New Grower GPW...What?

[SkatterBrayne]

Unless in a Lab. none of this means diddly.
I'm not knocking those that like numbers and graphs - enjoy if you need those to be comfortable.
But there are some things that cant be fittted into a formula- sorry.

Tell that to every single business in the world.

It's called managerial accounting, and I assure you it is worth more than 'Diddly'. It is a critical component of any well run operation. There are various ways to account for various things, all of which is completely relevant

And everything can be quantified by numbers, unless it is intangible or imaginary in which case it is also irrelevant.

You can't condense everything into a single formula, but you can define different aspects of an operation with quantitative values, which when combined can paint a very clear picture of WHAT is going on in a given operation.

 

[SkatterBrayne]

I'm suggesting this: if we can't find the right formula for that, it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Improving yealds = more grams = more g/wh => improving PAR = improving economy of the growth.

This must be true and it can be seen in the evolution of the leds spectrums.

Cheers:thumbs:

Which is what I said, it will result in improved results but in terms of quantifying PAR into a measure of operational efficiency is pointless. Using better practices to grow will result in better performances, which will be represented in a higher GPW per day ratio. There is no need to desperately accountnt for it, even if you could somehow conceive of a method to quantify various PAR spectrums with a weighted average (Which cannot be done with any degree of legitimacy)


Every business has a variety of variables. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to accounting,
Sorry if I'm sounding confrontational, I'm not. Simply trying to provide accurate information from the perspective of somebody with a degree in Accounting, which is the core of this topic

 

[Balarama]

I disagree about this part "Which cannot be done with any degree of legitimacy", but it's not the topic of this thread. Experiments could be done, but who will pay for them or take the time?
About everything else, we are in agreement.

Thing is I can't get rid of my "physics" glasses, even when looking at simple accounting problems

 

[SkatterBrayne]

To somehow include PAR, you would have to first designate values for each spectral range, which cannot be done. Assigning a weighted average for the importance of the 600-700 'm range would be purely speculative. How heavily weighted should the 500 spectrum be weighted in veg? What about flower?

Then there is the issue of every light having different PAR values, which would render this hypothetical equations utitily useless, since it could not be used as a benchmark comparing two different grows. These are my points of contention for why PAR is not viable in such calculations.

Also, while we are on the topic of specifically LED s, on must account for the depreciation of the lights which poses a significant expense compared to HID. The depreciation expense of an LED unit must be amortized over the useful life of the unit, on a 'balance sheet'. This is getting away from the original topic, but just an example of the variety of accounting procedures which can be used to grasp true efficiency of an entire operations variables.

As far as a 'Benchmark' to compare final yields, and nothing more, you need only to factor in your two primary constraints (Wattage Time) compared to units of production (Grams).

Secondary expenses such as utility expense (COST of your watts), Asset Depreciation, Operational expenses (Water, Nutrients, Labor) are all relevant, but are quantified and listed seperately.

Factors such as PAR, and other scientific knowledge applied to a grow is encompassed within the Grower Skill variable, which cannot.be quantified, despite it being the most important variable of all.


Hopefully that clears up my point a bit

 

[Lardy]

Good growers have something that doesn't fit the graphs and are probably in their grow areas now not writing theory.

 

[SkatterBrayne]

Good growers have something that doesn't fit the graphs and are probably in their grow areas now not writing eory.

Good growers have yields, which is easily represented on a graph (And more easily in RATIOS which is what we are ACTUALLY discussing). None of this is theory, it just happens to be flying over your head. Incompetence can be frustrating, but take it elsewhere if you have nothing to contribute please.

 

[Groff]

I pretty much agree with Skatter, but I also think that everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I love this forum because very rarely bad vibes fly around.
Just saying, lets keep it cool people.
Anything quantifiable can be useful - GPW certianly is useful as a basic measure of growing. This more of an advanced grower metric to evolve even more.

There is a difference between efficacy and efficiency.

After going through this thread, IMHO I believe GPW is a good solid measure of efficacy but totally unusable for efficiency.
Count me in for the brainstorming session!!

For example, most people factor lights... what about fans, dehumidifier, heaters etc? And heaters having thermostats, and dehueys go on and off etc... that is a HUGE watts factor that is totally disregarded. So GPW makes no sense at all if you're trying to become ever more efficient.

I see myself spending almost as mush in climate control as in lighting, so how do we factor that in?

To me that has a simple answer, get a quality watt meter (because low budget tend to freeze and need a "reboot") and pop in the electric price and have it do the math for the total MONEY spent during a grow. Add the cost of nutes and water, divide by yield, and that would represent a much clearer picture.

 

[Lardy]

Good growers have yields, which is easily represented on a graph (And more easily in RATIOS which is what we are ACTUALLY discussing). None of this is theory, it just happens to be flying over your head. Incompetence can be frustrating, but take it elsewhere if you have nothing to contribute please.

It was efficiency that was being discussed from post one - not ratios - but if you cant remember - your Avitar fits.
And I'm not interested in your attempted insults - true colours shining through.

 

[TxOld Dude]

We getting a little "heated" today, guys? :no:

It's all nice in theory, all things being equal, but all things are not "equal". Valid numbers would have to based on a particular strains response to a particular light type, brand, power, and spectrum. With all the varieties of lights and construction and the multitudes of strains and their differing responses in efficient use of light, this all becomes an exercise in futility. If you dealt in only one strain or two consistently, it may be worthwhile to figure those numbers for your particular light and environment as long as the rest of your program has absolutely NO deviations. For a commercial grower, specializing in certain strains, an efficiency study would be beneficial, but for the normal Joe, well...

A particular light and strain could be studied and calculated to a "fair-thee-well", but the minute ONE THING changes, it's all out the window. In the end you must ask yourself what are you trying to do SPECIFICALLY within a controlled situation with more variables than a dog has fleas!

For me, I'm going to be growing Stone Dragons exclusively (if it fits my requirements) and I would definitely benefit from such a study to improve my plants usage efficiency and yield within a fixed program. In the end, everything is relative.

JMHO

Fish
plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

 

[AndyBotwin]

Damn, I never thought I would see the terms "managerial accounting" on AFN. Cost accounting is almost a black art but I agree with Skatter that it's critical to a well run manufacturing business (undergrad in accounting and MBA here). But there are SO many variables in cannabis production that any of these metrics will be of limited value across different grow operations. Groff probably has the best idea regarding a watt meter to get a reliable idea of true cost, but even then you have variances in plant genetics that can cause different results. Either way, very interesting discussion & hopefully it won't be ruined by bad vibes & insults... :Sharing One: