My seedling is about 9 days old. I have a 69W 2700K and 2 28W 5000K for 2 plants. One of the plant's main leaf is bent about 45 degrees from the stem. I monitored the angle of the bend over few days, it seems to be bending toward the 5000K CFL bulb. both 68W and 28W are equally spaced apart (about 2-3 inches). The sprout seems to prefer the 5000K over the 2700K. Every day, the angle of the main leaf and the stem increases to face the 5000K CFL. I just thought this was an interesting observation to anyone considering using 2700K over 5500 or "daylight" bulbs while vegging. Take a look at my drawn picture (a real pic is too late, the plant is completely straight now) Keep in mind the plant was originally facing the 2700K bulb (68W to the left, 28W to the right), and over 3-4 days it started growing toward the 5000K bulb. No stretching for light, it just went toward a different direction.
Do people really ever consider doing that? .... I thought it was common knowledge that ~2700k is for Flowering and ~6500k is for Vegging.
it is according to the chart posted in the stickies. but i saw some were asking a similiar question asking if there were any benefits to growing with 2700K as to using 6500K
Pretty cool. I never knew they favored the 6500k's, I just always thought they imitated spring time sun better. I wonder how this affects flowering at day 1.
So wait...you've made a scientific discovery based on a single 9-day old seedling, placed between bulbs of different wattages? Proof of nothing.
The best cfl grow I have seen was both vegged and flowered under 3500k. The were the fattest cfl buds i have EVER seen. I know this is a veg thing in this thread, just though i'd share
Hello there! Can you please point me in the direction of where any fucking body mentioned proof of something? Thanks bro!
lol. calm down... I was just posting an observation i made. No need to sound so elitist. It's just a sort of a fun fact
Wait, did you just say no need to sound like I adhere to the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority? Because that's elitism... I'm just saying, totally incorrect choice of words. But sorry about being a jackass earlier with the sarcasm. =D
he never said anything about proof? Also thats more proof than what people post on here usually? most people just say blah blah they like that blah blah spectrum of light more blah fucking blah. Cool, heres the thing though science is proven by experimentation, real life experiments > some blah blah theory that someone spewed out into a thread. So get off your high horse re-read the post and chill out.
By mentioning it there is an implication that this "observation" has wider relevance. Otherwise, why post it? One can only conclude that a poster puts some level of significance on the observation or they wouldn't have made the post in the first place. It was offered, after all, "to anyone considering using 2700K over 5500 or "daylight" bulbs while vegging" and in response to questions "asking if there were any benefits to growing with 2700K as to using 6500K." And it is eliciting responses about things someone never "knew" before and it being an interesting "find", so it is misleading people as being significant even if not intended to, and that certainly is worth addressing. OK, it isn't "proof" of nothing, it's an observation of nothing. I'm not dissing, and I'm not on a high horse, and I did read the post. I'm just pointing out to both the OP and the other readers that this one little observation could be random variation or any number of things, don't put significance into this one observation. It is not a valid response to questions about spectrum as it is implied to be.
im with toasy on this... there was no proof of anything... while it was a cool observation it does not help CFL users... of course the plant likes the veg light better... mj uses the two types of light for two different purposes .... i found this in five seconds.. and maybe it does not help my one sided view... but it does show that plants do different things with different types of light Plants, in fact, do grow faster under certain colors of light. The reason for this is that chloroplasts can only absorb certain wavelengths of light because of the pigments they contain. There are 2 photosystems in plants called photosystem I and II. PS I absorbs light on the wavelength of 700nm while PS II absorbs 680nm because of their utilization of chlorophyll A and B. These two frequencies are are known as the peak absorption points because they are the wavelength at which light is most strongly absorbed. Different forms of chlorophyll and other photosynthetic pigments absorb other other frequencies of light but PS I and PS II are what is used for synthesizing ATP and reducing power which plants use to grow. The visible spectrum of light is between 380-750nm for humans. Therefore PS I and II require red light to perform photosynthesis. As stated before, however, there are other photosynthetic pigments present in plants and other phototrophic species such as bacteria and algae that absorb other pigments. An example of this is the carotenoid pigment that absorbs primarily blue light as do chlorophyll A and B. Blue light contains more energy than red light but for PS I and II and plant growth both are needed. Studies in the 50's showed that the rate of photosynthesis increased under far-red and red light compared to other frequencies.
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments. The steps of the scientific method are to: \t Ask a Question Do Background Research Construct a Hypothesis Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion Communicate Your Results As you will notice in the scientific method the "Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment" is what he did here and it is using that method you answer scientific questions by making "observations", which is all anyone is doing here. I wasn't mislead by his post at all and there is no part of his post that makes any kind of assumption or states a fact about which light is better when. However i will say that this is more proof than someone just saying "5000k is more effective during veg than 2700k" and in fact if he conducts this experiment multiple times and gains the same result thats pretty go evidence. Its not a very good scientific experiment and there are a lot of variables unaccounted for I'm sure, but again he is only posting an observation...
^But that was my original point -- a single 9-day old seedling placed between bulbs of different wattages is not an experiment (not a scientifically supported one, anyway). To do an "experiment" you have to do it right. That means a large enough sample so that the laws of statistics can tell you if you are supporting your hypothesis or not (rather than seeing results by chance) and it means controlling for all conditions except the one you want to test. And even with these measures in place, to really be able to draw conclusions you need for other independent teams to replicate your methods and size and scope and come up with identical results. Otherwise, I could hop on my left foot and flip a coin once, get heads, and conclude from my "experiment" that hopping on my left foot causes a flipped coin to come up heads. That's not a scientific experiment -- which I know the OP never claimed to have done -- but whether a single coin flip or a single plant, the result just is not something that is projectable or generalizable or demonstrates anything beyond what could have happened by random chance. Believe me, I know all about this -- I test hypotheses for a living as a consultant to Fortune 500 companies. You need to design your experiments so that the results are statistically significant, with concerns for confidence intervals and margins of error and such, all of which are driven by mathematical principles. A sample of one automatically fails all such tests.
^^Thats awesome ! Before I even read your entire post I was thinking of an example to help explain and my first thought was the good old coin flip scenario. Secondly just like Dasfunk said I thought its general MJ growing knowledge that 2700k- warmer, more red light is better for flowering and 5000 or 6500k- cooler, more blue light is better for vegetative cycle ? I'm not taking sides but I think Toasty is right on the money, at least regarding how scientific method works. To the OP my brain works the same way your does, or at least similarly in this situation. I have a friend who is growing with cfls and has 4-30w 6400k bulbs and 1-30w 5000 "Full Spectrum" bulb. The bulbs are aligned horizontally plugged into power strips hanging above several seedlings. One of the newer seedlings he just added yesterday has drastically bent over and appears to be stretching specifically towards the 5000k full spec bulb. My initial thought was "Oh that bulb must be "better" for the plants" HOWEVER...then I looked at all the other seedlings and thought it strange that none of them have changed/moved in the slightest...could be that its not related to the bulb at all. Not saying there isn't research to be done but obviously control and a large sample are key. Again not taking sides just thought I'd comment as I recently witnessed something similar to this and found this page searching for answers.