The Collaborative Laboratories for Environmental Analysis and Remediation (CLEAR) at the University of Texas at Arlington (UT-Arlington) and the University of Texas at El Paso (UT-El Paso) has begun collaborating with Curtis Mathes Grow Lights (CMGL), a subsidiary of the Curtis Mathes Corporation, and the hemp genetics company ZED Therapeutics. The research will involve characterizing the phytochemical effects of phytochrome manipulation using various LED horticultural lights of differing light spectrum, and novel high-yielding varietals of hemp. All of the hemp plants will be grown by renowned geneticists Adam Jacques, Christian West, and Oriah Love of ZED Therapeutics under the CMGL Harvester LED lights at their Oregon facility. Drs. Kevin Schug and Zacariah Hildenbrand will oversee the analysis of the corresponding samples for the expression of terpenes, flavonoids, and other classes of therapeutic compounds. The expression of 15 primary cannabinoid species will be performed concurrently by Matthew Spurlock of ZED Therapeutics.
“Since its inception, CLEAR has focused almost exclusively on improving environmental stewardship in the energy sector. It is nice to now diversify into the horticultural industry to better understand how chemically-diverse plants like hemp respond to different environmental-friendly LED lights,” says Professor Kevin Schug, Shimadzu Distinguished Professor of Analytical Chemistry and co-founder and the Director of CLEAR.
Hemp has recently garnered significant attention in the mainstream media as a result of the medicinal benefits of its primary natural constituent, CBD. The collaboration amongst UT-Arlington, UT-El Paso, CMGL and ZED Therapeutics is designed to better understand how the variable of light can influence the expression of other medicinal elements.
“We are incredibly excited about our growing collaborations with UT-Arlington, UT-El Paso, and ZED Therapeutics,” says CMGL’s COO, Robert Manes, “This particular research exploring phytochrome manipulation in hemp may unlock new lighting protocols whereby the modulation of different wavelengths is associated with the expression of different phytochemical profiles.”
This research also has the potential to discover novel molecules that may be present in the ZED Therapeutic hemp varietals using high-resolution exploratory instruments that are unique to the laboratories of CLEAR, such as Liquid Chromatography Quadrupole Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS).
“We are always searching for new ways to expand our genetic catalogue and it will be interesting to see what sort of effects light modulation have on cannabinoid, terpene, and flavonoid expression,” says Adam Jacques of ZED Therapeutics, “Phytochrome manipulation, and any resulting epigenetic effects, is a poorly understood principle of horticulture and we see a significant opportunity with this research to unearth new knowledge.”
“Hemp is a unique plant both in its light spectrum adaptation and the wide range of phytochemicals it can potentially produce,” says Christian West of ZED Therapeutics, “I’ve been waiting my whole career to be a part of this research and having the lighting knowledge of CMGL combined with the analytical power of UT-Arlington and UT-El Paso is priceless in expanding our understanding of the plant.”
With 33 states and the District of Columbia having passed laws legalizing marijuana in some form, cannabis cultivation is quickly becoming a booming new business across much of the US. From an energy standpoint, unfortunately, it’s not easy being “green”.
New Frontier Data’s 2018 Cannabis Energy Report found that legal cannabis cultivation in the US consumes approximately 1.1 million megawatt hours of electricity annually – enough to power 92,500 homes or a community the size of Newark, NJ, and accounts for carbon emissions equivalent to that of 92,600 cars. And that consumption is forecasted to increase 162 percent from 2017 to 2022. The report recommended that the industry “evaluate energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies” to nip this challenge in the bud.
Growers seeking to reduce their electricity usage through more efficient lighting face a confusing landscape of options, however. It can be difficult to know what will save electricity and work well for their operations. Technology is advancing quickly and questions abound, from how long a fixture will last and whether a manufacturer’s claims about efficacy are accurate to the effectiveness of various wavelengths for growing a particular plant.
Here’s the good news: there are reliable, third-party lighting and safety standards to help indoor growers make the leap from old-school lighting to state-of-the-art light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that use a fraction of the electricity and are increasingly effective for growing crops from cannabis to tomatoes. Here’s a closer look:
Most lighting fixtures in the North American market go through rigorous inspection by certified third-party testing labs. The first part of the check is for safety – an official UL safety standard tailored for the unique challenges of the greenhouse environment was recently released (UL 8800, the Standard for Horticultural Lighting Equipment and Systems). This standard and similar safety certifications at other major labs address wiring, environmental conditions, ingress protection and worker safety related to prolonged photobiological exposure to the eyes and skin. Growers should always ask a fixture manufacturer about safety certification specifically targeted for horticultural environments.
Next on the standards checklist for horticultural fixtures is performance testing. This often happens at the same labs that do safety testing, but is designed to verify efficacy, output, spectrum and other important performance variables. Commercial labs are certified for specific standards, so that a test on a fixture is repeatable at any other lab certified to the same standard. This performance testing results in a report summarizing items like photosynthetic photon flux (PPF), input power (watts), photosynthetic flux efficacy (PPE, measured in μmol/J or micromoles of photosynthetic photons per joule of electrical input power), and spectral content (flux per nanometer (nm) between 400 and 700 nm).
Then, there are flux maintenance standards (such as IES LM-80 and IES TM-21) that help make sure the photosynthetic light output of LED products degrades at an acceptable rate to make a grower’s investment worthwhile. The testing and calculation methods that go into these standards were painstakingly developed through a consensus of knowledgeable lighting stakeholders. A key difference between general lighting and plant lighting, however, is how flux maintenance is measured and benchmarked – the bar is significantly higher for plants compared to people since their metabolism and growth are dependent on the light spectrum and amount.
A plant in flowering under an LED fixture
What’s described above just scratches the surface of the detailed testing used to determine and communicate performance features for commercial horticultural lighting fixtures. There’s a lot of important information to know, but it takes an informed reader to analyze this information and use it to select appropriate horticultural lighting. Our organization, the DesignLights Consortium (DLC), strives to make the vetting process easier for everyone, freeing up growers to focus on their core business.
In the early days of LED lighting, electric utilities had to compare these different lighting factors and reports to inform their energy efficiency rebate/incentive programs. The DLC was founded to fill this need, serving as a central clearinghouse for setting energy efficiency and other product performance minimum standards, and to evaluate products against those standards. Then and now, lighting products that pass review qualify for an online qualified products list (QPL) that utilities use to quickly and accurately incentivize high-performing products.
Credit: ProGrowTech
With its new minimum performance standards for horticultural light fixtures, the DLC seeks to accelerate the adoption of new energy-saving LED fixtures in controlled agriculture environments. To be on the new DLC Horticultural QPL, an LED fixture must be at least 10 percent more efficacious than the best non-LED alternative – a 1,000-watt double-ended high-pressure sodium (HPS) fixture. It also must have a Q90 of 36,000 hours (the number of hours before the photon flux output depreciates to 90 percent), and its driver and fan (if included) must have a rated life of at least 50,000 hours.
Most importantly, every product is listed online in a searchable, filterable database to help growers and facility designers quickly narrow their options. For example, in a retrofit, a grower might know what PPF is needed from each fixture but might also need to stay within a power budget to avoid rewiring circuits. The DLC’s Horticultural QPL can be filtered to quickly find and compare conforming products.
When a new technology is introduced, there is always uncertainty about how to optimally apply it. The horticultural world is no different. We look forward to research supporting additional predictive metrics that allow us to take advantage of the full benefits of high-performance LED and controls technologies. In the meantime, the established standards described here allow for energy efficient and safe cultivation facilities where growers can confidently produce more with less.
Consumers are largely unaware that most commercial cannabis grown today undergoes some form of decontamination to treat the industry’s growing problem of mold, yeast and other microbial pathogens. As more cannabis brands fail regulatory testing for contaminants, businesses are increasingly turning to radiation, ozone gas, hydrogen peroxide or other damaging remediation methods to ensure compliance and avoid product recalls. It has made cannabis cultivation and extraction more challenging and more expensive than ever, not to mention inflaming the industry’s ongoing supply problem.
The problem is only going to get worse as states like Nevada and California are beginning to implement more regulations including even tougher microbial contamination limits. The technological and economic burdens are becoming too much for some cultivators, driving some of them out of business. It’s also putting an even greater strain on them to meet product demand.
It’s critical that the industry establishes new product standards to reassure consumers that the cannabis products they buy are safe. But it is even more critical that the industry look beyond traditional agricultural remediation methods to solve the microbial problems.
Compounding Risks
Mold and other microbial pathogens are found everywhere in the environment, including the air, food and water that people consume. While there is no consensus yet on the health consequences of consuming these contaminants through cannabis, risks are certainly emerging. According to a 2015 study by the Cannabis Safety Institutei, molds are generally harmless in the environment, but some may present a health threat when inhaled, particularly to immunocompromised individuals. Mycotoxins resulting from molds such as Aspergillus can cause illnesses such as allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Even when killed with treatment, the dead pathogens could trigger allergies or asthma.
Photo credit: Steep Hill- a petri dish of mold growth from tested cannabis
There is an abundance of pathogens that can affect cannabis cultivation, but the most common types are Botrytis (bud rot, sometimes called gray mold) and Powdery Mildew. They are also among the most devastating blights to cannabis crops. Numerous chemical controls are available to help prevent or stem an outbreak, ranging from fungicides and horticultural oils to bicarbonates and biological controls. While these controls may save an otherwise doomed crop, they introduce their own potential health risks through the overexposure and consumption of chemical residues.
The issue is further compounded by the fact that the states in which cannabis is legal can’t agree on which microbial pathogens to test for, nor how to test. Colorado, for instance, requires only three pathogen tests (for salmonella, E. coli, and mycotoxins from mold), while Massachusetts has exceedingly strict testing regulations for clean products. Massachusetts-based testing lab, ProVerde Laboratories, reports that approximately 30% of the cannabis flowers it tests have some kind of mold or yeast contamination.
If a cannabis product fails required microbial testing and can’t be remedied in a compliant way, the grower will inevitably experience a severe – and potentially crippling – financial hit to a lost crop. Willow Industries, a microbial remediation company, says that cannabis microbial contamination is projected to be a $3 billion problem by 2020ii.
Remediation Falls Short
With the financial stakes so high, the cannabis industry has taken cues from the food industry and adopted a variety of ways to remediate cannabis harvests contaminated with pathogens. Ketch DeGabrielle of Qloris Consulting spent two years studying cannabis microbial remediation methods and summarized their pros and consiii.
He found that some common sterilization approaches like autoclaves, steam and dry heat are impractical for cannabis due the decarboxylation and harsh damage they inflict on the product. Some growers spray or immerse cannabis flowers in hydrogen peroxide, but the resulting moisture can actually cause more spores to germinate, while the chemical reduces the terpene content in the flowers.
Powdery mildew starts with white/grey spots seen on the upper leaves surface
The more favored, technologically advanced remediation approaches include ozone or similar gas treatment, which is relatively inexpensive and treats the entire plant. However, it’s difficult to gas products on a large scale, and gas results in terpene loss. Microwaves can kill pathogens effectively through cellular rupture, but can burn the product. Ionizing radiation kills microbial life by destroying their DNA, but the process can create carcinogenic chemical compounds and harmful free radicals. Radio frequency (which DeGabrielle considers the best method) effectively kills yeast and mold by oscillating the water in them, but it can result in moisture and terpene loss.
The bottom line: no remediation method is perfect. Prevention of microbial contamination is a better approach. But all three conventional approaches to cannabis cultivation – outdoors, greenhouses and indoor grow operations – make it extremely difficult to control contamination. Mold spores can easily gain a foothold both indoors and out through air, water, food and human contact, quickly spreading into an epidemic.
The industry needs to establish new quality standards for product purity and employ new growing practices to meet them. Advanced technologies can help create near perfect growing ecosystems and microclimates for growing cannabis free of mold contamination. Internet of Things sensors combined with AI-driven robotics and automation can dramatically reduce human intervention in the growing process, along with human-induced contamination. Natural sunlight supplemented with new lighting technologies that provide near full-light and UV spectrum can stimulate robust growth more resistant to disease. Computational fluid dynamic models can help growers achieve optimal temperature, humidity, velocity, filtration and sanitation of air flow. And tissue culture micropropagation of plant stock can eliminate virus and pathogen threats, to name just a few of the latest innovations.
Growing legal cannabis today is a risky business that can cost growers millions of dollars if pathogens contaminate a crop. Remediation methods to remove microbial contamination may work to varying degrees, but they introduce another set of problems that can impact consumer health and comprise product quality.
By Dr. Zacariah Hildenbrand, Robert Manes 13 Comments
There really is no question that Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) work, but just how well do they work?
For the last 50+ years, indoor cannabis cultivators have used High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights to illuminate their flowering crops. This technology was developed for, and is still used, as street lighting and there really hasn’t been a fundamental change to the output in the last half century.LED technology showed great promise to solve some of the primary drawbacks to the use of HPS technology for indoor cannabis cultivation.
We are often asked why this technology was used to grow cannabis, and the answers are simple: 1) due to strict legislation and even stricter penalties for growing cannabis, growers wished to move their crops indoors, and, 2) there really hasn’t been another technology that would allow us to cheaply place 400, 600, or even 1000W of light on a crop. In addition, HPS technology is rich in certain frequencies of red light, which is so important to flowering crops. Unfortunately, HPS lamps have their drawbacks, such as high heat output and lack of other “colors,” along the lighting spectrum. In fact, up to 95% of light produced by an HPS lamp is emitted in the infrared range, which we perceive as heat.
Enter the Light Emitting Diode. LED technology showed great promise to solve some of the primary drawbacks to the use of HPS technology for indoor cannabis cultivation. The ability to manipulate spectrum, precision delivery of light, elimination of dangerous heat, and lack of substantive toxic chemical makeup are a few reasons to deploy LEDs. However, as with any new technology, there were some significant hurdles to overcome.
Early experimentation using Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) to grow cannabis, suffice to say, did not go well. Poor performance, misleading advertising and equipment failures plagued the first mass-produced LED grow lights. The aspect of poor performance can be blamed on several factors, but the most prominent are very low efficacy, in terms of light produced per Watt consumed, and incorrect application of spectrum (color) for horticultural purposes. Causes of “misleading advertising” was a mixed bag of dubious sales pitches and lack of understanding the technology and of horticultural lighting requirements. Additionally, there certainly were some quality control issues with LEDs and electronics equipment in general, especially from offshore manufacturers in China and Korea.
A plant in flowering under an LED fixture
That legacy of poor performance still has a partial hold on the current indoor cannabis cultivation industry. Many of the current “Master Growers” have tried LEDs at some point and for the various reasons mentioned above, reverted to HPS lighting. Some of this reluctance to embrace LEDs comes from unfamiliarity with application of the technology to grow better cannabis, while some can be attributed to stubbornness to deviate from a decades-long, tried-and-true application of HPS lighting.
Certainly, growing with LEDs require some changes in methodology. For instance, when using true “full spectrum” grow lights, more nutrients are consumed. This is caused by stimulation of more photoreceptors in plants. To further explain, photoreceptors are the trigger mechanisms in plants that start the process of photosynthesis, and each photoreceptor is color/frequency-dependent. True full spectrum LED systems fulfill spectrum shortages experienced with HPS technology. Anyone that grows with LEDs will at some time experience “cotton top,” or bleaching at the upper regions of their plants. Increased nutrient delivery solves this issue.
As we continue to uncover the vast medical potential of cannabis, precise phytochemical composition and consistent quality will become all-important.While the industry is still saturated with confusing rhetoric and some poorly performing equipment, LEDs are gaining momentum in the cannabis market. LED efficacies have increased to levels far greater than any other lighting technology. Broad spectrum white and narrow-frequency LEDs in all visible (and some invisible to the human eye) colors are being produced with great precision and consistency. Quality control in manufacturing is at an all-time high and longevity of LEDs has been proven by the passage of time since their introduction as illumination sources.
As the world embraces LED horticultural lighting, probably the most encouraging news is that current and upcoming generations of cannabis growers are more receptive to new ideas and are much more tech-savvy than their predecessors. Better understanding of cannabis-related photobiology is helping LED grow light manufacturers produce lighting that increases crop yields and perhaps more importantly, cannabis quality. As we continue to uncover the vast medical potential of cannabis, precise phytochemical composition and consistent quality will become all-important.
Obviously, the indoor cannabis industry is expanding rapidly and this expansion raises deep environmental concerns. More power is being used for indoor lighting, and for the cooling required by this lighting. Power systems are being taxed beyond forecasts and in some cases, beyond the capabilities of the infrastructure and power companies’ ability to produce and deliver electricity. Some states have proposed cannabis-related legislature to limit power consumed per square foot, and some are specifically requiring that LEDs be used to grow cannabis. While some business leaders and cultivation operators may groan at the acquisition cost and change in operating procedures when deploying LEDs, common sense states that it is imperative we produce cannabis applying the most environmentally friendly practices available.
This past week, over 10,000 individuals traveled to Columbus, Ohio to attend Cultivate’16, a conference hosted by AmericanHort, an organization dedicated to leading and unifying the horticultural industry. Cultivate’16 had hundreds of vendors displaying the latest technology and equipment for greenhouse production, design and controls along with the latest innovations in software, manufacturing, automation and more.
For all of the energy surrounding the nascent cannabis industry, there was very little representation from it at Cultivate’16. Our associates encountered an estimated thirty cannabis industry professionals, compared to an estimated total of 10,000 attendees. This further compounds the reality that the cannabis industry is still a very young industry when compared with the more mature and well established industries such as conventional agriculture, finance, information technology and others.
At Cultivate’16, there was enormous potential for businesses in the cannabis industry to learn from the traditional horticultural industry. The horticultural industry has had to become extremely efficient with its capital, resources and time in a manner which the cannabis industry has not had to accommodate yet. There were automated container filling machines, cost effective nutrient solutions and greenhouses that are controlled wirelessly. Those were just a fraction of the products and systems that could save cannabis cultivators hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Horticulturalists have been forced through shrinking margins to increase their output and savings. The horticultural market is expanding at an average rate of 5% per year as opposed to the cannabis market which is currently growing at a rate of 68% year over year. Cannabis operators can still get anywhere from $1,200 to $1,400 a pound in most legal markets on the lower end. This is in comparison to basil at $4 a pound. This difference is stark. It means that cannabis cultivators are not under the same pressure to be efficient as other traditional crop cultivators. It is clear though that with increasing legalization of cannabis in both the medical and adult use markets that the price of cannabis will fall. Therefore, it would be wise for the cannabis professionals to attend events such as Cultivate’16 in greater numbers to prepare for the eventual decrease in price.
3C Consulting was present at Cultivate’16 because we understand the importance of looking to other successful industries for guidance. We were able to converse with a diverse array of vendors and business owners to further our own knowledge on the best practices to bring to the cannabis industry. To be able to learn from those that have come before you is a strength, not a weakness. Far too often the cannabis industry seeks to reinvent the wheel. It does not have to be this way.
By learning from other industries, utilizing the latest horticultural technology and becoming more cost-effective the cannabis cultivators will be able survive and thrive. It is those that prepare for turbulence that are best able to capitalize on change. In the Chinese language, the word for crisis is the same as the word for opportunity. It is wise to prepare for a crisis so that when it does occur you are able to transform it into an opportunity.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
The Collaborative Laboratories for Environmental Analysis and Remediation (CLEAR) at the University of Texas at Arlington (UT-Arlington) and the University of Texas at El Paso (UT-El Paso) has begun collaborating with Curtis Mathes Grow Lights (CMGL), a subsidiary of the Curtis Mathes Corporation, and the hemp genetics company ZED Therapeutics. The research will involve characterizing the phytochemical effects of phytochrome manipulation using various LED horticultural lights of differing light spectrum, and novel high-yielding varietals of hemp. All of the hemp plants will be grown by renowned geneticists Adam Jacques, Christian West, and Oriah Love of ZED Therapeutics under the CMGL Harvester LED lights at their Oregon facility. Drs. Kevin Schug and Zacariah Hildenbrand will oversee the analysis of the corresponding samples for the expression of terpenes, flavonoids, and other classes of therapeutic compounds. The expression of 15 primary cannabinoid species will be performed concurrently by Matthew Spurlock of ZED Therapeutics.
“Since its inception, CLEAR has focused almost exclusively on improving environmental stewardship in the energy sector. It is nice to now diversify into the horticultural industry to better understand how chemically-diverse plants like hemp respond to different environmental-friendly LED lights,” says Professor Kevin Schug, Shimadzu Distinguished Professor of Analytical Chemistry and co-founder and the Director of CLEAR.
Hemp has recently garnered significant attention in the mainstream media as a result of the medicinal benefits of its primary natural constituent, CBD. The collaboration amongst UT-Arlington, UT-El Paso, CMGL and ZED Therapeutics is designed to better understand how the variable of light can influence the expression of other medicinal elements.
This research also has the potential to discover novel molecules that may be present in the ZED Therapeutic hemp varietals using high-resolution exploratory instruments that are unique to the laboratories of CLEAR, such as Liquid Chromatography Quadrupole Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS).
