LED's another take on things???

[9inch bigbud]

I was just thinking about LED's and HPS argument I know LED's are shit for growing cannabis but thought may be there is another reason behind it other than light intensity?

I got thinking there are tests by NASA and other tests that clearly show LED's can out grow some plants that HPS cant grow as good as LED's then it hit me the plants that most of us grow have been grown under HPS and never seen sun light in years and years they have evolved to like and thrive growing under HPS lights. MAY BE THIS AS SOMTHING TO DO WITH IT???

probily not, but if someone as the time to breed a plant under LED's then that plant will evolve to thrive under LED's the same way they do under HPS?

I think there might be a little bit of truth to this because some plants do grow better under LEDs one way to put this to the test is if someone has a pure land race seed that has never been grown under artificial lights before.

I could see how plant could adapt to certain grow conditions otherwise growers above 50% north would never be able to grow cannabis with out them addapting to shit wether.

I still think HPS is the way to go for now but as anyone tested the pure outdoor land race just to see if the LED can grow it better?????

 

[jigfresh]

I would be interested in that test. Personally, I don't think that this is the key to LED's working, but it may be a piece to the puzzle (if there is one). Good investigative thinking bud.

 

[littlegrower2004]

well i got some LEDs but the strain i just breeded i stuck under the HPS, still got a few more of the seeds tho so mayb ill throw one under the LED and see if it adapts any better

 

[tallicagolf]

Do you realize how long it takes for things to evolve? Cannabis has been grown indoors for 50-60 years tops...

 

[mj320002]

I'm pretty sure light intensity is the only issue with leds. They have the potential to be far better than hps and metal halide because you have a lot more control over the spectrum. The problem is in order to get really intense light out of an led is very expensive. Hopefully in the future if they keep improving the tech then everyone will be growing with leds. Won't happen anytime soon though.

Do you realize how long it takes for things to evolve? Cannabis has been grown indoors for 50-60 years tops...

 

[9inch bigbud]

Do you realize how long it takes for things to evolve? Cannabis has been grown indoors for 50-60 years tops...

you have to start somewhere cannabis indoor under HPS started in the 80s with in a short time northern lights the first true indoor strain was breed then came skunk #1 it will not take that long a few years maybe? the same as harding plants to grow in Northen parts of the world they dont take that long to adapt to shitty growing conditions and indoors you can have 7 years in the space of just 1 year i.e 7 crops a year.

 

[9inch bigbud]

I'm pretty sure light intensity is the only issue with leds. They have the potential to be far better than hps and metal halide because you have a lot more control over the spectrum. The problem is in order to get really intense light out of an led is very expensive. Hopefully in the future if they keep improving the tech then everyone will be growing with leds. Won't happen anytime soon though.

one way to find out for sure is grow 2 clones from a the mother plant that has never been grown uder light i.e a true land race seed.

i still think HPS will out do it because of lumans, but you never know? why do some plants like totmatos grow well under LED they love the sun just as much as cannabis.

 

[hazetastic808]

Considering how you've came and ranted in pretty much every LED thread theres been to come and make such an ignorant thread of your own is kind of funny. In a simple answer..... no, while all living things make minor adaptations to their environment over their lives, for a plant to make an evolutionary genetic adaptation like you speak of would take hundreds/thousands of years. Not to mention did you consider the fact that not all people grow "indoors", so if the plants had somehow become uniquely adapted to HPS as you say how would they still grow under the 10000x more powerful sun? What about MH? CFLs?

You also mentioned something about Sulphur Plasma Lighting being the lighting of the future rather then LEDs, considering the things people look for in a light:

Cost
Effectiveness
Running Temperature
Stealth Signature
Maintenance

Sulphur Plasma is an old and failed technology when it comes to growing from the 90s, with new interest in the technology from LG the lights have become more efficient and cheaper but essentially are just newer better failures. What people have to realize is that all light is not the same, just because something is "omgz super facking bright" doesn't mean its going to grow your plant, and until I see a grow with one of these new ones (if you can even find a place to buy one your looking at $2000+) I can only go off of the previous failures with the technology, which only exceeded HIDs in one of those categories and failed horribly in the rest.

Cost: see above $2000?

Effectiveness: You have to understand how Sulphur Plasma lights work they use RF rays to heat and illuminate, the idea being that it gave off the light spectrumwise identical to the sun. Yet unlike the sun and other bulbs it gives off no UV rays essential for resin production. Also in theory but this is just speculative all that RF radiation (like 30 microwaves) probably has some negative effects on the plant as well.

Running Temperature: This is the only one that it may exceed HIDs in but not by much.

Stealth Signature: Pretty much THE reason Sulphur Plasma will not be used for growing at least until Mariuana becomes completely decriminzalized. All the RF waves these things give off in such a small area someone would be able to home in on you from probably a little less then a mile away. Not to mention these things are meant for stadium lights and car parks, not a small grow room it could even be dangerous.

Maintenance: The bulb may have a 60,000 hour lifespan, but whatever the fuck a magnetron is and the power supply are only 15,000. So having to replace half the system every 2 years when its as pricey as it is would become very costly.

My thought is that reguardless of innovations in this technology these problems will still remain and its essentially because these lights aren't made for growing...

While LED technology may not quite be there yet, in the future it has the potential to outperform HIDs in every category which is why its safe to assume they will be the growlight of the future.

Cost: As technology evolves and new LEDs become smaller and more powerful the price per watt of LEDs will continue to drop infinitely to the point where say 15-20 years from now you can throw up a panel of lights equivalent to a 1000w HPS for $20.

Effectiveness: Considering this is the technology our own government and Nasa has invested its time and money into for grow lighting, its safe to assume that through countless trial and error with different spectrums, in different configurations eventually LEDs will be much more efficient per watt then HIDs.

Running Temperature: They run coooooooooooooooooooooool, not that there is no heat, but nothing like HID.

Stealth Signature: No huge glowing heat signature.

Maintenance: 80,000 hour lifespan, so about 10 years of continuous use.


Once again they may not be there yet, but there getting there and they are the future.... Not sulphur plasma.

 

[9inch bigbud]

Considering how you've came and ranted in pretty much every LED thread theres been to come and make such an ignorant thread of your own is kind of funny. In a simple answer..... no, while all living things make minor adaptations to their environment over their lives, for a plant to make an evolutionary genetic adaptation like you speak of would take hundreds/thousands of years. Not to mention did you consider the fact that not all people grow "indoors", so if the plants had somehow become uniquely adapted to HPS as you say how would they still grow under the 10000x more powerful sun? What about MH? CFLs?

You also mentioned something about Sulphur Plasma Lighting being the lighting of the future rather then LEDs, considering the things people look for in a light:

Cost
Effectiveness
Running Temperature
Stealth Signature
Maintenance

Sulphur Plasma is an old and failed technology when it comes to growing from the 90s, with new interest in the technology from LG the lights have become more efficient and cheaper but essentially are just newer better failures. What people have to realize is that all light is not the same, just because something is "omgz super facking bright" doesn't mean its going to grow your plant, and until I see a grow with one of these new ones (if you can even find a place to buy one your looking at $2000+) I can only go off of the previous failures with the technology, which only exceeded HIDs in one of those categories and failed horribly in the rest.

Cost: see above $2000?

Effectiveness: You have to understand how Sulphur Plasma lights work they use RF rays to heat and illuminate, the idea being that it gave off the light spectrumwise identical to the sun. Yet unlike the sun and other bulbs it gives off no UV rays essential for resin production. Also in theory but this is just speculative all that RF radiation (like 30 microwaves) probably has some negative effects on the plant as well.

Running Temperature: This is the only one that it may exceed HIDs in but not by much.

Stealth Signature: Pretty much THE reason Sulphur Plasma will not be used for growing at least until Mariuana becomes completely decriminzalized. All the RF waves these things give off in such a small area someone would be able to home in on you from probably a little less then a mile away. Not to mention these things are meant for stadium lights and car parks, not a small grow room it could even be dangerous.

Maintenance: The bulb may have a 60,000 hour lifespan, but whatever the fuck a magnetron is and the power supply are only 15,000. So having to replace half the system every 2 years when its as pricey as it is would become very costly.

My thought is that reguardless of innovations in this technology these problems will still remain and its essentially because these lights aren't made for growing...

While LED technology may not quite be there yet, in the future it has the potential to outperform HIDs in every category which is why its safe to assume they will be the growlight of the future.

Cost: As technology evolves and new LEDs become smaller and more powerful the price per watt of LEDs will continue to drop infinitely to the point where say 15-20 years from now you can throw up a panel of lights equivalent to a 1000w HPS for $20.

Effectiveness: Considering this is the technology our own government and Nasa has invested its time and money into for grow lighting, its safe to assume that through countless trial and error with different spectrums, in different configurations eventually LEDs will be much more efficient per watt then HIDs.

Running Temperature: They run coooooooooooooooooooooool, not that there is no heat, but nothing like HID.

Stealth Signature: No huge glowing heat signature.

Maintenance: 80,000 hour lifespan, so about 10 years of continuous use.


Once again they may not be there yet, but there getting there and they are the future.... Not sulphur plasma.

you was saying?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/luxim-plasma-lifi-light-bulb-led-cfl.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTGsM9pplUs

Considering how you've came and ranted in pretty much every LED thread theres been to come and make such an ignorant thread of your own is kind of funny

that why i started a thread "LED another take on things." we know some plants grow better under LED than HPS i was just thinking is there some other reson why cannabis does not grow so good under LED i thought "Maybe" there could be a connection with cannabis plants grown under HPS and the seed from them plants grown under LEDs.

do you know for sure there is no link have you tested it? as i have said some plants grow better under LEDs than HPS why? even some sun loving plants grow better under LED than HPS. the only thing i could think of is most cannabis grown "indoors" are grown under HPS lamps that are rich in yellow orange red the sun has all the colors so it will still grow very good where the LED are trying only to produce red and blue and they still grow, but not as good- in other words- the plants grown under HPS have adapted to use yellow orange redlight more effectively because of the lack of blue light and not that much red light.

what im saying is test it and see or as anyone tested it yet? and what was the result? do we know for sure that may be the missing link because other plants do well under LED's.

i dont care about the rest of the post you made i have my views you have yours. im just saying for thouse who are getting shit results using LED's try a true land race seed maybe you will get better results if you do? may be you dont?

 

[tallicagolf]

Here is a link that might explain evolution a little better to you, since you still seem to think that in the short period that cannabis has been grown indoors it has some how "adapted".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[9inch bigbud]

Here is a link that might explain evolution a little better to you, since you still seem to think that in the short period that cannabis has been grown indoors it has some how "adapted".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

look smart arse adapted- plants adapt very quickly to the enviroment they are in thats why we can grow plants that would normally not grow above 40 degrees north of the equator evolution is a fucking ape turning in to a man not what environment effects have on plants. cannabis as been the same for millions of years, but its only the past 40-50 years or so that we have new strains that are stronger than 50 years ago thats not evolution that is selective breeding that would be impossible without the help of humans.

now we know we can breed cannabis to adapt to colder less sunlight conditions than what it would like the same can happen in doors as well as out doors.

if you breed under LED's then the plants would do better under LED the more genorations you grow "maybe? maybe not? plants adapt quickly to the enviroment
plants normaly grown in soil adapt to grow in water they set differant roots to cope with not living in soil why not light?

 

[jigfresh]

Do you guys go around hating on all LED threads, or do you just follow around 9inch bigbud hating on him?

Why post just to talk shit?

 

[hazetastic808]

look smart arse adapted- plants adapt very quickly to the enviroment they are in thats why we can grow plants that would normally not grow above 40 degrees north of the equator evolution is a fucking ape turning in to a man not what environment effects have on plants. cannabis as been the same for millions of years, but its only the past 40-50 years or so that we have new strains that are stronger than 50 years ago thats not evolution that is selective breeding that would be impossible without the help of humans.

now we know we can breed cannabis to adapt to colder less sunlight conditions than what it would like the same can happen in doors as well as out doors.

if you breed under LED's then the plants would do better under LED the more genorations you grow "maybe? maybe not? plants adapt quickly to the enviroment
plants normaly grown in soil adapt to grow in water they set differant roots to cope with not living in soil why not light?

Considering your calling people smart asses and still being so ignorant its kind of funny. Let me point out a few things.

This would just be a crude example but say you grow a plant that is not meant to grow in a certain climate. 7/10 times it will just die, 2/10 it may live but hardly thrive and then as time passes generations later it will die off too, 1/10 would struggle to get by through generation after generation 1000s of years until it slowly (and no there is no speeding this process up at this point technologically) it adapts too thrive in its environment.

When you say we "breed" plants too thrive in colder climates that is in fact true, but you see your still starting with a plant that thrives in such a climate... Cannabis has thrived all over the globe in all different kinds of climates for millions of years, it took those plants thousands of years to adapt to their unique environments not 50-60 years.

Thats like saying if I was white and moved to Africa but my lineage continued to breed with other whites like 200 years later my greatx10 grandchildren would have turned Black simply because they had adapted to their surroundings. This just simply isn't the case it takes thousands of years for things to make adaptations like that at the genetic level.

"plants normaly grown in soil adapt to grow in water they set differant roots to cope with not living in soil why not light?"

This part in particular shows you really have no clue what your talking about. Plants never needed soil, none do (well maybe some) the 3 things a plant requires to survive are Air, Water, and Light. To thrive it requires nutrients, and soil is just natures big bag of nutes. All hydro is, is another means of administering those nutrients. Not making the plant adapt.

 

[tallicagolf]

Well said

 

[9inch bigbud]

Considering your calling people smart asses and still being so ignorant its kind of funny. Let me point out a few things.

This would just be a crude example but say you grow a plant that is not meant to grow in a certain climate. 7/10 times it will just die, 2/10 it may live but hardly thrive and then as time passes generations later it will die off too, 1/10 would struggle to get by through generation after generation 1000s of years until it slowly (and no there is no speeding this process up at this point technologically) it adapts too thrive in its environment.

When you say we "breed" plants too thrive in colder climates that is in fact true, but you see your still starting with a plant that thrives in such a climate... Cannabis has thrived all over the globe in all different kinds of climates for millions of years, it took those plants thousands of years to adapt to their unique environments not 50-60 years.

Thats like saying if I was white and moved to Africa but my lineage continued to breed with other whites like 200 years later my greatx10 grandchildren would have turned Black simply because they had adapted to their surroundings. This just simply isn't the case it takes thousands of years for things to make adaptations like that at the genetic level.

"plants normaly grown in soil adapt to grow in water they set differant roots to cope with not living in soil why not light?"

This part in particular shows you really have no clue what your talking about. Plants never needed soil, none do (well maybe some) the 3 things a plant requires to survive are Air, Water, and Light. To thrive it requires nutrients, and soil is just natures big bag of nutes. All hydro is, is another means of administering those nutrients.Not making the plant adapt.

your talking a load of bollocks are you a biologist and have studyed botany? no thought not please dont coment if you dont know what you are talking about! where did you get your figures from? off the top of your head was it?

This part in particular shows you really have no clue what your talking about. Plants never needed soil, none

again you are talking more bollocks! plants would not be here if it was not for soil. man made nutes to add to water again "man not evolution" the stuff you put in the hydro tank is made in a chemistry lab not in nature.

Not making the plant adapt

plants have differant roots normal roots are soil roots when you grow a plant in water they are water roots = a plant adapts to its enviroment soil or hydro even light tempraturs, humidity and it happens fast and with each generation will be more acclimatized to that enviroment they are in.

from wiki the link you posted on the 1st page

The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behavior of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[16] As a result, not every aspect of an organism's phenotype is inherited

in other words plants can change with the enviroment.

again from the link you posted

Variation

For more details on this topic, see Genetic diversity and Population genetics.
An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.[19] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will fluctuate, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Evolutionary forces act by driving these changes in allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when an allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[21]
Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction. Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants.[22] Despite the constant introduction of variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[23] However, even relatively small changes in genotype can lead to dramatic changes in phenotype: chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[24]

..

Survival and adaptation

Genetic diversity plays a huge role in survival and adaptability of a species. When a species’s environment changes, slight gene variations are necessary for it to adapt and survive. A species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have more variations from which to choose the most fit alleles. Species that have very little genetic variation are at a great risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring often deal with similar problems to those of inbreeding.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

 

[9inch bigbud]

plants adapt fast and dont need 1000s of years to adapt here is proof

New research shows that seasonal plants can adapt quickly--even genetically--to changing climate conditions and reveals various mechanisms by which they control their growing response when the weather shifts. The studies suggest, however, that longer-lived plants have a tougher time going with the flow.
Plant evolutionary biologist Steven Franks of the University of California, Irvine, and his colleagues tested the weedy field mustard, introduced to California from the deserts of Mesopotamia by way of Mediterranean climes roughly 300 years ago. The plant is a survivor, thriving from marshes to near-deserts. The scientists gathered seeds from the plant in 1997, just before a five-year drought struck in 2000. They gathered seeds again, post-drought, in 2004 to see what changes had been wrought.
By germinating the stored ancestor seeds, descendant seeds and hybrids under controlled conditions, the biologists could determine exactly how the field mustard had adapted to changing conditions. "We held the environment constant and only varied the genes," Franks explains. "We found a rapid evolutionary shift to earlier flowering following a natural climate change."
In effect, the plants had shifted to flowering a few days earlier to take full advantage of the short "wet" season in dry years. This change was even more marked--more than a full week earlier--for plants that originally derived from a population that enjoyed wetter conditions in a California marsh, according to the study's findings published online January 8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This is good news for annual species, like the field mustard, that can adapt relatively quickly to climate changes, but portends poorly for longer-lived plants, such as California's redwoods, that may not be able to change fast enough to keep up. "We are going to see shifts in ranges," Franks says. "Species run into barriers like deserts or mountains and may just sort of run out of room. They are not going to be able to evolve or migrate fast enough to keep up with climate change."
Other research in Europe has shown that plants can shift another mechanism that controls their response to climate: vernalization, or the length of the cold snap required before a plant will respond to a warm spell as a growth signal. Caroline Dean of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, England, and her colleagues studied this response in the ubiquitous Arabidopsis thaliana, or thale cress. Such plants in Sweden require nearly four times as long a winter as their counterparts in England--14 weeks versus four, respectively--before they will interpret warmth as a signal to grow.
"It looks like the variation in this mechanism to adapt the timing of flowering to different winter conditions has evolved extremely quickly," Dean notes. "By understanding how plants have adapted to different climates, it will give us a head start in breeding crops able to cope with global warming."
Most staple crops, of course, are annual plants and therefore might be able to adapt quickly to changing conditions; "I would expect that it would happen in crop plants," Franks observes. But he cautions that genetic variation within the corn, wheat, rice or other plants may not be enough to enable such rapid transformation.
As a result, biologist Arthur Weis of University of California, Irvine, plans to launch Project Baseline: a collecting effort spanning hundreds of plant species across at least North America and Europe for starters. This bank of seeds will allow scientists in the future to examine how specific plants have adapted--or not--compared with their ancestors. The project will require samples from hundreds of plants within an individual species and represents an effort that will take years to bear fruit.
Ultimately, this would be a smaller effort than that envisaged by Peter Raven of the Missouri Botanical Garden, which aims to protect every endangered species in the plant kingdom. But it would be a time capsule that future scientists could use to map change. If humanity is going to run an uncontrolled experiment on Earth, known as anthropogenic climate change, then we might as well learn from it.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=many-plants-can-adapt-whe

 

[overmyhead]

50 years is a very short time for the plants to adapt but NOT a very long time for breeders to select strains that grow best under certain circumstances. I think you are on to something and the best way to find out is for people to experiment with various strains and find the ones that respond best to led's. That being said, I have said this on several threads and will say it again - but the guy I got my LEDs and a lot of advice from tells you straight up, even in his literature that if you only use leds you will get poor results. The initial recomendation was leds for the whole photo period and hid's for 30 minutes every four hours. I don't have the balls to go that far on my first grow so am using the leds for supplemental but on the next one when temps outside are 90-100 I will try it. Also, think of the applications for supplemental leds and co2 injection - you could shut off your exhaust without overheating, you could probably do the same with cfls - but leds look cooler (lol.) Also, another common misconception is that led's are good b/c you can put them closer to the plant. This same guy recomends that you keep them 18-24" away. Why? Think about it, each light is shooting out a cone, do you want you plant to get just a few spots or a nice even stream of light. I have been keeping all mine (leds and hids) at 24" and have zero stretch. We'll see what happens when they get put into 12 12 in the next couple weeks. Even with all my newb mistakes look at my grow and see the nice bushy look of the plants. Anyway, back to work but good luck and keep the experiments going.

 

[bossman88188]

I would like to see a test done. So much hostility on this site.

 

[jigfresh]

I would like to see a test done. So much hostility on this site.

hey bossman, I think living is so cal (like us) chills you out a little.

I can't imagine if all these guys didn't smoke weed.

And I'm still interested in the original idea, seeing if a plant would adapt. I think it's worth a try if you have the means and patience.

 

[hazetastic808]

....What you are not understanding is that.... well theres alot of things ill make a list.

1. Plants never required soil just as I said earlier, hydro was no innovation or adaptation that had to be made. At a more basic level then I said earlier soil is a medium plants will grow in any viable medium as long as they are provided the other 3 essential things + nutes to thrive. Consider out there in nature where its grown naturally for millions of years. A seed roots itself in a pile of small rocks in a tiny stream, wallah hydro.

2. All of those links you show speak of plants adapting to their surroundings only within there own lifetimes, and having to adapt is going to effect yield and survival reguardless because it stresses the plant and stress = bad. But none of those links speak of anything at the genetic level passed on in its seeds. There is the 1 quote about phenotypes, but still it does not give a timeframe. Phenotypes change based on the Mother and Father plants generation after generation, but to make environmental adaptations at the genetic level passed on in a plants seed it would take like weve been saying thousands of years.

3. Think of nature and how slow things move and change, 50-60 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things when your talking in the millions of years, its a blip in the evolutionary history of the plant. Your lack of being able to grasp that largere scheme and the fact you think I would need to be a Biology professor or something to know about this stuff which would be common knowledge to anyone who paid a little attention in Highschool makes me think your probably just some kid trying to stir things up.

4. Do I really have to mention that evolutionary changes like that would require constant breeding in that environment for those thousands of years? What about the fact that HID growing only accounts for a small percentage or the Marijuana produced annually? Every guy tending to a field of 500 plants outdoors produces more by himself then probably 50-100 indoor growers, not to mention the small percentage of CFL growers as well.

5. The only reason LEDs work for other plants and not Marijuana at the moment is because in flowering Marijuana requires much more intense light to grow the fat buds we desire then it would to grow a tomato plant for example. That is the ONLY reason not some stupid adaptation shit. Thats why LEDs have worked just fine for Vegging but tended to produce stretchy skinny buds (but still produced 53g under 60w but we wont go into that again) when used to flower.

6. Basically light is just not something a plant does or would need to adapt to. If its the right spectrum and intense enough to flower the buds fat anything will work. As LEDs begin to put out more intense light from a smaller area they will begin to become viable.