Cutting lighting energy by 25% before scaling to production

PROBLEM

The R&D facility's lighting recipe was producing poor crop quality and burning excessive energy. The photoperiod was longer than the crops actually needed — plants were stressing at end-of-day. Rolling this regimen out to a 4,800 sqm production facility would have locked in five-figure annual losses on lighting alone.

ECOSENSE INTERVENTION

Studied the effects of the existing lighting regimen on photosynthetic activity using multispectral cameras.
Identified that plants were exhibiting end-of-day stress signatures — confirming the photoperiod was overrun.
Recommended a tightened photoperiod that maintained yield without the wasted hours of light.

Lighting cost comparison — test facility vs production facility, calculated per 100 sqm

RESULTS

New light recipe reduced lighting energy consumption by 25%. Plant health and quality improved alongside the energy reduction — not at its expense.

$747 USD per year saved in the 100 sqm test facility alone. Projected savings in the 4,800 sqm production facility: $142,000 USD per year on lighting alone.

PROBLEM

ECOSENSE INTERVENTION

Studied the effects of the existing lighting regimen on photosynthetic activity using multispectral cameras.
Identified that plants were exhibiting end-of-day stress signatures — confirming the photoperiod was overrun.
Recommended a tightened photoperiod that maintained yield without the wasted hours of light.

RESULTS

New light recipe reduced lighting energy consumption by 25%. Plant health and quality improved alongside the energy reduction — not at its expense.

$747 USD per year saved in the 100 sqm test facility alone. Projected savings in the 4,800 sqm production facility: $142,000 USD per year on lighting alone.