Alright. I'm just kind of over the whole you can't get a good product with CFLs. YOU CAN! I run a small space box with 2 plants at a time and 230 watts of CFLs and ONLY CFLs. I get great dense buds. I get between 14 and 18 grams dry per plant. Now the argument that HPS and LED will produce more and better is true BUT if you are on a budget or don't have much to work with CFLs are a great option. I'll post pictures of my two white widow plants in the CFL grow in the morning when they wake up. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
These plants are 35 days old today I would also like to note that I run a 1000 watt Kind LED in my main grow. This CFL grow is for fun and experiments. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Sorry hon...those are not good dense buds. Going to the trouble of growing a plant for all that length of time and getting only grams...not even 1 oz. per plant is not worth my time or energy. We get oz's per plant with proper lighting. It's not that it won't happen, it's just that it's not yielding enough for the effort. TWW
Widow I agree that CFL is not as good as HPS or LED. Please read the post. Now if you are on a budget like I said. Or if you don't have a lot to work with like I said. CFLs are great. About the density of the nugs you are wrong. These colas are easy 3.4-4 grams dry by them selfs right now. Not to mention they still have 20 days to go. Also I'm sorry you're only getting 1 oz per plant. My 1000 watt led grow averages 1.5-2 pounds with 4 plants under one thousand watt. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Its not that you cant get decent smoke from cfls its that you cant get near in quality or yeild as opposed to using mh/hps. If your going for purely quality running straight cmh/mh for veg/flower is the way to go.
That depends on how you define "quality". You think you could tell the difference in the smoke quality of CFL over HID with all other factors being held equal? CFLs produce fine results and have advantages that HIDs do not. Certainly theyre not for everyone nor are they ideal in most cases. But they are the easiest light source to use for your average person that simply wants to grow some trees for the least possible cost.
well your post gives me hope! some people have very few resources to get there medicine, sometimes you gotta take what you can get to start with and roll with it..who knows tho I am a noob, who just sits back and salivates at HID/LED grows, who knows maybe Santa will be good this year and send me an HPS kit ^.-
Yes I do, the terpene content of lec/cmh will be better than cfls. Cfls definitely have their place as all lighting as its pros/cons Quality only - cmh/lec all through flower Yeild - flower hps Budget/stealth - cfl
I guess the question then is, "just how much better is it"? Is there any evidence to back it up? Or is it akin to "adding UVA/B for "danker" buds" in which the jury is still out. To further the point, what is it about cmh/lec that produces more terpene?
They have the widest spectrum comparing to natural sunlight compared to hps and most(all) leds im aware of. This results in the healthiest plant, sacrificing maybe 5-10% in yeild compared to hps is worth it imo. As far as peer reviewed factual evidence, unfortunately this whole industry isn't at that point yet. Shit most of everything isn't there yet but from the most experienced growers i know and researched (and believe me i do my research) they all conclude the same.
For stealth reasons, I grew in a PC case with 4 x 23w CFL's for over 2 years and was never disappointed. I didn't even fool with light temps some of the time. I did one grow start to finish with only 5600k's. Yielded over an ounce with a NL auto in a 1.7 gallon container. CFL's produce fine smoke. We bought a house, so I use my PC case as my veg chamber now and a 6 year old 180w LED for flowering in my closet. Not even a blip on my electric bill. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
How is having the "widest spectrum" that beneficial when you consider something like PAR? Assuming the PAR region is 400-700 what good is anything wider than that particular spectrum? I mean there is actual science backing that up, right?
Youll note i said widest spectrum comparing to natural light, this means it's the closest you can get. Not widest spectrum of light. The results are out there man don't take any advice without doing your research and don't do your research on forums. Most people on here don't know shit or parrot or blind leading the blind. All i know is the best growers arent wrong.
it's more expensive to get started with cfl than it is a 400mh, I grew plenty of good pot under a 200w cfl. ..quality compared to what? manicured pot from the despensary? How stoned do you want to get. Give me a 200w cfl and I can stay stoned all the time. More like the difference between rot gut and well aged booze. they both get you drunk if you drink enough.
Fluorescents are great for cloning and vegging, but they just don't have the Umph! to drive cannibis through flowering efficiently. Yes, you can use fluorescents, but you can also walk naked down your local Interstate highway. Neither is a good idea.Use fluorescents for vegging to save $$$, then drive it home with HPS. I have used a plethora of lights, but prefer MH to drive veg, and then I switch to HPS to finish.
I disagree with all the negativity about CFLs.. I think they are a good way to grow on a budget and if your down on space, it's all about the light intensity and you can get some CFLs with the perfect spectrums of light just for cannabis. So why not? What if like he said he has a 1000w light running in his main grow and his is just an experiment or even a point proven that CFL lighting is great for the beginner grower or budget grower .. Any ways that's just my opinion and everyone free to their own .... I enjoy the debates and different points of views on all aspects. I always say there is always more to learn and somebody will always have some better knowledge than you do happy growing