Crescendo OG (Crescendo #2 x SFV OG) showing lots of promise early!
Flower - Day 35 of 70 (72" from top to bottom)
Temperature: 78 f
Humidity: 60 rh
CO2: 1,333 ppm
EC: 1.45
pH: 5.8
umols/m2/s: 1,250
Lighting: FOHSE Scorpio (top fixture (Summer spectral setting)), 2 x FOHSE Under Canopy 240 Pro (Mid-flower setting + Week 6 UV Introduction)
Grow Medium: RDWC
Control/Monitor: Blulab pH Controller, Trolmaster Hydro-X & Aqua-X, Hanna Instruments EC Controller
Nutrients: Athena Ag Blended Line + FADE
Dehumidification: Anden A100
Humidification: CloudForge
HVAC: Ghee, AC Infinity
Tent: 5x5 Gorilla Grow
Mixer: Aeromixer/Aerobrewer
Oxygenation: Air stones/pumps
Handheld sensors: Apogee MQ-610 PAR Meter, Trolmaster MBX-PAR Full Spectrum Quantum Sensor, Hanna Instruments Dissolved Oxygen Meter, Blulab pH meter, H&M EC Meter
5 Likes
Fantastic! I’d love to know the overall effect of this lady when done!
2 Likes
Absolutely, I’ll definitely provide a smoke update!
2 Likes
She’s maturing faster than anticipated for mid-flower, beginning to show signs of fading on some of the lower leaves.
Flower - Day 40 of 63-70 (72" from top to bottom)
Temperature: 77f
Humidity: 63% rh
CO2: 1,319 ppm
EC: 1.45
pH: 5.8
umols/m2/s: 1,250
@midwestfireicewater
4 Likes
Interesting lighting setup. I’ll have to look into this light for curiosity.
Have you run the under lighting before and what were the results?
2 Likes
The under-canopy lighting eliminates all larf at the bottom while increasing the umols in the middle complementing my top light resulting in higher quality flower throughout the entire plant.
2 Likes
Oh 100% I agree on the results but do you crush the numbers and figure out the difference in weight?
1 Like
I haven’t conducted any “A B” tests, however, prior to I would have larf towards the bottoms if I didn’t lollipop high enough and ever since I don’t have to lollipop as high and get zero larf. I would have to antidotally say that I am getting higher yields while also achieving higher quality. I can also see much more trichome development on the lowers than when previously running without. Considering the minimal cost and the realized results, I’m a big fan.
1 Like
Super cool! Thank you. Just changed back to bulbs again so I don’t feel a need right now but definitely when switching back next spring/summer. Hopefully some more options come out up here.
1 Like
Since I haven’t run an A: B test, I took a picture of the lowest flower on the plant and measured the distance to the under-canopy fixture, distance to top fixture and the distance to the top of the canopy in order to provide a better perspective.
48" to the top fixture
33" to the top of the canopy
14" above the under-canopy fixture
48" to the top light is quite far, so without the under-canopy LEDs these flowers would get minimal PPFD. Typically, in my experience, flowers this low are usually larfy or airy and lacking any significant trichome development at this distance from the top fixture.
@midwestfireicewater
2 Likes
