Question about IR\UV "reinforcement"

Hello you all! best forum I have every been registered to.

I have made a nice setup with 3 quantum board lights of 240W (lm301h) - 1 for the Veg+clone tent, and 2 for the flowering.
the results are amazing and I am enjoying working with those lamps, getting some nice results SCROGing the life of them.

I want to try and add a bit of IR\UV to the flowering tent, adding a few lamps to work 8-9 hours a day (try to imitate a sunrise & sunset a effect.

thought about buying this product:

LED Grow Light
* specifically talking about the 78 LEDs, with the 6 IR and 6 UV diodes , all the other diodes I don't really care about them.

do you think 3-4 of these lamps will make a difference?

P.S if you have suggestions for IR\UV lamps don't be shy to post them.

For end of the day treatment/sunset you need far red only, not possible if you have uv, white or photo red on the same channel.

Recent studies demonstrate that UV supplementation is NOT useful for growing weed.

Hello I can highly recommend the uvb 310 from migro Shop it is a 18 watt uvb flourescent lamp with high uvb Radiation and a bit of uvb . I use it 50 centimeter above the canopy . Only in the last 20 days of flowering . First days 15 minuten than Day for Day a little more until two Hours til the endlich of flowering. And it is a great improvement for thc and terpene build Ing .
IT is not my only Impression .
There is a test protocol on the Homepage from dutch passion . They have Don a side by side test run and have the results on there Page .https://dutch-passion.com/en/blog/how-to-increase-terpene-levels-in-cannabis-plants-n1037
I hope it is not fortbilden to Post links .

And forget this aliexpress light you postet. By a far red Single light from Horticulture lighting Group it is way better

PeatPhreak said:

Recent studies demonstrate that UV supplementation is NOT useful for growing weed.

Click to expand...

What recent studies? Everything iv read, it increases THC. Scientifically proven

Here’s a sub link in this forum.

If anything I would stick with UVA and light amounts of it. UVB seems like abit much. Never use UVC unless sterilizing a room with nothing living in it.

Needs both to work correctly. Need to create the intensity for the plants natural sun blocking to occur. That’s just normal simple science shit. It goes deeper. Iv been reading hours on end on benefits and what not. Pros and cons.
Most cons are from user error. As long as the user knows how to use it correctly. So far I’m loving the difference in appearance.

Here is a test with a uvb fixture specific Sold for agriculture. I have this unit and like it much . Great improvement of terpene and potenzy. https://dutch-passion.com/en/blog/how-to-increase-terpene-levels-in-cannabis-plants-n1037

DrOgkush said:

What recent studies? Everything iv read, it increases THC. Scientifically proven

Click to expand...

https://www.scilit.net/article/7a1d236d6328e3c6e1586b714d571330

Summary - The present study suggests that using UV radiation as a production tool did NOT lead to any commercially relevant benefits to cannabis yield or inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. There are other studies like it.

This study also shows UV decreases terps.

PeatPhreak said:

https://www.scilit.net/article/7a1d236d6328e3c6e1586b714d571330

Summary - The present study suggests that using UV radiation as a production tool did NOT lead to any commercially relevant benefits to cannabis yield or inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. There are other studies like it.

Click to expand...

Crazy. I can’t find any other read on it being bad. Like saying outdoor weed is worse to grow because the abundance of different uv.
also. I can find proven cannabis lab test showing the increase in cannabinoid production. Also. Im using uv along with many others I talk to. Big difference. Lab tested and not. And that’s not proof
That’s a guys personal re search. Lab test prove it.

Hello DrOgkush I agree with you . Since the eighties smokers know that the Best dope Come from high mountain farms in Himalaja or other mountain where through high altitute are much uv is present

PeatPhreak said:

https://www.scilit.net/article/7a1d236d6328e3c6e1586b714d571330

Summary - The present study suggests that using UV radiation as a production tool did NOT lead to any commercially relevant benefits to cannabis yield or inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. There are other studies like it.

This study also shows UV decreases terps.

Click to expand...

From what i read in the abstract i think this study shows uvb supplementation is very tricky, it is very easy to go overboard in a way that has a heavy negative effect on the plants.
Whats been the growing consensus in the uv discussion around here is to use both uva and uvb: uva will toughen up the plant and help repair uvb damage.
Another issue is light intensity: the experiment is done under 400ppfd, about half of most indoor grows and even less compared to growing outdoors.
I wouldnt throw uv supplementation under the buss due to this study only as there are quite a few that shows the opposite, but i do agree that its easy to mess up with uv, both uva but especially uvb.

Rocket Soul said:

From what i read in the abstract i think this study shows uvb supplementation is very tricky, it is very easy to go overboard in a way that has a heavy negative effect on the plants.
Whats been the growing consensus in the uv discussion around here is to use both uva and uvb: uva will toughen up the plant and help repair uvb damage.
Another issue is light intensity: the experiment is done under 400ppfd, about half of most indoor grows and even less compared to growing outdoors.
I wouldnt throw uv supplementation under the buss due to this study only as there are quite a few that shows the opposite, but i do agree that its easy to mess up with uv, both uva but especially uvb.

Click to expand...

My point. Uva and uvb being used correctly. Together. I’m not an expert. I just nerded out for a week on study after study. From gradually introducing uvb at 15 min per day till leading up to 2 hours. Or even just blasting it for 2 hours a cycle from the jump. I did 30 min for 2 days. Then just jumped to 2.5 hours. But some plants “fry” easier. This is why they recommend 15 min a use at first to see the plants response. Imo. It takes common sense to use something they use in a tanning bed.
that’s what I took into mind before using mine.
Nobody spends 12 hours in a tanning bed. Lol

DrOgkush said:

Crazy. I can’t find any other read on it being bad. Like saying outdoor weed is worse to grow because the abundance of different uv.
also. I can find proven cannabis lab test showing the increase in cannabinoid production. Also. Im using uv along with many others I talk to. Big difference. Lab tested and not. And that’s not proof
That’s a guys personal re search. Lab test prove it.

Click to expand...

Then you aren't looking very hard. The paper I just supplied is actual science and it's not the only one that draws the same scientific conclusion.

You have been fooled by bro science.

PeatPhreak said:

Then you aren't looking very hard. The paper I just supplied is actual science and it's not the only one that draws the same scientific conclusion.

You have been fooled by bro science.

Click to expand...

No it’s not. There is no side by side lab test.

and yes I have. Iv need researching anything to make me stop using it. I mean anything to make me stop. I’m reading lab levels. Doesn’t get more specific than that

Did you fry your plants?

Maybe you should try reading the whole study. This what real science looks like:

PeatPhreak said:

Maybe you should try reading the whole study. This what real science looks like:

Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Increased With Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation

Before ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used as a horticultural management tool in commercial Cannabis sativa (cannabis) production, the effects of UV on cannabis should be vetted scientifically. In this study we investigated the effects of UV exposure ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Click to expand...

You realize that’s just saying it’s only bad in aggressive amounts