MH vs. CFL for veg

Discussion in 'Growing Marijuana Indoors' started by Enuff4All2Share, Apr 11, 2008.

  1. Has anyone ever done a shootout of this? I have seen the benefits of MH for veg, but I've not noticed a great deficiency with using CFL's, either. Depending on your grow style, it seems either does just fine. Even just a pro/con list would be nice to see. My reasons are simple. CFL's were the path of least resistance - cheaper, less heat, less setup, more readily available. Why do you use what you use for veg?

  2. If you don't mind waiting ages for them to grow then use cfl's. If you want faster growth and maturity go with HID. Personally I'd never dream of using cfl for any stage of growth... not even my clones.
  3. Have you used both? I'm curious about the difference in times. The thing is, my plants vegged fine under CFL's. By the time my flowering room emptied, my next round was ready, so the amount of grow time wasn't an issue. That being said, I've not had any experience with MH, and my CFL-vegged crops that were "Just Fine" may not even hold a candle to MH-vegged plants. I'd like to see a side-by-side. Anyone wanna give me a MH? I can't pay shipping, but I'll PM you a thank you note with a bawdy lymric!

  4. CFL's are cheap, cool, and effective. Stealthiest of growing. I'm using 2 CFL's right now for my seedlings, may need to pick some more up.
  5. Hmmm.... sometimes I forget that not everyone's growing ambitions are the same as mine. I suppose once you hit a larger scale, CFL's become impractical, wouldn't they? Like covering a 10' x 10' room? One 42w/square ft. would be tough I'd suppose.

  6. I'm only growing 2 plants so CFL's are ideal for me. I don't know much about how many lights per sqft or anything though.
  7. even if I just had one plant I'd grow it beneath a 400w... plants don't just need spectrum they need intensity.
  8. That's fine for your opinion, but for those of us who don't want high electric bills, and don't want to shell out ridiculous money for a freaking light..cfl's are just fine... there are plenty of examples online of people vegging AND flowering good harvests using cfl' the heat issue is pretty much nil...there will always be people who bash anything other than "their" way,...Ive actually read studies where MH was crappy for plants.. not sure I believe that...but it just goes to show that asking for opinions rather than seeing for yourself just doesnt do any good...I suggest doing what you are doing if YOU are satisfied with the results...
  9. Well I switched from MH to CFL's for veg just to same some $$ and lower the heat. I had very similar results using both. If you have a small grow I'd go for the CFL's during veg.

  10. But that's the question, isn't it? Do they need the intensity during veg? I understand during flowering... but I've seen good results with CFL's for veg right here. Admittedly I've read only half, but mister postman's grows were excellent, and he vegged with CFL's. Hashmouf had great remarks about vegging with CFL's. My experience tells me they're adequate for most personal home gardens - just not large-scale ops. But until I see some sister clone experiments, I'll not know...

    Still waiting for that MH offer...
  11. all depends on the scale of your grow imo.
  12. well I enjoy the fact that I can vegetate a plant for 24 hours and have it show sex in 28 days of vegetation. I've also grown plants in a pure UV environment and they pre-flowered in just 25 days of vegetation. The UV bulb was 300w by the way.

    Fluoro's and cfl's are shit, wouldn't even use them for my clones.

    I've only ever seen one decent grow done with CFL's, and I think 24 of them were used on one plant... I'd need to recheck that but it is an approximate.

    Between my two areas I run a total of 1500w (I use the 300w UV in flower alongside 2 400w HPS, and in veg a 400w MH)... it doesn't add much to my bill.
  13. Really? wow. Your MH grow must've been a real mess.
  14. I agree, they are adequate for veg... if you don't mind waiting.

    For flower though, they are out of the question.

  15. I'd have my males outta the closet by 3 weeks. It was the strain that did it, though, not my lights or my intensely green thumb.

  16. intensity is not as important as spectrum at all. Keep those lower intensity lights close as possible and you won't have to worry about it. Plants don't see the intensity of a light like we do they are looking for proper spectrum and uvb. Ceramic Metal Halide bulbs does all that and then some. ;) Seen many 1000watt and 600watt HPS users go to a 400watt CMH and not look back, yields are not suffering from lower wattage. Done properly people have done 1lb to 1.75lbs off of a 400watt CMH. ;) Think about it the sun gives all the spectrum ranges and uv a plant needs outside so why not use a bulb that most closely mimics that. ;) Mother nature knows her shit listen to her. ;)
  17. CMH is old news and been around for about 10 years. Ceramic metal halide does not burn much cooler than ordinary fixtures, and they don't perform as well.

    I also doubt very much that one would downgrade from a 1000w and be happier with the results.

    If CMH was any good people would have continued using them years ago...
  18. ummm beg to differ my friend seen many results that speak for themselves especially on international cannagraphic's forums as well as from my own setup. Also the Ceramic Metal Halides that are being used now have not been out for 10 years they have only been out for the past couple years at least the ones that Philips makes the MasterColor Ceramic Matal Halide HPS-retro WHites. The 1000 watt and 600 watt models are due out this summer from what I have heard so that will ultimately put things to rest.
    check out the site and see for yourself. These work in standard 400watt HPS magnetic core ballasts and they do run about 10 degrees cooler than a normal hps or MH especially and I can vouch for this since I used a MH and HPS before using this bulb and I could keep the plants much closer without problems and less need for intensive air cooling of the bulb. IT doesn't radiate heat like an HPS or MH does that is the main reason for the temp difference. SO please research and make sure you know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. ;)
  19. You see I have done a lot of research and spoken to many growers that use and have used CMH... and CMH lights have been available for around 10 years. I think it is you that is lacking the research.

    Here's what I was told, they burn just as hot... and they offer less lumens. End of story.
  20. that is what you were told have you actually done your own testing??? Cause I have and yes CMH has been around for that long but what I mean't was the new ones that Philips makes have been around for only about 2 years and are a bit different than your plain jane CMH. They don't burn as hot and lumens isn't neccessarily all you are looking for when growing. Full spectrum availability is a must when going for the best quality. You sir lack the research and never tested on your own so how do you truly know???? I use it and with great success so that is my story and I am sticking too it MOn. ;)

Share This Page