Grams per Day

[Leonardo De Garden]

How do you know the light issue you had a week into budding didn't drop your GDP?....

this, of course, is MHO and I will add that, if you are worried about gram count, you're probably either not producing enough or are in it for the money? I stopped counting grams long ago, I guesstimate from time to time for fun, but actual numbers mean little besides the number of jars filled. It also appears you're judging different strains and grow times and thinking your numbers will show something....I can't figure what except it will say different strains produce different amounts? Comparing those numbers would only confuse things imho....but I've gone straight from bed to a wake-n-bake, so I could be :confused2: not uncommon....lol

Because that's the point of tracking GDP, to tell if the overall success increases or decreases, kind of like a grade earned for the effort. Did this one or that one actually produce more for what you put into it.

Yes, one of the goals is to find out which strains actually grow which amounts, or which nutrient lines, or light intensities or whatever. If I try a more expensive nutrient line against a cheaper one with a pair of clones, not only do I want to know if it's better, but is it enough better? At to my tracking the harvested grams, I track several other factors and traits as well.

To address some of the previous comments as to quality, the simple answer is to not grow crappy weed. I only hobby garden myself, but I'm pretty picky about what I put in.

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

Just to be clear, I mean that it is most useful when comparing your own grows and plants against each other than for bragging rights of some sort.

 

[pcduck]

Well being that you are discussing just the efficiency between your own grow to check on improvement. This is just a much easier way to tell for me, with less variables.

 

[ozzydiodude]

bragging right for me is when I smoke a joint with some one then got to wake then up and give then a paper towel to wipe the drool off the chin

 

[Dan K. Liberty]

LOL ozzy . . . I smoked 2 grams in five minutes . . . damn efficient !! :rofl:

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

bragging right for me is when I smoke a joint with some one then got to wake then up and give then a paper towel to wipe the drool off the chin

Always a good sign.

 

[canon]

LDG... I hear you loud and clear. Perhaps too clear. :hubba:
A lot of folks measure by Grams / per watt and all sorts of ways.
Think I'm on the same bus as you.
I run a perpetual set up. Lighting cost are pretty much constant.
I gravitated towards measuring time / by grams awhile ago. Feel it's the best measure of efficiency in a sliding rule sort of evaluation. I say that because I also figure in how many hits per gram (quality), taste, smell, trimming, resistance atributes, and such.

I find it very worth while when comparing either strains/ techniques / or cost per (whatever). In the end, is it most enjoyment per day of growing (was it worth it).

Much of it is pure subjective because I may like something particular than is above average cost to run. But since I enjoy it to a point,, some sacrifices are durable.
I think your post is a strong deciding factor in deciding a strain's / technique's worth... from a personal standpoint. Not everyone likes the same thing and this does help in deciding amoung favorites at times. :icon_smile:

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

LDG... I hear you loud and clear. Perhaps too clear. :hubba:
A lot of folks measure by Grams / per watt and all sorts of ways.
Think I'm on the same bus as you.
I run a perpetual set up. Lighting cost are pretty much constant.
I gravitated towards measuring time / by grams awhile ago. Feel it's the best measure of efficiency in a sliding rule sort of evaluation. I say that because I also figure in how many hits per gram (quality), taste, smell, trimming, resistance atributes, and such.

I find it very worth while when comparing either strains/ techniques / or cost per (whatever). In the end, is it most enjoyment per day of growing (was it worth it).

Much of it is pure subjective because I may like something particular than is above average cost to run. But since I enjoy it to a point,, some sacrifices are durable.
I think your post is a strong deciding factor in deciding a strain's / technique's worth... from a personal standpoint. Not everyone likes the same thing and this does help in deciding amoung favorites at times. :icon_smile:

In another thread I'm running 2 clones side by side, one in organic, and one in chem. Obviously one thing I'm interested in is how much each produces, so I'll calculate the GPD for each. I also want to know if there is a difference in flavor, so I'll do a blind taste test for that. Different tools for different situations. Since I grow for personal use, obviously flavor is going to count for more than size, but I'm not going to ignore valuable growth data just because it isn't the most important factor.
What if the flavors are equal?

That growing has too many variables to use science with is nonsense. It's applied science, not witchcraft, and the basics aren't that hard to learn if people try just a little.

 

[ross]

I think the op meant average grams per day, not that you could literally know how much weight each plant put on each day.

 

[Dan K. Liberty]

:stoned:I thought he meant how many days from seed to chop and how many grams that many days produced in final weight

 

[SensiStarFan]

I calculate the GPD as well but I do not necessarily go with what it says is the highest yielding plants. If I have a plant that takes 10 weeks to finish and after 70 days produces 84 grams giving me 1.08 GPD, and I am comparing that to a plant that finishes in 56 days and produces 59 grams giving me 1.05 GPD, I will lean towards the 8 week strain assuming the smoke quality is equal. Over the course of 1 year the 8 week strain would yield 384.6 grams versus 438 grams a year for the 10 week strain, meaning I am giving up 53.4 grams per year by going with the shorter growing strain. However, I gain some advantages in the grow room. First my plants are turned over faster leading to the possibility for more variety. Second, if a mistake is made in the growing not as much time is lost in the process. If I ruin a cycle the amount of lost time is greater if growing longer flowering strains. The same thing goes for pests. If I wake up tomorrow and find that mites have taken over my flowering plants, I can restart and finish a new crop faster with the shorter flowering strains.
I consider both GPD and GPW. The GPW tells me about the total efficiency of my garden as a whole while the GPD tells me about the efficiency of a certain strain/pheno. Both are very usefull but alone are not the determining factors in what I grow. I would take an ounce of dank over a QP of mids any day of the week.

-SSF

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

I think the op meant average grams per day, not that you could literally know how much weight each plant put on each day.

Correct, it's just an overall indication of how well a grow or plant produced. There are a variety of factors that should also be considered, but it is a useful indication of performance.

 

[pcduck]

Correct, it's just an overall indication of how well a grow or plant produced.

After a few grows, the grower should be able to tell if their room is dialed in or not, without all this confusing math.jmo

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

After a few grows, the grower should be able to tell if their room is dialed in or not, without all this confusing math.jmo

And if you are the sort of gardener that likes to garden by "feel" then that is one way to do it. Plenty of folks garden without any notes or much math at all.

I'm just saying that for those that do want to do the math, GPD-grams per day (amount harvested / number of days in grow) is an easy way to calculate a number that has value, and can be extended to include costs, comparisons, and production ratings. And unlike a lot of the "math" on the Internet forums about such things, it is actually mathematically sound and scientifically useful.

I'm not claiming that it is something a gardener has to do. Only that those with the desire to garden with a bit more of a scientific bent to things should know how to do at least the base calculation for production rate.

 

[Roddy]

Truly, after the first few times growing out the same strain, one can tell (per plant) how well it did compared to past grows, no math needed. Figuring gram to cost ratios seems like would give better info....imho....if one wanted to know such things. I know the stuff I am growing costs FAR less than it would to buy like product...that's all that matters to me

Not knocking your thoughts, just not sure I understand how they can be of much help (to me, at least)...and certainly not something I'm gonna get my mind all burned out over....enough crazy things to figure out without adding that to the mix I'm sure there are many out there that try to figure every little angle, though...

 

[Roddy]

After a few grows, the grower should be able to tell if their room is dialed in or not, without all this confusing math.jmo

I guess we both said the same thing only differently :aok:

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

... Figuring gram to cost ratios seems like would give better info....i

Not knocking your thoughts, just not sure I understand how they can be of much help (to me, at least)... I'm sure there are many out there that try to figure every little angle, though...

If you take your expenses into account, you can tell exactly how much your garden costs each day to run as well. While I'm sure that many gardeners have no issue at all keeping things in the black, it is possible for someone new to gardening in a legal state where prices have dropped to basement levels to blow enough $$ on overpriced gear and nutes to actually run in the red.

And when comparing nutes or whatever head to head, every angle you can cover is exactly what you want to look at. So it's not for everyone, but for those that are into the science end of it, it is handy to know.

 

[Roddy]

I can't imagine a price where growing my own wouldn't be more cost effective than buying, price of start-up and all, and I know I'm smoking top shelf (this is the thing most important to me). I know the prices around here are pretty low, yet I know many that are truly making a living (some spending upwards of $25k for their set-up....no joke).

Unless you buy LED.....maybe? :rofl:

 

[Leonardo De Garden]

I can't imagine a price where growing my own wouldn't be more cost effective than buying, price of start-up and all, and I know I'm smoking top shelf (this is the thing most important to me). I know the prices around here are pretty low, yet I know many that are truly making a living (some spending upwards of $25k for their set-up....no joke).

Unless you buy LED.....maybe? :rofl:

First, I encourage everyone to grow their own and keep money as far away from your weed as you can. I don't do deals of any kind.

But

Take into account that wholesale in California right now is in the ballpark of 1k-1,200 a pound if you are connected. Now walk into a hydro store with newbie eyes, and buy the entire line of the most expensive stuff on the market. And sure toss on that LEDs are the way to go, all the sales literature says so. And because of all the hot shot advice from friends, need to have at least 1k watts per plant which makes it easy to hit that tier 3 extra expensive electricity rate from the electric company.

No, it isn't easy to shoot yourself in the foot bad enough to make it not a better and cheaper way to go, unless you totally wipe out and kill everything. But it is possible, and I know that people do it because I've seen them plunk down big bucks for a silica supplement from company A when a more potent version is on the market from company B for less than half the price. If you really want to know which is the better deal, run them side by side for a grow. Calculate the production (GPD) for each, and see for yourself which is the better deal.

Same goes for nutrients, if company A sells a line for $300, I want to see improvement over company B's $60 line. Okay yes, if either taste like crap, I'm going with the other, but if I can't tell the difference? Why donate $240 to the "because our marketing says it's cool" fund? I don't mind paying top dollar for a distinct improvement, but you aren't going convince me that a $60 bottle is that much better than a $20 bottle without some actual hard data to back that up, and you can't trust squat about what they claim, you practically have to run it yourself to know for sure.

No not everyone has to run the tests, but if enough people do, and they do it right, and report their findings, then overall the market pressure will improve the products, not just reward the best ad men. So does your regular run of the mill gardener need to do this if they don't really care about the results, of course not, if it isn't your thing, it isn't your thing, but for the geek gardeners, who let's face it don't get a lot of love, they should at least be able to learn how to do it right. Because it's the geek gardeners that grow up to design nutrients with the chemists (yes with organics too, chemistry doesn't differentiate other than if something has carbon in it), and the better educated they are, the less random crap in bottles show up on the market.

If the math doesn't appeal, skip it, it isn't your bag, if it does, it's only fair you learn how to do it right.

 

[hottip]

I just grows it kills it drys it jams it in me pipe and smokes it

grows+kills+drys+jams=:fly:
Math comp[lete

BWD

Thats the same process that I use too.