So just read some where that a light was giving folks a average harvest yield of 160g per square foot.
Now a meter squared is 10.7 give or take square feet.
So if we do the math that 160 times 10.7 to give us a average yeild per meter squared. The total might surprise you. I know it did for me. That’s right around 1750g per meter squared for harvest yield.
So now I have to ask. What strains can even yield that much. So please help me find these strains.
I have a tough time with those numbers
400-500 sounds about right and doable.
Quadrupling my yield doesn’t sound likely. But if there is such a strain I’d like to know about it
I had to look up fohse. I doubt such bountiful harvests could be attributed solely to the brand of lighting employed.
Do they mean square foot of floor space, or square foot of lighting? I can’t imagine growing plants that dense, but I’m by no means a professional.
It’s been a while since i watched this video but this guy pulled something like 6-7lbs.
That would be 1440 a sq yard. Crazy. I did standard as I can’t “see” metric
That makes more sense. They got like 80g of good buds.
My guess is that is a dumper cut, on a dialed crop steering system. Like one clone per sq ft maybe. But those numbers are insane. Is it wet weight maybe?
that’s what the big outdoor farms do up here. automated systems, clones 1 foot apart in cubes. They finish about 6-foot-tall trees of flower 
After years of trial and error, practice and observing how plants grow I am able to average about 500 grams (an average of 1lb per plant dried and cured) of harvestable buds and sugar leaf per plant and that’s with two plants in a 4x4 tent - and it is FULL. The possibility of getting a 134.5 grams per square foot yield may be there, but I’m not sure that adds up to a reliable and reproducible probability of ACTUAL harvest yield. 
160g per square foot… really think about that for a second. How much physical space an ounce takes up, then look at what the plants are required to look like in order to achieve those numbers. They are required to have dense large flowers, otherwise this isn’t possible. In my mind, only a modern polyhybrid is going to have flowers that fit the criteria.
First thing, light penetration goes down several feet past the beginning of the canopy. This means serious wattage for lighting. You can’t have weak lighting and pull 160g/sq ft. Not going to happen. This kind of lighting set up is serious $$$.
Second thing, to achieve yields like that, you must know your chosen strains. You must know them well enough to achieve the maximum the strain can produce. This doesn’t happen by chance. Whoever achieved those numbers knew their plants very well to be able to get them to perform. Additionally, with the defoliation methods they use, you have to have stable females. Again, they know their genetics.
Edit the previous bost by BU2B illustrates a very good point… you can have incredible plants/flowers and still come short of those numbers posted by the OP. It’s like a fairytale situation that everyone will refer to as saying “I’ve seen it!!! It’s possible!!!” Is it possible? Yep. Is the average grower going to achieve anything like this in their lifetime? I think no…
Yeah, its not possible i would do around 4-600 per m² with CO2 and 6000W hps 
But maybe im a bad grower 🤷
I’d like to meet this fictional character.
I maintain nope unh unh not happening no way 
@Foreigner - Unlike some here, and it sounds like you included, I believe these claims. I believe they’re from a professional set up, with about 20kw of LED lighting, a warehouse which is temp/humidity/CO2 controlled for every stage of growth. In addition to the best of the best everything, they also have their strain dialed in. They have the resources necessary to get it to perform. Numbers like those only come from huge commercial harvests when you really look at details. This wasn’t achieved by someone in a closet, no matter how good the closet grower is.
I’ll bet they harvested like 40+ lbs from the setup that posted those numbers of 160g/sq ft.
If you want to see some crazy yields, watch some time lapse videos on YT from BlackDogLED. With their defoliation method and high PAR lighting, they can pull some impressive numbers too. The problem with highly focused light is that it’s difficult to manage. Fohse LED has managed to create lighting that penetrates much better than it’s competitors because it’s designed for a commercial warehouse, where BlackDogLED is designed for the home grower, imo. These are my opinions based on what I’ve seen, and fixtures designs from said companies.
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
Abraham Lincoln
That’s fine you may believe what you wish.
I don’t.
Rather than set impossible (fake) goals just grow and have fun and be happy with what you get
That Lincoln guy was really onto something there 
I have no idea how these manufacturers can create better penetration than the other when they are all using the same diodes, except by cranking up the wattage.
Lensing, magic?
Only way I could see deeper penetration would be supplemental lighting below the canopy.
My LM301Bs are better than your LM301Bs
Rather than set impossible (fake) goals just grow and have fun and be happy with what you get
Interesting point here. While I don’t think numbers like this are a ‘goal’ persay, I do completely agree with being content with what you have. Enjoy it for what it is, magic! Who cares what the Jones family has anyways…
I have no idea how these manufacturers can create better penetration than the other when they are all using the same diodes, except by cranking up the wattage.
Check out the Fohse a3i fixture. The individual bars pivot. In an individual fixture in a tent, the bars do nothing. But in a commercial setup they can target “side lighting” similar to the sun.
