Connect with us

Cannabis News

Focus on how LED systems function once installed

Published

5 months ago

on

Ask various greenhouse growers what the “best” LED lighting system is and the answers will vary. Some will focus on efficiency figures, some on upfront investment and some on brand awareness or existing facilities. As LED lighting has become common practice in commercial greenhouses, it has become clear that the question itself is changing. The best commercial LED greenhouse lighting system, according to Sollum Technologies’ Abhay Thosar, is one that adjusts spectrum, intensity and Daylight Integral (DLI) in real time to crop requirements, seasonal light availability and energy conditions.

© Sollum Technologies

Energy costs continue to fluctuate, and the availability of natural light varies throughout the year. “At the same time, growers are expected to deliver consistent quality, predictable yields and stable production planning. LEDs are no longer a separate technology, but part of the core infrastructure. What differentiates lighting strategies is not what appears on a spec sheet, but how a system performs under actual greenhouse operating conditions,” he says. “Greenhouse production is inherently variable. Lighting systems must respond to these changes rather than operate as static installations.”

When comparing LED fixtures, the evaluation is often based on efficiency in µmol/J, maximum light output, purchase price, and warranty terms. While these metrics are useful, they do not fully reflect how a lighting system performs once installed. Seasonal and daily variations in sunlight, differences between sites within the same greenhouse, specific responses to crop spectrum and intensity, and changing energy rates all affect real-world performance.

“An apparatus that looks optimal on paper can become restrictive if it cannot be adjusted as conditions evolve,” explains Abhay. “Adaptability is part of performance.”

Commercial LED greenhouse systems are increasingly defined by their ability to adjust over time. The flexibility of the spectrum allows growers to vary the quality of light according to crop type, growth stage and production goals. Increasing blue light during early stages of growth or introducing red light during periods of low light are adjustments that demonstrate how spectral control can be used to influence plant responses.

“Flexible spectrum gives growers the ability to align lighting with plant behavior, rather than treating the light response as a fixed input,” says Abhay.

Light intensity control is another factor. Instead of maintaining constant output over long periods of time, adjustable intensity allows growers to respond to changes in natural light and avoid using unnecessary energy. This approach is closely related to DLI-based control, where lighting decisions are driven by the amount of light a crop receives each day. In advanced systems, DLI targets are achieved through automated modulation of light output as sunlight conditions change throughout the day.

© Sollum Technologies “The goal is to accurately manage consistent DLI without adding complexity to day-to-day operations,” said Abhay.

Greenhouse environments are rarely uniform, making field-level control important. Differences in structure, orientation or crop design can result in different light requirements within the same facility. Lighting systems that allow zone-based adjustments support more consistent crop development throughout the greenhouse.

Integration with existing greenhouse systems is another matter. Lighting interacts with climate control, energy management and crop planning, and systems that operate in this broad framework are easier to manage over time. Long-term adaptability also plays a role, as lighting strategies change frequently to respond to new cultivars, market demands or energy requirements. Systems that support these changes without having to completely replace them offer greater operational flexibility.

Many greenhouse LED installations still rely on static schedules, where prescription lights are set after installation and manually adjusted, if necessary. Dynamic lighting strategies take a different approach by continuously adjusting spectrum, intensity and timing to crop needs, available daylight, seasonal patterns and operational constraints. These adjustments can be made in real time and at the zone level, managing the underlying complexity of the system.

“The system manages variability so growers can focus on crop results,” says Abhay.

In practical terms, the most suitable commercial LED greenhouse systems support consistent crop performance across seasons, improved uniformity and predictable production results. They allow growers to adjust lighting strategies without replacing hardware and manage energy use in relation to production goals. In this context, “best” is less about the most powerful apparatus and more about a system’s ability to adapt as conditions change.

“The important question for growers is no longer which LED system is the best in absolute terms, but which system provides the control and flexibility needed to respond to changing conditions, plant requirements at each growth stage, and long-term operational goals. Greenhouses are dynamic environments, and lighting systems are increasingly expected to function in the same way.”

For more information:
Sollum Technologies
sollumtechnologies.com

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Guido de Buijn (Agrofair) consolidates his leading position, whilst fruit and vegetable lawyer Hans Borsboom enters the top five

Published

9 hours ago

on

June 24, 2026

By






FreshPublishers 2026 World Cup Group Stage






Today, it is the Dutch who are making their mark in the Fresh Publishers’ World Cup rankings. Guido de Bruijn, Agrofair’s account manager, correctly predicted the results of the Argentina – Austria and France – Iraq matches, thus consolidating his leadership. He is followed by quality controller Mark Libregts of JNV Produce, while food and agriculture specialist Cindy van Rijswick of Rabobank has once again rounded out the top three. In fourth place is Dirk van den Hurk, aaff’s relationship manager. He has a three-point lead over fruit and vegetable lawyer Hans Borsboom, who is competing under the name HerikLegal United. Interestingly, the main contestants predict very different winners. Guido supports Portugal, Mark supports France, Cindy supports Germany and Dirk and Hans support Spain.

In sixth place is Seth Karstens, who manages retail sales for Gerbera United. Marcos Miedema – again from Agrofair – is seventh, ahead of Andre Filippov from the German company Global Fruit Point. Rob Welles of plant grower Ovata and Italian potato and vegetable trader Luigi Giacomello have slipped a little further up the table and are in ninth and tenth place. However, there is still a long way to go to win the 1,000 euros. Starting with the next four matches: Portugal – Uzbekistan, England – Ghana, Panama – Croatia and Colombia – Congo.

© FreshPublishers



Publication date:













Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Marijuana Moment Asks DEA Judge To Allow Livestreaming Of Rescheduling Hearing For Transparent Public Access

Published

9 hours ago

on

June 24, 2026

By

Marijuana Moments is asking a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge to reconsider his decision hearings on the Trump administration’s cannabis deregulation proposal begin next week and features only the opponents of the reform as invited participants.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julis last week issued a preliminary order setting out the rules and timelines for the marijuana reorganization proceeding, recognizing at the same time that “the national public interest in this matter favors a policy of transparency” and, at the same time, specifying that “the hearing will not be televised, live or otherwise.”

As a result, people who want to see the historic cannabis reform process must go directly to Arlington, Virginia, by court order.

In a letter to Julius on Tuesday, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph Bondy noted that the DEA had previously authorized, then canceled the hearing process, the Biden administration’s proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to the Controlled Substances (CSA) Schedule III.

“That prior decision was correct. The public interest rationale for contemporary access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If the DEA believes that security, witness management, or operational concerns require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow requirements rather than a categorical ban.”

“Arlington’s limited physical seating is not a meaningful substitute for a live broadcast. Marijuana Moments, like much of the press and public following federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on the few available seats as a practical way to observe and report on the hearing. This is precisely why the DEA’s advance live broadcast was important: it allowed them to follow these directives without physically obstructing the venue. burdening security, or making anyone a party.”

“In a proceeding of this public importance, and in light of the DEA’s prior direct directive, the public hearing is not publicly accessible if the case is based on limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for timely observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It’s a guarantee.”

“For a large public audience seeking serious coverage of federal cannabis policy, Marihuana Moment is an important channel through which the public can understand these proceedings.”

The letter makes clear that Marihuana Moments “does not seek to participate as a party, present evidence, examine witnesses, present proposed findings, or alter the schedule of merits” and “seeks only temporary public and press access to an administrative hearing of recognized national public interest.”

Bondy asked Julius for an answer by Thursday.

—
Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you, who value this work enough to support us monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reports to stay informed of important developments in cannabis, please help us do this becoming a permanent subscriber today.

Backing us at the $25/month level, you’ll have access to our Bill Tracker so you don’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state.
—

Meanwhile, he is also a lawyer A representative of a major cannabis reform organization is calling for the DEA to reconsider decision to participate in the hearing as an interested party.

The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which represents the interests of people who use cannabis, filed an “emergency petition for reconsideration” through Bondy on Friday, saying “the public interest will be significantly harmed if the registry ignores the consumer perspective.”

The DEA made the announcement last week Only select participants—and opponents of reform—have been invited to the marijuana redistricting hearing to participate, and some of them have filed a lawsuit trying to block the reform. Supporters of the reform who expressed their intention to participate were not invited.

“NORML’s rejection, if not addressed immediately, will deprive NORML and the cannabis consumers it represents of meaningful participation in hearing proceedings, the presentation of witnesses, the designation of exhibits, cross-examination, legal briefs, and any other proceedings necessary to complete a complete record,” wrote Bondy, NORML director Terrance as chairman of the DEA’s board of directors. “Prejudice is immediate. It cannot be cured after the hearing is closed.”

According to several rejection letters seen by Marijuana Moment from cannabis reform advocates, the DEA said they do not meet the definition of “interested person” to participate because they “would not be harmed or harmed by any rule or proposed rule that may be issued.”

NORML said in its request for reconsideration, however, that “DEA’s denial is based on a flawed premise: that NORML has not been harmed or prejudiced by the proposed rule because NORML allows marihuana to be removed from Schedule I and Schedule III.

“That is not NORML’s position. NORML supports delisting from schedule I. But NORML does not support schedule III as the final correct federal treatment of marijuana,” Bondy wrote. “NORML’s position is that marijuana should be removed from the CSA schedules and regulated under a specific federal framework that addresses public health, consumer safety, product integrity, youth prevention, truthful labeling, testing, access to research, impaired driving policy, diversion, state-regulated market realities, and illegal displacement.”

The lawyer wrote that the injury to marijuana’s Schedule III status “is not a mere ideological desperation.”

“NORML members would remain subject to federal controlled substance status and the legal consequences that flow from it. Adult consumers who legally participate in state-regulated markets would be excluded from consistent federal recognition,” Bondy said. “Schedule III would keep illegal federal cannabis activity outside of federally authorized medical, research, or registrar channels. It would continue to cause federal-state conflict, public confusion, stigma, side effects, and harm to consumer safety.”

The hearing it will start on June 29 and end before July 15.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April He issued an order that immediately reclassified the state’s licensed medical cannabisas well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Schedule I through Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

According to a separate order signed by the acting attorney general, the upcoming hearing will include Class III marijuana.

In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, the parties had to submit requests, indicating their interest in the procedure, the claims or issues they want to hear and their position on these issues.

“The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receive factual evidence and expert opinion’ on whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III of the controlled substance list,” Blanche’s initial statement in April said.

The attorney general also selected an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings.

“The ALJ’s authority includes the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues at the hearing or to consider other matters that may assist in the expeditious resolution of the hearing; to require the parties to state their position in writing; to sign and issue subpoenas; to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; to examine witnesses; to direct, exclude, or testify; the Rule on Procedural Matters and the President’s DEA Hearing Procedures and Administrative Procedure Actions allowed under the law, Blanch wrote.

Preliminary hearing process on the marijuana redistricting process initiated by the Biden administration It was halted last year amid allegations of improper communications and witness selection.

the current The marijuana redistricting process is being challenged in several ways which have been upheld by a federal Court of Appeals. those pieces of State attorneys general have filed lawsuits against cannabis reform, Opponents of marijuana legalization and a a cannabis-based biopharmaceutical corporation.

Meanwhile, the reorganization of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having a major impact.

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current rescheduling of cannabis Certified patients with medical marijuana from state licensed dispensaries are now eligible for Class III. “The order appears to allow end users to use marijuana medically without a CSA prescription,” he says.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has published a Draft update to a gun purchase form to recognize the legal status of medical marijuana in the reprogramming. The revised section of the question states that only the “recreational use or possession of marijuana” is federally prohibited, omitting the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis.

The US Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issued new tax guidelines for the marijuana industry after reprogramming. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions that are currently prohibited under IRS Code Section III, known as Section 280E.

Even the DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and accused the Biden administration of stalling the initiative in the reorganization process, has done so. It launched a registration process for legal marijuana businesses in the state to take advantage of the federal benefits that come with the reform.

The Department of Transport, on the other hand, issued guidelines stating this use Legal medical cannabis in the state is still no excuse for truck drivers to test positive for drugspilots and other safety-sensitive personnel.

A congressional committee recently Federal officials voted to block further steps to reschedule cannabis.

read it the letter Marijuana Moment’s attorney to the DEA judge below:

Marihuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Judge declines to block New Jersey cannabis Labor Peace Agreement requirement in Curaleaf case

Published

1 day ago

on

June 23, 2026

By











U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp, for the District of New Jersey, ruled against Curaleaf Holdings Inc.’s request for emergency relief to block the requirement that New Jersey cannabis companies sign Labor Peace Agreements (LPAs) to keep the rule in place while the underlying case continues.

Under Bloomberg Law, Judge Shipp issued an unpublished opinion that Curaleaf failed to demonstrate the “irreparable harm” courts require before issuing a preliminary injunction. That rule requires a party to prove that it will later suffer irreparable injury if the judge waits for full proceedings. Judge Shipp concluded that Curaleaf did not meet that threshold.

The resolution is not a decision on the substance of the regulation. Judge Shipp expressed skepticism that the LPA’s requirement is supported under federal law, although he declined to block it. A court may find that a challenger has failed to meet the standard of emergency assistance without adopting the challenged rule.

The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement Assistance and Market Modernization Act, known as CREAMMA, was signed into law by then-governor Phil Murphy in February 2021. It set up a 2020 legalization referendum and established the state’s adult cannabis market. Under CREAMMA, cannabis operators must sign an LPA and engage in collective bargaining with organized labour. These are two different obligations, both licensing requirements, not optional practices.

Curaleaf is opposing this dual mechanism. For New Jersey cannabis operators, the immediate consequence is that compliance remains mandatory while the case moves forward. The question of whether the LPA’s mandate is compatible with federal law remains unanswered.

Source: HeadyNJ



Opening photo: © Curaleaf

Publication date:













Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media