could you explain what you mean by this statement?
12-1 lighting schedule, has anyone actually tried this?
- Thread starter LILBSDAD
- Start date
I'm in no way to start a pissing match as thats the last thing I want to do, but.... if none of the canna-bibles, and the ed rosenthals or nico escondido's werent reputable or at least somewhat valid, how is it that a very large portion of us have cannabis on a daily basis, very high grade cannabis at that. We all follow some of their methods daily, maybe the science that comes from them is negligible but the results speak for themselves. As well as I hear ya on the thing about farmers and all that, but farmers for the most part grow vegetables, cannabis is a flower, no? And a long night flower at that?
I have no idea how we got here not talking a whole lot about the 12-1 method even though I was part of the spiral away from it, but seeing you definitely have some more experience than I do as well as are more familiar with biological/agricultural resources, why not do some digging into the 12-1 method for us? Seeing its the method of commercial flower growers etc... I cant read books with big words, LOL....I mostly look for books with pictures and arrows etc....
LILB'sdad, there aint a damn thing wrong with what you are growing, I HOPE my girls resemble that in any way. Nice work dude.
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
This is what i'm talking about.... i merely said what i thought and it's taken as though i'm starting a pissing match? i'm not doing that either. I have looked into 12/1... i went through the whole lot piece by piece and all I can find is one article on it written by a stoner. The article is skethcy and based on a century old technique that has previously been buried... yawn. heard it all before, lol.
as i've said from the beginning this method is not going to hurt your plants, but i don't think it is the best thing for growth either as is claimed by the article. i'll stick to 24/0 or 20/4.
LILBSDAD
Well-Known Member
I don't know much about electronics but I turn my TV on and off all the time and it has been going for 10yrs. Nobody has ever told me not to turn my TV on and off because it wont last as long. 5 hrs of electricity + ballast and light being on VS turning ballast on and off one extra time a day. Not saying it will make your equipment last longer, but not saying it wont either. Until doing a study on it I would definitely *NOT* say that it wouldn't.
snew
Well-Known Member
Most failures will happen during start up, due to the sudden surge of electricity. It use to be a much bigger issue than it is now, with vacuum tubes, old tube type TV's, etc. Bulbs are still mostly old technological with a mono-filament maybe various gases, ie. mercury in florescent's.
However, 1 hours use is 1 hours wear. Your bulb will most likely fail when its being turned on. But is not because you turned it on, It because you used it for 2 years that's why it failed. But I don't know that it shortens bilb life.
LILBSDAD
Well-Known Member
I really don't care about bulbs, I change mine out every harvest and the old ones are used during veg only. Plus they are only getting turned on an extra time during veg. so I really don't think it is a big deal. If my ballasts start going out every month, then we have a problem.
I have 2 small 6" desk fans that were like $4 each or something and as long as I have one of them pointing on each ballast, they stay almost cool to the touch. Heat is a bigger enemy to electronics than than turning on one extra time a day, and its not like the switch is being flipped back on as soon as it shuts down, theres 5.5 hours to cool down between off and back on again. Lighting up hot isnt good at all but that isnt the case here.
haole420
Active Member
i don't know if it's from vegging in 12-1 for a week or two or from also switching to an 11/13 in flowering, but the plants i put into flower 5 days ago are flowering like crazy. normally, it would take the same strain, same size about 4 weeks to pop like this. also changed feeding schedule, also weather has cooled, so i can't attribute it to lighting schedule alone, but i can't help but notice they are flowering much more quickly than before.
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
flowering like crazy does not sound good... if they'd normally take 4 weeks and are now flowering in just 5 days... surely you should be questioning by now, as i have for a while now, whether the hour in the middle of 12/12 is actually enough to prevent flowering.
also... all of the people in this thread that have claimed they've either read or seen commercial greenhouses running this method... could you please provide links to these professional growers? it's no good just reading it in an article and then repeating it. I'd like to chat with these people myself. so if they really exist, please share the info.
also... all of the people in this thread that have claimed they've either read or seen commercial greenhouses running this method... could you please provide links to these professional growers? it's no good just reading it in an article and then repeating it. I'd like to chat with these people myself. so if they really exist, please share the info.
haole420
Active Member
the biggest difference i've seen in stretch in the strains i've grown are between papaya (close to full indica, i think, really shrubby, almost mini), with almost no stretch, and maui wowie (full sativa, i think), which went from about 6" tall when i put it into flowering to 4ft in about three weeks. clearly, genetics plays a role, but that doesn't explain the reason behind or the function of the stretch.
here's my armchair biologist's take:
sativas are typically native of tropical regions like thailand, mexico, hawaii, right? lush vegetation, very green, maybe even jungly: basically lots of competition. the taller a plant grows, vis-a-vis other plants growing next to it, the greater the chance that a pollinator will land on it. for males, being taller also provides more exposure to wind to distribute pollen. for females, being taller increases the odds of catching pollen that's drifting in the wind. better pollination for taller plants means better survival. natural selection does it's thing over many generations and you're left with mostly tall, stretchy indigenous strains.
indicas, on the other hand, are from higher altitude, more mountainous regions (like parts of india, as the name implies) with four seasons. being taller and lankier is going to expose the plant to the harsh elements, especially in the autumn. According to wikipedia, "during the post-monsoon months of October to December, a different monsoon cycle, the northeast (or "retreating") monsoon, brings dry, cool, and dense Central Asian air masses to large parts of India... Less and less precipitation falls, and vegetation begins to dry out." I'd imaging taller, lankier plants would get darwinized out of the gene pool while plants that are shorter, stockier, bushier are going to conserve more waters, survive long enough to reach maturity, and hopefully reproduce. indicas obviously survived better under these conditions in the Himalayas or Afghanistan or the Andes or wherever.
but i digress...
it's a little off topic, but has anyone had luck with bushmaster? (it's supposed to stop the stretch, hormonally or with some kind of growth hormone receptor blockers, i presume.) with what strains? how many weeks do you use bushmaster? i assume first few weeks of flowering? any benefit to starting last week or two of veg? any negative effects on final yield/potency? did it take any longer to finish/ripen?
here's my armchair biologist's take:
sativas are typically native of tropical regions like thailand, mexico, hawaii, right? lush vegetation, very green, maybe even jungly: basically lots of competition. the taller a plant grows, vis-a-vis other plants growing next to it, the greater the chance that a pollinator will land on it. for males, being taller also provides more exposure to wind to distribute pollen. for females, being taller increases the odds of catching pollen that's drifting in the wind. better pollination for taller plants means better survival. natural selection does it's thing over many generations and you're left with mostly tall, stretchy indigenous strains.
indicas, on the other hand, are from higher altitude, more mountainous regions (like parts of india, as the name implies) with four seasons. being taller and lankier is going to expose the plant to the harsh elements, especially in the autumn. According to wikipedia, "during the post-monsoon months of October to December, a different monsoon cycle, the northeast (or "retreating") monsoon, brings dry, cool, and dense Central Asian air masses to large parts of India... Less and less precipitation falls, and vegetation begins to dry out." I'd imaging taller, lankier plants would get darwinized out of the gene pool while plants that are shorter, stockier, bushier are going to conserve more waters, survive long enough to reach maturity, and hopefully reproduce. indicas obviously survived better under these conditions in the Himalayas or Afghanistan or the Andes or wherever.
but i digress...
it's a little off topic, but has anyone had luck with bushmaster? (it's supposed to stop the stretch, hormonally or with some kind of growth hormone receptor blockers, i presume.) with what strains? how many weeks do you use bushmaster? i assume first few weeks of flowering? any benefit to starting last week or two of veg? any negative effects on final yield/potency? did it take any longer to finish/ripen?
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
i'm pretty sure bushmaster has been linked to cancer, in that it contains carcinogen(s). I'd steer clear.
haole420
Active Member
if 12-1 was causing flowering, wouldn't all my plants in veg, especially the ones that are same strain, roughly the same maturity be flowering any day now too? they're not.
my guess is that 12-1 acts as a sort of hormonal primer.
hormones just don't appear out of thin air once you've made the switch. it's not like for 11 hours and 59 minutes (or for 6 hours) the plant just sits there and creates hormones at the last minute. it's also not the case that it just sits there doing nothing hormonally until 3 or 4 weeks in and then just decides, ok, time to start producing flowering hormone from scratch today. it's a process with multiple steps and multiple precursor molecules, all of which (like everything else a plant does) takes time. it probably takes 3-4 weeks for all those subprocesses to fully ramp up to produce a sufficient quantity of bioactive gibberellin when going from something like 24/0 to 12/12.
see http://egad.ksu.edu/GA/general_GA_biosynth.htm
unfortunately, there isn't a lot of info on the rate of production of the lower-level non-bioactive forms of GA under different lighting situations for our favorite plant. ideally, there would be a study that shows you how long it takes for each step to ramp up. those biochemical processes aren't going to happen overnight.
my guess is that during 12-1 veg, it's gradually switching over those low-level processes to flowering mode and synthesizing biochemical subcomponents. when you throw them into 12+hrs of dark, the "assembly line" in the hormone factor is already up and running. bam! super-fast flowering.
going to experiment with different 12-X regimes throughout the winter. why interrupt the cycle at the midpoint? if my "priming" theory is correct, then it would make sense to push the dark period as close to 12 hours as you can get without allowing the final synthesis of bioactive hormones to take place. so if 14/10 is enough to prevent flowering, then why not split the 12 hours dark to 10 hours dark, one hour light (i've actually been using only 30 minutes), then 1 hour of dark again? that would allow plants in veg to synthesize more of the intermediary components compared to only 5.5 hours of dark.
14/10 might be pushing it. maybe i'll start with mimicking 16/8 with 8 hours dark, 30min light, then 3.5hrs dark again. and again, it's not about saving a few bucks: it's also about slowing down veg and, potentially, hastening the transition to flowering, it appears!
besides, 24/0 just doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view. while photosynthesis is happening, very little cellular respiration is happening. without cellular respiration, the plant wouldn't have any energy to do anything. it's the equivalent of saying that because you've been harvesting apples all day, you're not going to be hungry when dinnertime comes. that makes no sense. you have to eat the apples. likewise, the plant has to metabolize the glucose it's synthesized all day in order to grow foliage, leaves, produce hormones, whatever. 12-1 gives the plants more "downtime" from photosynthesis to actually get stuff done (lots of stuff you don't see).
the other benefit is the fact that you're not combing the huge stress of changing locations (different room, different temp, diff r/h, diff light intensity, diff light spectrum, diff ventilation, diff feed, maybe recent repot/transplant, diff EM field, etc.) with the full metabolic transition to flowering.
you may be able to grow a bunch of leaves quickly under 24/0, but if you have to sit around and wait several weeks for flowering to start, are you really gaining anything over 12/1 if 12/1 can get you flowering WEEKS faster than 24/0 and, therefore, HARVESTED weeks before something vegged under 24/0? what you lose in yield (if any) you'll make up for with potentially SEVERAL extra harvests per year! i can't say i'm absolutely sure: i haven't done it long enough. that's why i'm hoping more people try this rather than sit back like a stubborn mule stuck on 24/0. let's find out...
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
Yes they would/should be... but i'm not at your grow and only have your perception of events. Which could be skewed, or even bias in some way. i have no idea how you could have plants take 4 weeks to start flowering if they are mature enough for flower already.
giberillins are produced by the plant all the time, while the plant is alive it is producing them. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this.
the flowering hormone is known as florigen, and science presently believes that it is destroyed in light. If what you are saying is true and florigen is not destroyed by light then plants would flower irrespective of the hour in the middle of a 12/12 period. the whole point in the hour in the middle is that florigen is destroyed and the plant remains in veg'. For me saying that the hour is not enough to stop flowering is the same as you saying that florigen is built up like a hormonal primer.
14/10 is not enough to prevent flowering.
i thought it was about saving a few bucks? if you're giving 16 hours of light anyway, then what's the point in breaking up the dark int he middle? You're going way off track here now.
cellular respiration is not slowed during photosynthesis. they happen simultaneously.
never had to wait weeks for flowering to start after 24/0. I have plants show sex whilst still in veg. plants will pre-flower whilst still in veg. If you place your plants into flower before they pre-flower then this is known as force-flowering. where do you get the idea that 24/0 means you have to wait weeks for plants to flower?
azman
Active Member
the most of what skunk is saying does make sense,
if you veg under any lighting routing eventually you will see preflower's which for me is usually around 5 weeks.
i was sceptical my self when i had this lighting technique pointed out to me from a external source.
tbh i cant blame skunk to a extent defending his views, if i hadnt tried and seen for my self i would be abit scetptical too.
using this timing for me kept my girls just on the edge but DID prevent them going into flower.
they did show sex faster than normal meaning the hormone must have been there but the hour was enough to hold em in veg.
if you veg under any lighting routing eventually you will see preflower's which for me is usually around 5 weeks.
i was sceptical my self when i had this lighting technique pointed out to me from a external source.
tbh i cant blame skunk to a extent defending his views, if i hadnt tried and seen for my self i would be abit scetptical too.
using this timing for me kept my girls just on the edge but DID prevent them going into flower.
they did show sex faster than normal meaning the hormone must have been there but the hour was enough to hold em in veg.
So, I read to about page 5 and everyone is saying "his plants vegged taller!" and such and such. As if height was a desired attribute.
When plants lack light, they etiole, aka stretch. How'd two identical clones fare in two different rooms with two differing light regimens. I bet the 12-5-1-5 would have longer internodes. Can't hypothesize on the speed of attaining sexual maturity though, as I believe a dark period (vs 24h light) helps express sexual maturity quicker. (preflowers/alternating nodes).
The energy saved is minimal, and if that's the only advantage, then it's not worth the potential disadvantage. Less light hours = less energy production.
Also, for flowering, THC synthesization requires uv-b intersecting with the glandular trichome head, supplying the necessary focused energy. So no resin/THC is not produced at night.
When plants lack light, they etiole, aka stretch. How'd two identical clones fare in two different rooms with two differing light regimens. I bet the 12-5-1-5 would have longer internodes. Can't hypothesize on the speed of attaining sexual maturity though, as I believe a dark period (vs 24h light) helps express sexual maturity quicker. (preflowers/alternating nodes).
The energy saved is minimal, and if that's the only advantage, then it's not worth the potential disadvantage. Less light hours = less energy production.
Also, for flowering, THC synthesization requires uv-b intersecting with the glandular trichome head, supplying the necessary focused energy. So no resin/THC is not produced at night.
azman
Active Member
in an indoor grow the biggest limitation or me any ways is plant hight,
at the end of the flowering people put there plants into 36 hours of darkness to induce more thc ?
also energy saved is minimal?
3 600 watt light saving 5 hours each per day isnt a minimal saving over the veg stage, least i dont think it is,
at the end of the flowering people put there plants into 36 hours of darkness to induce more thc ?
also energy saved is minimal?
3 600 watt light saving 5 hours each per day isnt a minimal saving over the veg stage, least i dont think it is,
I dont particularly trust magazine info sometimes because its in their best interest if the people that advertise in their mags make more $ but I read that about the 36-72 hours of darkness before the chop makes them throw out more resin as well. They dun said its scientifically been proven, I've never done it myself.
haole420
Active Member
i'll try to respond to various posts, but my point isn't to win an argument or convert anyone over to the dark side. just want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. sounds like there was some misreading of my last post. clarification is for the sake of others who may read and want to try 12-1. i don't want them to be dissuaded.
first, i stand corrected: cellular respiration does, in fact, still take place during photosynthesis. don't know what i was thinking!
thanks for the bit on bushmaster. no wonder the guy at the hydro shop was pushing it on me: trying to ponzi that shit off onto me!
there are two kinds of florigen: anthesins, and gibberellins. see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Florigen#Research_history
there wasn't much online regarding anthesin synthesis pathways. there is a significant amount of literature on gibberellin synthesis pathways. i think using the more general term florigen isn't helpful, as the effect of light on the synthesis of anthesins and gibberellins differs. futhermore, florigens are not destroyed by light. light doesn't "destroy" any hormones, it simply prevents the full synthesis pathway from completing or at least that is my understanding. if not, every time you do turn the lights on during the light cycle, you're back to flowering day 1. obviously, that's not the case.
BIOACTIVE GA1 and GA20 (i.e., actual flower-inducing florigens) are unable to synthesize during photosynthesis. non-bioactive gibberellins that are precursors to bioactive forms (which ARE also florigens, just not the "final" bioactive ones that actually induce flower growth) are still formed in dark periods of less than 12 hours. turning on the light doesn't "destroy" them. this is a pretty important distinction. this is the basis of my hormonal "priming" theory under 12-1.
regarding THC and UVB, my understanding is that THC absorbs UVB. it acts as a sunblock. it's not created by UVB. i have little to no UVB in my flowering (only what the HPS may give off, if any), yet i get THC. so what's this about trichs requiring UVB for THC formation? where's this coming from?
also, you misread what i was saying about going to 16/8. i intent to try 8 hours of continuous dark before interrupting the dark cycle during 12-1. it's still a variation of 12-1. plan to switch to 12 light, 8 dark, 30min light again, then 3:30 dark again. under 12-1, people split the 12 hours dark into two 5:30 dark periods. i want to give "standard" 12-1 a few more weeks to get a sense of how it does before trying a variation. again, the rational is that (hopefully) plants can get further along the gibberellin (florigen, if you insist) synthesis pathway in 8 hours than in 6 hours. i'm still sticking with 12 hours of light, as the rate of growth i get with 12h light seems to be almost perfect for my pipeline.
regarding 24/0 schedule and the belief that "more light = more growth," sure, that's true, but you do have to take into account diminishing returns. photosynthesis becomes less efficient with every additional watt of light you throw at it as well as every additional hour of light you throw at it. a lot of professional growers will say that anything beyond 16hrs light isn't worth it. in other words, you get less out of those hours 17-24 than you do out of 9-16 and you get less out of 9-16 than you get out of the first 8 hours. it's an asymptotic curve, not a linear one. it'll plateau off after a certain point (around 16hrs).
as far as stretching goes, yes, insufficient light will cause plants to stretch, but i think we're talking about 2 different things here. i though we were talking about "the stretch" that occurs after throwing plants into flowering. the maui wowie, for instance, stretched like crazy even under 2x 600w HPS in a 4x4' area somewhere between 12-18" from the light. i don't think you can blame it on not enough light. we're not talking about some rinky dink thing stuffed in the corner 4ft away from a 23w CFL. i only run one 600w HPS in that section now because 1200w was counterproductive: too much heat, bleaching of upper leaves, even burning them, drying out tips of my buds toward the end. just goes to show you that more isn't always better. i had to dial it down to 2x 400w, then decided to just run one 600w full power and get better penetration than 2x 400w for better coverage.
regarding hastened flowering, i'm not talking about preflowers or a few pistils here and there. sure, you'll get preflowers if you veg long enough. who doesn't? i'm talking like 50+ pistils at each site in less than a week. i've never heard of or seen anything like that before, at least not in my grows. the proof is in the pudding. the following 3 photos are from the same flowering section, same lamp, same feed, same strain (white widow).
the photo above is of a plant that was under 12/12 then put under 11/13, where it has been about a month.
the above photo is of a plant roughly vegged for the same time/to the same size but under 12-1 (actually, 12-0:30) for about a week before going under 11/13. see?! i'm not talking about some preflowers or a few whiskery pistils. i think in about another week it'll look that the bud in the first photo that was vegged under a "conventional" lighting scheme.
same as above, but a few days behind the plant in the 2nd photo. maybe 5 days into flowering under 11/13 after vegging for about 10 days under 12-1.
first, i stand corrected: cellular respiration does, in fact, still take place during photosynthesis. don't know what i was thinking!
thanks for the bit on bushmaster. no wonder the guy at the hydro shop was pushing it on me: trying to ponzi that shit off onto me!
there are two kinds of florigen: anthesins, and gibberellins. see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Florigen#Research_history
there wasn't much online regarding anthesin synthesis pathways. there is a significant amount of literature on gibberellin synthesis pathways. i think using the more general term florigen isn't helpful, as the effect of light on the synthesis of anthesins and gibberellins differs. futhermore, florigens are not destroyed by light. light doesn't "destroy" any hormones, it simply prevents the full synthesis pathway from completing or at least that is my understanding. if not, every time you do turn the lights on during the light cycle, you're back to flowering day 1. obviously, that's not the case.
BIOACTIVE GA1 and GA20 (i.e., actual flower-inducing florigens) are unable to synthesize during photosynthesis. non-bioactive gibberellins that are precursors to bioactive forms (which ARE also florigens, just not the "final" bioactive ones that actually induce flower growth) are still formed in dark periods of less than 12 hours. turning on the light doesn't "destroy" them. this is a pretty important distinction. this is the basis of my hormonal "priming" theory under 12-1.
regarding THC and UVB, my understanding is that THC absorbs UVB. it acts as a sunblock. it's not created by UVB. i have little to no UVB in my flowering (only what the HPS may give off, if any), yet i get THC. so what's this about trichs requiring UVB for THC formation? where's this coming from?
also, you misread what i was saying about going to 16/8. i intent to try 8 hours of continuous dark before interrupting the dark cycle during 12-1. it's still a variation of 12-1. plan to switch to 12 light, 8 dark, 30min light again, then 3:30 dark again. under 12-1, people split the 12 hours dark into two 5:30 dark periods. i want to give "standard" 12-1 a few more weeks to get a sense of how it does before trying a variation. again, the rational is that (hopefully) plants can get further along the gibberellin (florigen, if you insist) synthesis pathway in 8 hours than in 6 hours. i'm still sticking with 12 hours of light, as the rate of growth i get with 12h light seems to be almost perfect for my pipeline.
regarding 24/0 schedule and the belief that "more light = more growth," sure, that's true, but you do have to take into account diminishing returns. photosynthesis becomes less efficient with every additional watt of light you throw at it as well as every additional hour of light you throw at it. a lot of professional growers will say that anything beyond 16hrs light isn't worth it. in other words, you get less out of those hours 17-24 than you do out of 9-16 and you get less out of 9-16 than you get out of the first 8 hours. it's an asymptotic curve, not a linear one. it'll plateau off after a certain point (around 16hrs).
as far as stretching goes, yes, insufficient light will cause plants to stretch, but i think we're talking about 2 different things here. i though we were talking about "the stretch" that occurs after throwing plants into flowering. the maui wowie, for instance, stretched like crazy even under 2x 600w HPS in a 4x4' area somewhere between 12-18" from the light. i don't think you can blame it on not enough light. we're not talking about some rinky dink thing stuffed in the corner 4ft away from a 23w CFL. i only run one 600w HPS in that section now because 1200w was counterproductive: too much heat, bleaching of upper leaves, even burning them, drying out tips of my buds toward the end. just goes to show you that more isn't always better. i had to dial it down to 2x 400w, then decided to just run one 600w full power and get better penetration than 2x 400w for better coverage.
regarding hastened flowering, i'm not talking about preflowers or a few pistils here and there. sure, you'll get preflowers if you veg long enough. who doesn't? i'm talking like 50+ pistils at each site in less than a week. i've never heard of or seen anything like that before, at least not in my grows. the proof is in the pudding. the following 3 photos are from the same flowering section, same lamp, same feed, same strain (white widow).
the photo above is of a plant that was under 12/12 then put under 11/13, where it has been about a month.
the above photo is of a plant roughly vegged for the same time/to the same size but under 12-1 (actually, 12-0:30) for about a week before going under 11/13. see?! i'm not talking about some preflowers or a few whiskery pistils. i think in about another week it'll look that the bud in the first photo that was vegged under a "conventional" lighting scheme.
same as above, but a few days behind the plant in the 2nd photo. maybe 5 days into flowering under 11/13 after vegging for about 10 days under 12-1.
skunkushybrid01
Well-Known Member
you didn't actually say that it didn't happen, you said that it is slowed down during photosynthesis. I only know bits of information but from what i've read they happen simultaneously and respiration is not slowed during photosynthesis. I think what happens is, particularly with people like us that have not been classically taught, is that we get some information and then make up information to fill in the gaps. the thing with respiration being slowed down sounds like an explanation from a MJ book and not based in actual science. However i could always be wrong, science also changes.... imagine how those poor people felt that still believed the world was flat.
No problem, i double checked the info after i posted it and it is correct that bushmaster is at least suspected of containing carcinogen(s). If you want to keep plants squat, then taking seedlings straight to 12/12 will do the job.
Yes, a very important distinction. If then florigen is not destroyed and does build up. wouldn't this eventually cause the plant to start flowering even in veg on a 20/4 basis... eventually. That's the logical conclusion. However, if the plant needs a certain amount of dark hours before the hormone is built up... like a minimum of 5 hours before the hormone starts to build then this would increase the length of time the plant can stay in veg.
Another thing too... if light does not destroy the hormone then how is it i can re-veg a plant either post harvest or even in the middle of flower? Is it that the flowering hormone is utilised right away so needs constant reproducing to maintain flower? that's the only way that can work, i think...
I believe marijuana man started this a few years ago... i was hooked when i watched the youtube videos he made. i'll try and find them...
here's one from back in 2007. hard to find now as some new young guy has come along and stolen his handle.
[video=youtube;lfiI78uN3Ks]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfiI78uN3Ks[/video]
Anyway, after watching that... where he shows that each trich contains two cells. i think it was that video, i've watched much more and also read some science on the trichome. where it shows that THC and CBD are produced independently of each other. anyway, the THC thing came from him. i was onto it back then. Since then however and lots of growers including myself have used UV supplementation, we've not found much trith to the UV-b precursor theory to THC. suffice to say my bulbs as well as those of many other growers are now gathering dust.
I apologise for misreading... but i'm still not seeing what you mean in regards to the other light schedules. Yes i think you should get some clones and do a standard 12/5.5/1/5.5 for a few weeks. I cannot wait to try this myself with some clones that are already ready to flower. my mothers are several years old and my cuts usually flower right away after a few days veg'. if florigen is built up... then i still think it should cause plants to flower if the plant receives a certain amount of light ina 24 hour period. If it does not work like that then surely the circadian rhythm is bunk... and if indeed the hour of light is enough to stop flower then surely light must destroy (in some manner or other) florigen.
in regards to light intensity then yes i can see your point. There is of course such a thing as too much light in regards to intensity... but there can be no diminishing returns in regards to light hours, aside from those garnered from the dark. Unless of course you are happy to have 12 hours less growth. i've done that too, place seedlings straight to 12/12 and they will still 'veg' for four weeks before starting to flower. so there has to be more to it than a simple build up of a hormone. a plant needs to be mature enough to produce the hormone in the first place.
the distinction between stretch caused by the shade response and flowering was made earlier in the thread. I have tried to keep the distinction clear. stretch during flower is solely genetic... stretch during veg is caused by low light during photosynthesis... I believe that whilst a plant is still in veg mode, it's stretch will correspond in some way to the period of light hours it received rather than the reverse (dark hours it receives). so giving a plant just 14 hours light per day should actually see less stretch (relatively) than a plant given 18 hours light.
I think that you may be correct that florigen is built up... but this is still the same thing as my saying that the hour in the middle is not enough to prevent flowering. I'm almost at a point where i can set up again, actually have some rooted clones. however my equipment is spread far and wide. soon as i get it back, i will do a normal veg and then use 12-5.5-1-5.5 to see if the hour does stop flower. if light doesn't destroy florigen as you say then the hour would surely not be enough to stop flower.
Gastman
Member
A number of very interesting points were made, but I tend to agree that genetics trump the "natural" environmental factors noted. After years of genetic cloning/hybrids, all presumably grown and evaluated under the classic 18/6 - 12/12 hour regime, the pot plant's genetics are no longer those of the "natural" outdoor plant. Just look at what we have done with dogs................