Psuagro wrote:

SisterMaryElephant wrote:*If* it has "the same light output' as a 250w HPS then it's still too much for 4 sqft because I still wouldn't run 250w HPS in a 2x2 tent. Seriously, I know you like the CMH technology but it's jut not appropriate for his small veg tent...

I RESPECTFULLY disagree .........growers regularly run 2ft eight bulb T5 fixtures in that space for veg and it draws around 195w vs 205w CMH(minus the mag ballast wattage. can use a remote one) so the same cooling is necessary. we live on earth so amp x volt = watt .... a watt is a watt ......but you gain a way better spectral distribution with the cmh and "happier" girls.

Now you're comparing 200+w of fluorescent lighting to 200+w HID. It's not the draw it's the output. Even 300+w of fluorescent lighting wouldn't compare to much less HID lighting. You're going to have to do better than that. I thought you said that you were a grower?

FCGFrank wrote:It would never have crossed my mind to build two 4x4 to alter the load on the electrical grid. That is a brilliant idea.

If HID isn't an option, I'd rather not get too many different technologies and stick to LED then. The SS200W isn't very expensive.

Remember that I still have this 2x4 tent, so if I follow your train of thought:

4x8 (or two 4x4) for flowering
one 4x4 for vegging
one 2x4 for clones (?)
one 2x2 for curing
one 2x2 for mothers
one vault to keep it all, and in darkness bind them

Or I could do without mothers and just take cuttings from my vegging plants?

Absolutely, with two 4x4 areas for flowering you can have one on at night and the other on during the day. The end result is 24 hours of 1/2 the load rather than 12 hours of full load.

Here's how I'd do it:
two 4x4 for flowering
one 4x4 for vegging
one 2x2 for clones
one 2x4 for drying/curing depending on how you plan to cure...
one 2x2 for mothers (assuming that you don't have many mothers)

SisterMaryElephant wrote:

Psuagro wrote:

SisterMaryElephant wrote:*If* it has "the same light output' as a 250w HPS then it's still too much for 4 sqft because I still wouldn't run 250w HPS in a 2x2 tent. Seriously, I know you like the CMH technology but it's jut not appropriate for his small veg tent...

I RESPECTFULLY disagree .........growers regularly run 2ft eight bulb T5 fixtures in that space for veg and it draws around 195w vs 205w CMH(minus the mag ballast wattage. can use a remote one) so the same cooling is necessary. we live on earth so amp x volt = watt .... a watt is a watt ......but you gain a way better spectral distribution with the cmh and "happier" girls.

Now you're comparing 200+w of fluorescent lighting to 200+w HID. It's not the draw it's the output. Even 300+w of fluorescent lighting wouldn't compare to much less HID lighting. You're going to have to do better than that. I thought you said that you were a grower?

Who said I was a grower?? I just learned "it" on the interwebs ....Now your toying with me, you know what I meant


^ the girls look healthy Frank/scrog holes are a tight fit ......ppms??

I thought that YOU said that you were a grower.

Sorry, but 1w fluorescent does NOT equal 1w HID nor even 1w LED. They are all different animals but LED comes closer to HID than fluorescent at least. I wouldn't use a fluorescent light for veg at all. As I said, the 250w CMH, regardless of the power draw, is too much for 4 sqft.

SisterMaryElephant wrote:

FCGFrank wrote:Here's how I'd do it:
two 4x4 for flowering
one 4x4 for vegging
one 2x2 for clones
one 2x4 for drying/curing depending on how you plan to cure...
one 2x2 for mothers (assuming that you don't have many mothers)

Sounds good. If I go with a perpetual system I'd probably be more efficient (at least more simple) to grow a single strain and I would definitely stray away from pure sativas like kali mist that take 90 days to flower.

If Health Canada really doesn't alter their plans about the MMAR and I'm forced to open a dispensary to keep growing legally, I would ideally want a set of tents, as listed above, for each different strain I grow. Say, a quality sativa, a quality indica and a CBD rich strain.

At that time the concern becomes: how do you price different strains? I won't be subjected to the usual laws of the market as the black market prices will not affect me at all, nor will competitors or supply & demand. Supporting even 50 patients would require I harvest 10 pounds A MONTH (assuming 3g/day prescription like I have now)! I am quite sure there will be a lot more demand than supply. Regardless, Health Canada proposed 10$/g but they will let us price our product as we see fit. If if I were to sell AK47 for 10$/g, technically I should be selling Kali Mist at twice the price because it literally takes twice as long to flower, but nobody would pay 20$/g for weed (I imagine), so my guess is you don't see a lot of pure sativas in dispensaries? Then again, people in Northern Canada pay as much as 30$/g for whatever they can get their hands on, so who knows.

Only thing that made me want to grow Kali Mist was the "energizing" high everybody keeps referring to. Because being couch locked at 1:00PM during a work day, 15 min before you're about to get on a conference call with Germany, isn't a productive method of medicating oneself.

Psu: Been hanging around 850-900PPM for weeks now. Holes are 2x2 inches.

Well...you can can keep mothers/clones of different strains in the same tents and you could dry harvests of different strains in one tent but for flower and veg you're better off with some separation.

If it takes longer to grow or yield is less but potency is better people will have to pay more. I can't say what pricing is/should be in Canada; here it's often about the same price on the street as the co-ops. Sometimes it's cheaper on the street.

Every strain has somebody claiming that's it's the best for this that or the other. Just grow what you like and if you get bad feedback on one try something different.

SisterMaryElephant wrote:Every strain has somebody claiming that's it's the best for this that or the other. Just grow what you like and if you get bad feedback on one try something different.

It's true that most claims are bullshit. Ed R's books makes it clear that the physiopathology of how the high functions is not understood at all. It's the only grower's book that was honest about it. It didn't stop many other authors from stating things such as "it's the ratio of CBD and THC that will affect the high" as facts. Thankfully, it's not ALL bullshit.

Ever since JAMA published a paper that proved CBD could bind to CB2 receptors and THC cannot (circa 2009 if memory serves), it pretty much solidified the idea that CBD is the principal cannabinoid of interest for medical applications. At the very least, for people with auto-immune diseases like me, since the CB2 network is responsible for modulating inflammatory processes, among other things. And yet I still read about doctors claiming there is a lack of evidence to support the theory that cannabis has medicinal properties. I taught undergrads and even their little brains could grasp the study data when I presented it to them. It's irrefutable, quantifiable, empirical science. You should have your MD revoked by the board if you say stupid shit on public venues. It's such a fucking shame there isn't more research being done about cannabinoids. The law is too undefined and nobody wants to invest hundreds of thousands into research that has very little commercial potential for the time being. It's so shortsighted.

The good news is that I made a few phonecalls and it would cost me a LOT less than I thought to set up an in-house lab for analysis. A GC (or LC), coupled with my new microphotography equipment, would allow empirical feedback on the grow method. Eventually, assuming conditions that are constant, I could probably establish a protocol on a strain by strain basis that would let me know exactly how many days I'd need to wait before harvesting for ultimate potency. I could have so much fun in an in-house lab. Not to mention it is fantastic PR.

Here the Feds say that it's so bad it can't even be used for research but there is a new bill in Congress to get the feds out of it and let the individual states decide. Once the Feds are out of the picture there will be more solid research.

That testing can be taken to extremes, are you going to test the tops the middle and the bottom flowers? How about different positions under the light? How about different kinds of lights? Organic vs non? Soil vs hydro? Nute A vs B? Low PPM vs Higher PPM? There are so many variables besides strain and time...

SisterMaryElephant wrote:That testing can be taken to extremes, are you going to test the tops the middle and the bottom flowers? How about different positions under the light? How about different kinds of lights? Organic vs non? Soil vs hydro? Nute A vs B? Low PPM vs Higher PPM? There are so many variables besides strain and time...

The main reason to get an in-house lab in my case is for analysis, not research. Five samples taken across the canopy, analyzed for CBD and THC content (so 10 samples total), would act both as proof I cultivate a potent product to the customer, and as feedback to me to make sure I maximize the potential of the genetics I grow. If I grow scrog with a light mover I should end up with an even canopy that matures at at even rate, but I would still visually inspect trichromes at 10x magnification before harvest first to make sure I don't cut too soon. Isn't maximum potency hardwired to the plant's DNA, though? If maximum THC content is capped at 21%, shouldn't you be able to get there regardless of which method or light or nutes you use?

Ed R's book mentions a harvesting technique that involves harvesting the top first, then waiting another week for the middle to mature, harvest that, then wait another week to harvest the bottom. It makes total sense if you're growing trees, but if you grow low, even canopies with a scrog like I am doing, does it still apply? I guess I'll see in three months

If I used pesticides I would normally want to test for those as well but if I go 100% organic route there is no need to test for it.