and Quality of Two Lettuce Cultivars in a Vertical Farming System
From conclusion, "At the same electrical power, the new specific W LEDs with shorter blue peak wavelength (437 nm) provided a higher PPFD, increasing the growth and development of lettuce compared to the plants grown under normal W LEDs and combined RB LEDs."
Thanks for providing that. What happens to lettuce is still an indicator of what can happen in cannabis, or any other plant for that matter :)
 

RainDan

Well-Known Member
I would like to see more people growing under more Sun-like LED’s (most of them are <95-99CRI) like Bridgelux Thrive, Yuji high CRI, or Seoul Sunlike LEDs. I’d love to see similar light recipes (ex. 3000/5000, 3500 +660nm) between the 80CRI higher efficiency chips vs 98CRI lower efficiency chips, but at the same radiant outputs, total watts be damned.

As far as I know, only a few people have tried and had talked about their results being great under the (broader spectrum chips).

Since it sounds like many people are not pushing their plants to light levels much higher than 1000 -1200 ppfd on the high side (I personally run higher intensity), shouldn’t the focus of grow lights be how to deliver the broadest spectrum relative to sunlight, at the highest efficiency available? And how to manipulate spectrum throughout each day, let alone life cycle? Like mentioned earlier, efficiency will inherently increase due to advances in chip technology. Nothing groundbreaking will be learned by using the same light recipes over and over. In terms of optimizing indoor plant lighting, there is still very much work to be done.
Hello @cdgmoney250

Good of you to stop by and thanks for the post. I agree regarding pushing plants to PPFD as high as they will tolerate. Outdoors on a sunny day PPF levels top 2000 µmol/s easy. As long as the other variables are dialed in then the amount of activity at the photoreceptors will help to drive the ultimate production of dry flower weight. By putting the cost into a good proven chipset at higher wattages, one can effectively not run them at 100%, or dim them, thus increasing efficiency and having more room to push the dial as @Rocket Soul pointed out earlier.

And you are right I believe - efficiency is what is driving the LED industry, and energy industries in general. Cannabis growers will always receive trickle down rewards in that sense.

Perhaps most importantly - you are right, we need to push the envelope in testing new theories. I'm just not sure that is something that the majority of growers are looking for, nor positioned to do.

If others have differing. or similar opinions, let's discuss. There are so many good things being shared just in this thread alone so far.

Thanks again.
 

KitnerPush

Active Member
One question about multi-channel LED lights: Does anyone here REALLY know when to use each channel?

IMO, until people REALLY know what they're doing, it's all guesswork. For example, UV is highest outside in summer – during the vegetative period of short-day cannabis – so should we be using more UV during veg or flower? UVA or UVB or near-UV (violet)? At what ratio? The same as sunlight?

Do we really need Far Red on a separate channel when most photomorphogenic response seems to happen in relation to the red:far red ratio?

Should we have UV on a spearate channel to Far Red when we know UV can supress some facets of shade avoidence?

Why do we need more blue light during veg when red light grows faster??? < this is not "bro science".

Simply put, I don't think most growers are ready for it. Multi-channel LEDs add to cost and complexity for what REAL gain?
I'm working on some AI stuff right now which pretty much answers your question.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
I'm working on some AI stuff right now which pretty much answers your question.
That would be interesting considering AI is programmed by man and no-one really has an answer beyond trying to mimick the sun. Ie; starting with elevated levels of far red and red at the beginning and end of the day with less intensity, increasing blue, violet, UV and intensity towards the middle of the day, then ramping things down.

But then there's also the question of veg vs flower and the fact indoor growers tend to provide the same DLI through both cycles when, in fact, DLI is always higher (quite a bit higher) during veg outdoors when the sun is stronger and daylight hours are extended. Not to mention the large increase in UV exposure during veg that trails off during flower (which is why I have a problem with the Llewellyn study that claimed UVA/B had no affect on cannabinoids when it was only used sparingly in the last 20 days of flower).

Most growers would assume UV is only needed during flower, when mother nature says you need it all the way through.

As I said, no-one really seems to know if there are any advanatges to doing any of this, so is it really worth the expense and complexity? If there is something to be gained, then probably. But if the gains are marginal, then perhaps not.

But someone has to start somewhere, right?
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
that's new to me... which formulas we talking about?
To get the equivalent of 3500K using 3000K and 5000K diodes you need to mix at least a ratio of 2:1 for 3000K vs 5000K (otherwise you end up with roughly 4000K).

On a related note, we used to make two spectra: 3100K and 3500K. Both included 10% far red and 1% UVA. We had customers who ran both during veg and flower and the feedback we got was there was a small difference in yield between the two in favour of the warmer (3100K) light – in both flower and veg. They reported no real difference in quality, except the 3500K was slightly denser (as you would expect).

Indeed, a little more indernodal spacing can be a good thing for many varieties in terms of light penetration and yield.

Suffice it to say, we dropped the 3500K version. We still do a 3000K version (Gen3, slightly tweaked from the 3100K Gen2) as well as a 3200K strip LED, which is tailored a bit more towards alreound horticulture, including leafy greens.

In my own experience, the red (and to a lesser extent green) ends of the spectrum have always provided bigger yields, whereas the blue end seems to enhance quality. What I have not been able to definitely answer is whether the total cannabinoid content is the same regardless of spectrum. That is, higher dry yield with lower cannabinoid content vs lower dry yield with higher canabinoid content and whether the total amount of cannabinoids for processing is roughly the same.
 

Blue_Focus

Well-Known Member
Following because I'm a newbie and bought the Spider Farmer SF1000 with the LM301H EVO LED's

I'm on day 3 of my first grow. So I hope I bought the right one. There are so many different kinds of grow lights to choose from.

I bought this one. https://a.co/d/cnoIw68
 
Top