and yeah, ill grant that marijuana optics article doesnt have author citations, but it is good info as a mathematician, ill tell ya that the last footnote is useless. there is no magnification at the center of a sphere, only focus of light intensity. While the intensity may be greater due to concentration, its not magnified proper. ----
i have to go, but i wanted to say 2 things real fast the first article is very very broad, and mainly tends to support that UV light is harmful to the photosynthetic/vegetative growth of the plant. However, in late flowering, we dont give 2 shits about either of these processes. we are concerned in that point in time with cannabinoid production/degradation. And, there is NO evidence in this thread that UV light adversely effects cannabinoid synthesis. on the contrary, there's plenty to at the minimum suggest it plays a role. your second excerpt is from a study on 1 plant in far south South America. So far so (55 deg. south) that we should expect consistently lower amounts of UV radiation. A plant adapted to this, and only this, environment (its found between sea level and 1000 ft in far south america, so no mointain argument) should CERTAINLY be damaged by unexpectedly higher amounts of UV radiation. its also entirely feasible that the plant (gunnera magellanica) may not even have a significant method to adapt to this phenomena within a timespan relative to its own lifecycle. cannabis has been shown to be much more adaptive to its surroundings, easily observable by the large variety in potential outdoor/indoor growing climates with relative success (there will be differences of course, but the key is the plants adaptations). -- you have some serious convictions, but I dont see ANY evidence that seems plausibly applicable to show that UV-light is in no way responsible for THC production. Show me something specific to something relevant. please. Otherwise, there is at least some (albeit not an overwhelming amount) of evidence suggesting that it does play a role. and this is specific to cannabis. Ive learned a ton through this discussion, but this still eludes me.
I stated quite clearly that my intentions did not include cutting in between the two degree-holders, but i digress, as my posts may have indeed favored one philosophy to the other. Just so you know, it doesn't take a degree to perform scientific observation and analysis, only the understanding of your subject and surroundings. And just for the record, you may have been left in a mental-tailspin trying to keep up with all the technical lingo, but i digested most of it quite easily. And you have managed to wind up supporting my contribution. Thanx. However, i've heard from the same sources preaching the benefits of UVB, warning folks of the fact that there is a point of diminishing returns and that you actually can over-do it on the UVB. So whatever one decides, it's better to exercise common sense and safety above all else. I think i'm up to more like $.10 at this point LOL.
ricardo, i can definately agree with the idea of diminishing returns. UVB could very easily become problematic in excessive doses, its just the idea of NO uvb at all that I cant wrap my head around. --- proteus, since your examples of UVB being harmful to plants are just that, specific to plants only, I found a few examples where UVB radiation is found useful in plants "The flavonoid-inducing effect of this waveband is established by action spectra (Fig. 7). They have peaks at ca. 290 nm, differing from the absorption of DNA or RNA, and suggest the occurrence of a particular UV-B photoreceptor. This UV-B action is manifested or enhanced by phytochrome action (Yatsuhashi and Hashimoto 1985), and further enhanced by BL (Drumm and Mohr 1978, Duell-Pfaff and Wellmann 1982). That the flavonoid induction by UV-B really occurs in the natural growing conditions was shown by the effects of UV-B supplements to artificial WL (Adamse and Britz 1992, Arakawa et al. 1985, Maekawa et al. 1980, Cen and Bornman 990) and supplement to sunlight (Flint et al. 1985). The findings that UV-B elimination from sunlight greatly reduced anthocyanin synthesis in rose flowers and eggplant fruits (Mihara et al. 1973, Tezuka et al. 1993) support the view that the solar UV-B produces flavonoid synthesis under the field conditions. Lignin biosynthesis, whose early steps (phenylpropanoid pathway) are shared with flavonoid synthesis, may be under the influence of UV-B, since UV-B makes plants tougher (Hashimoto and Tajima 1980)" note here, the increased flavanoid production, and the antocyanin production in roses and eggplants (responsible for coloration, for roses its a large factor in attracting insects for pollenation, so note the correlation to reproduction) and now, the rest of the article pertaining to uvb light :: "When given at a moderate intensity together with sufficient photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), UV-B increases the thickness of the leaf (Cen and Bornman 1990, 1993) and chlorophyll content (Adamse and Britz 1992, Hashimoto and Tajima 1980), and does not suppress photosynthesis (Adamse and Britz 1992, Bornman 1989, Flint et al. 1985) except for sensitive species, strains or varieties. Suppressed growth of the hypocotyl and promoted expansion of the leaf or cotyledons are characteristics of morphogenetic effects of light. UV-B suppresses the growth of the hypocotyl of cucumber, eggplant and radish (Ballare et al. 1991, Hashimoto and Tajima 1980) without causing growth inhibition of the cotyledons. The findings with light-grown cucumber that the cotyledons perceive light and the hypocotyl responds (Ballare et al. 1991) strongly suggest that it is a normal photomorphogenetic action of UV-B. In this UV-B action a small photon leved of UV-B is enough. Wavelengths over 300 nm may be effective. Kondo (Hashimoto et al. 1993) found that an addition of 310 nm light at 0.1 to 1 μmol m-2 s-1 promoted the growth of cucumber first leaf under intense white light (500 μmol m-2 s-1), while 290 nm light at the same photon levels showed neither promotion nor inhibition. Each wavelength was inhibitory when given alone. Although no action spectrum is available yet for either hypocotyl inhibition or cotyledon promotion, the promotive effect of 310 nm distinguishes the effect of the longer wavelength region of UV-B from the general growth inhibitory effects of UV-B. Thus, UV-B is assumed to exert true photomorphogenetic actions in addtion to the deleterious effects. This view has been proposed by Hashimoto and Tajima (1980), Ballare et al.(1992), and Ensminger (1993). However, it is indeed true that UV-B causes damage in plants. The action spectra for the formation of pyrimidine dimers and (6-4)photoproduct, as examined with a human cell culture or calf thymus DNA solution, peak at about 260 nm and extend their longer wavelength ends into the UV-B region (Matsunaga et al. 1991, Rosenstein and Mitchell 1987), and it is assumed that this is also the case with plants. Coiling, a UV-B-induced abnormal growth of the etiolated sorghum first internode (Fig. 8), closely correlates with the amount of thymine dimer formed by the irradiation (Tsurumi et al. unpublished data), and the action spectrum for coiling corresponds with the absorbance of DNA. An action spectrum for anthocyanin synthesis inhibition shows a similar curve (Fig. 8) (Hashimoto et al. 1991, Wellmann et al. 1984). Thus, the UV-B region is the crossing zone of the deleterious effects and the normal photomorphogenetic actions, as indicated by the distinct action spectra (Figs. 7, 8). The photon level of UV-B required for the photomorphogenetic actions is lower than for the deleterious effects of UV-B (Fig. 9). The photon ratios (curve A/curve B) required for threshold induction are estimated from Fig. 9 as 1/380, 1/1400, and 1/6500, respectively, at 280, 290, and 297 nm. The trend of the values implies that at above 300 nm the deleterious effects of UV-B are not likely to occur at the photon levels required for the photomorphogenetic effects of UV-B. The presence of sufficient PAR and carbon dioxide ameliolate the harmful effects of UV-B (Adamse and Britz 1992, Cen and Bornman 1990, Nouchi 1993, Teramura et al. 1980). The amelioration of UV-B damage by PAR involves photoreactivation by UV-A and BL and other unknown action mechaninsms of visible light in addition to an increase of the biochemical UV-B filter flavonoids. Thus, to obtain the beneficial effects of UV-B and minimizing potential harmful effects, a long-wavelength UV-B source should be installed at small UV-B/PAR ratios. Since higher plants have developed their present characteristics under sunlight during the long process of evolution, it is quite natural that they adapted themselves to the present state of light environment. Higher plants seem to require all the spectrum bands, except for the band wavelengths 800 nm, of the sunlight coming on the Earth's surface. Blue, UV-A and UV-B light have their respective specific photomorphogenetic actions for higher plants, and are not replaced by light of other wavebands. These wavebands of radiation cooperate (UV-V, RL and BL) or counteract (BL and OL or RL) with light of other wavebands, and their requirements probably depend on the amount of other light. The situations make it difficult to draw a clear formula for lighting. We are required to take a case by case strategy, and gradually to obtain a better combination of individual wavebands. The processes of the development of lighting resembles that of prescription of a culture medium." and the link, good folks http://ncr101.montana.edu/Light1994Conf/3_3_Hashimoto/Hashimoto text.htm
The information on the usefulness of UVB to plants is very interesting but I'm not sure what this has to do with UVB and THC. It would be a huge leap to conclude that just because it has some effect on flavonoids that it also affects THC in a good way. That would be like saying UVB is benificial for humans (because it creates vitamin D), so therefore maybe it also creates other vitamins. It could just as well be that UVB *degrades* THC. Who knows? And the fact that it's known to cause DNA damage and low yields in other plants is one of the reasons why I will avoid using UVB lamps until more information is available. I don't know what UVB does to THC, but I DO know that you don't need it to produce high quality, potent marijuana.
i grant that it isnt REQUIRED to produce high quality marijuana. There are many ways to accomplish that. but, the information showing the usefulness of UVB is just a response to your cellular damage argument. Certainly, flavanoids have a greater relationship to the production of THC than do photosynthetic cells found in the leaf. So, Im at least showing that there is an equally impressive volume of evidence supporting UV light as a healthy addition to the production of essential oils. in my mind, its less of a leap to go from flavanoids to thc than from photosynthetic cells / mammalian cellular damge to thc. But surely, great weed can be made without UV light. My grows were fairly dank before the light, but they are definately not any less so with the addition of it. --- also, since you asked, im not using anything more than observable characteristics of the smoke to determine relative cannabinoid content. while i cant too easily determine the ratio of the present substances, I can determine general improvements (extended duration high, delayed onset of body stone...) i understand its not a tangible result, but my friends and I are not novice smokers. cannasseurs if you will.
I don't doubt the high probability that UVB triggers some response in cannabis leaves to protect itself. Seedlings adapt very quickly to UVB and there's virtually no THC in them and no stalked trichomes at all. Yes they have some stalkless glands but these only produce minute or no amounts of THC. In fact, the first cotyledon leaves upon germination don't have any glands on them at all, yet somehow it adapts to UVB. But if you grow seedlings without UVB and then later put them outside, the shock is so great that it can wilt or kill them. You have to slowly bring them out into sunshine to allow them to adapt. Clearly something is going on to protect the leaves from UVB, but THC is not likely the protector because THC is virtually absent during the veg state. Of course you're welcome to speculate that maybe there are two avenues to protect cannabis from UVB but nature doesn't waste resources for two when it already has one solution. It doesn't make sense. The fact that cannabis already protects itself during veg with very little THC I think destroys the THC-as-UVB-protector argument. It's only during flowering that cannabis produces stalked trichomes. And only some strains contain high levels of THC. Hemp grade cannabis contains very little THC. The trichomes come out only during the Autumn or Winter when the UVB index is the lowest. If THC has a role in protecting the plant from UVB, then why doesn't it produce the greatest numbers during the summer months when the UVB index is the highest? And vise versa, if the plant can protect itself from the highest doses of UVB in the summer, why would it need to create THC in the winter when UVB is lower and when it already has the ability to protect from higher levels of THC? Do you see what I mean? It doesn't make sense. There an even more compelling reason why THC isn't a good candidate for UVB protection. UVB consists of very short, high frequency electromagnetic waves. It's wavelength is only around 300 nanometers. That's .0000181th of an inch! If you look at the Marijuana Man video where he shows the photos of the fibrillar matrix where THC resides, you will notice that it looks kind of like a net or a screen. The THC "dots" are embedded mostly within the fabric of the net. Notice all the large spaces between the net? Short wavelength UVB will go right through! And this is only in the trichome where it could only protect the leaf where the trichome resides. Hardly a protectant! And once the gland bursts and covers the leaf, the THC dots become even more spread out and defused. To expect that THC will protect the plant from UVB is like expecting you to go out in the hot sun with a screen over your head and believing it will protect you from sunburn! It doesn't make sense. If there is a role of UVB to THC, I think it would more likely be because it causes stress. UVB is very high energy ER. Once the THC molecule absorbs UVB it would be converted to a lot of heat, and this heat could be the stress factor. The drying effects of this heat could trigger the plant to produce more trichomes to protect itself from dryness. There's more correlation with dryness as a causal factor than direct UVB. I don't have time right now but I will address your method of determining cannabinoid content (dankness, high) and why it is an improbable way to determine THC content.
first, most of the studies ive found represent that the bulbous or capitate sessile gland would be more tuned to dessication purposes, but that capitate stalked glands are responsible for a majority of cannabinoid production. so, since we are focused on capitate stalked, thats why I dont want to discuss dessication any further. offering another potential correlation doesnt support nor contradict UV light's role. --- ive managed to find more good info to relate my study on the usefulness of UV-B light for plants in the production of flavonoids. http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology...y-Possessed-by-Novel-Enzyme-Structure-1121-1/ heres the story. CBG is derived from olivetolate (olivetolic acid). Well, turns out, both flavanoids AND olivetol do have several things in common, most importantly their classification as aromatics. The link im providing is merely support for the idea that they act in very similar manners. all im saying is that UV light having an advantage for flavanoid production is probably the most relevant piece of evidence not found in the first few posts. ---- the MJ man vid. I found the study a couple nights ago that actually produced the images he uses. ( can probably link it if you really want to read it, but it wasnt that entertaining to our discussion). the images arent of the greatest relevance to what we want, as it deals with THC already produced and being stored in secretory sac. the pic is NOT of THC molecules, although they do represent THC. the black dots you see are actually molecular gold, which was attached to THC so that it can be photographed under an electron microscope. What this means is that the photo shows you NOTHING about THC biosynthesis, but however just represents THC already produced and currently being stored. remember, THC is produced at the disc cell, and secreted into the sac. pic is of previously secreted cannabinoids. while yes, stress is almost certainly part of the effect, I really dont see how there is NO evidence to support the theory that UV light can be beneficial. lets review -cannabinoids absorb UVB (to varying degrees of course) -UVB light is beneficial to flavanoids (which are shown to act similarly to other aromatics) -olivetol is aromatic, and the precursor to CBG (produces most psychoactive cannabinoids) add to this the correlation with high ambient UV levels and good pot growing locales, and this is starting to be moderately convincing. add to that, anecdotal as it may be, the experienced growers who have found various improvements through the enhancement of light with ultraviolet, and I think we are starting to see a trend. ---- and yes, I know my percieved levels of dankness are NOT a good method to determine THC, i believe I stated that. However, I dont have a liquid/gas chrom. kit, although im considering purchasing a cannalize. But, I dont think this is relevant since we are having this conversation, and you have no first hand experience. wouldnt that be like me trying to describe the sensation of child birth? no matter how much I read, I wont know. You do it once (maybe 2x with pain meds) and you know though. same with growing. once you have established consistency with your genetic lines and your current setup, youll be amazed at just how consistent it can be. when something all of a sudden varies, and there was one known changed variable, it becomes easy to make the assumption that 1 + 1 = 2.
also, to incorporate the idea of UV light being too high in energy, and subsequently too hot when absorbed, consider that aromatics consist of a benzene ring (6 carbon ring) which is incredibly stable. as such, a proportionally higher amount of energy is required to decompose the ring each time it is encountered. would certainly offset the disadvantage of UV light / support the claim that UV light promotes the development of aromatics.
The sessile glands produce far less resin than stalked trichomes. There is more correlation with stalked glandular trichomes for desiccation than there is for a UVB-THC connection. I can understand why you do not want to discuss desiccation any further because this would only weaken your argument. It's also interesting that you ignore this because if desiccation is a trigger for trichome production I would think that you should be just as interested in that, if you are REALLY interested in knowing about THC production. But you choose to ignore that and favor only the other correlation. Why is that? Again the usefulness of UVB for the production of flavonoids has no connection to UVB so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. THC is not a flavonoid. You also made no comment on my observation about THC being virtually absent during high sun UVB exposure and that cannabis protects itself long before stalked glandular trichomes appear. Indeed gold is attached to the THC molecules. Do you know why? It's to make them visible under a microscope. Nor was I commenting on THC biosynthesis but rather on the open areas where THC does NOT appear that would allow UVB to go through. That destroys the THC hypothesis that it is acting as a UVB blocker to protect the plant from UVB. You either did not read my response or you ignored it. I also gave you the article citation from which I got my information. For you to offer me a link to the article for which I already read shows that you are not reading my responses. In my response to your claims about UV: "-cannabinoids absorb UVB" I already showed you why this isn't a plausible reason for protecting the plant. "-UVB light is beneficial to flavoanoids" This has nothing to do with UVB and THC. "-olivetol is aromatic, and the precuror to CBG" This also has nothing to do with THC. To think this has anything to do with THC production is only a stretch of your imagination.
That is a completely meaningless statement in regards to THC absorption. I was NOT taking about decomposition of THC but rather CONVERSION of UVB to infrared. But since you brought it up, benzine is far simpler than THC and has a strong hydrogen-carbon DOUBLE bond. Delta 9 THC is more complex and fragile and has only SINGLE bonds. If you really think that UVB won't decompose THC, then try placing your pot out in the sun for a few days. See how that affects it's potency. You're grasping at straws.
Here is something I missed before: "A dramatic demonstration of the difference between potency and yield was made in a study done in England. Plants were grown for about then weeks and divided into two groups. One group continued to receive normal lighting, while the other was placed in the dark for the next three weeks. At the end of this period, both groups contained approximately the same percentage of cannabinoids, but the plants in the light had doubled in weight and in total content of cannnabinoids. THIS STUDY ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT SUPPLEMENTING THE NORMAL GREENHOUSE DAYLIGHT WITH EITHER NORMAL OR ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT FAILED TO INCREASE THC CONTENT. [caps, mine] The control plants grown outside had the most THC of all - 50% more THC than the plants grown indoors. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that increasing the light probably increased total yield." --Marijuana Chemistry Genetics, Processing & Potency by Michael Sharks (p. 83) So here we have another study that contradicts the Lydon study (which is the ONLY study to show a direct UVB-THC connection in living plants). Now what? It's also interesting about Sharks observation that "increasing the light probably increased total yield." It is well known by growers that light affects yield. This is another correlation that is stronger than the UVB-THC connection. Higher latitudes with higher UVB also has higher levels of light overall (with UVB only adding to the lumens). This is far more likely to have an affect on THC yield than does the frequency of UVB. I guess UVB light bulb promoters will have to ignore this also.
real quick, cause i have company coming over and they dont know about my 'hobbies' olivetol being aromatic and having similar properties to flavanoids is remarkably relevant to THC, and your assertion that its not is scary. olivetol is a precursor chemical in the cannabinoid process, its responsible for producing the first cannabinoid in the chain, CBG. so, increasing olivetol would allow for more CBG which in turn allows for more THC.
greenhouses in england arent required to shield UV light, to my knowledge, so if the plant is already recieving it from the sun, additional light would be much less noticable also, link please. i wanna read that study, sounds interesting, and its one I havent found yet oddly enough
What in the world are you talking about? Greenhouses, by their very nature, block UV light. It appears you are in denial. The article you posted says nothing about olivetol or a CBG connection. It looks like you are imagining things too. Are you stoned? I lost the link to the article but just do a search on the title of the article I provided. It should lead you to a pdf file.
Now for amoril's determination of relative cannabinoid content. "and yes, I know my percieved levels of dankness are NOT a good method to determine THC" And yet you're using that as one of your methods of determining potency! It's the terpines and other molecules that have odor. The cannibinoids don't have an odor. Indeed it is not a good method to determine THC; it is not a way to determine THC at all. At best you can only say that dankness has something to do with the health of the plant. A plant with dankness means it's near maturity and closer to harvest. As Martha Stewart says, "and that's a good thing." I also noticed that you edited your response to your methods of determining levels of THC. It is no longer there. Why is that? Neverthess, I have a copy of your unedited reply so I will continue: Your second method of determination: your eyes. What do you see? More trichomes? More trichomes or more resin DOES NOT mean higher potency. In fact some plants with less trichomes have more potency than plants with more trichomes. Some plants with many trichomes have barely any THC. To determine potency by looking at trichomes is a lost cause. "Female plants produce resin glands. Some of the glands may have lots of resin but are not very potent. Other plants may have little resin but are very potent." --The Cannabis Grow Bible by Greg Green (2001) Your third method involves your feeling the effects of THC along with your friends. Read the following: "Myths about which kind of marijuana is the most potent or provides the best high are legion. One of the most important factors is individual response, and that varies considerably. Factors such as nutritional state, exercise, time of day, other drug intake, and psychological state all influence the individual's response to any drug. . . . Most people fail to take these factors into account and ascribe the character of the high to the contents of the marijuana." --Marijuana Chemistry Genetics, Processing & Potency by Michael Sharks Indeed, this is so variable that it is meaningless. Of course it has meaning to those who BELIEVE they are higher, but is has absolutely no meaning in a scientific sense. More importantly, cannabis is highly polymorphic to THC content (polymorphism means multiple states for a single property). Read the following: "Today, the concept of Cannabis as a monotypic genus is widely accepted; taxonomical, morphological, and biometrical studies confirm the continuity of its gene pool despite the extremely high variation found within and between populations (Faeti et al; Forapani et al. 2001). . . Within some of the best-known hemp cultivars, e.g., Carmagnola, the degree of polymorphism was estimated by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers to involve ~80% of the markers scored, and the data suggested a huge reservoir of variation within even the most selected Cannabis strains considered during the study." --The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (Etienne P. M. de Meijer et al) "S2 Inbred lines: If the clone originally used to produce the S2 was of pure CBD or THC chemotype, this chemotype is preserved throughout all the subsequent inbred generations, although the absolute amount of the dominant cannabinoid still shows considerable variation as demonstrated by the standard deviations found. . . The percentage of polymorphismms detected . . . ranged from 17.3 to 46.4%" --The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (Etienne P. M. de Meijer et al) Did you read that? 17.3 to 46.4% difference in variation. Read on: "Within Cannabis populations, large variations in canabinoid composition and content can be found among individual plants." --The Inheritance of Chemical Phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. (Etienne P. M. de Meijer et al) "...we cannot necessarily expect plants to be exactly like their parents in appearance or THC content, even in the first generation. In subsequent generations the difference may be even greater and the plants may soon resemble those growing wild in our area." --Marijuana Chemistry Genetics, Processing & Potency by Michael Sharks "Although these clones were similar and showed an increase in total capitate-sessile glands per leaflet and total cannabinoids per leaflet as the leaf developed, gland number and cannabinoid levels usually differed from clone to clone. Total gland number per leaflet showed the greatest variability among the clones at the most mature stage of leaf development. However, while clones 79 and 87 (both high in CBD) were relatively similar in gland number until the most mature stage, clone 152 (high in @9-THC) had fewer glands at almost every developmental stage. Whether this is due to genetic or environmental factors remains to be determined. Total amounts of cannabinoids per leaflet were generally comparable among the clones throughout leaf development, although clone 79 had higher levels at intermediate leaf stages." --Interrelationships of glandular trichomes and cannabinoid content II. Developing vegetative leaves of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae)* Many growers have also observed variances in the physical size and appearance of their plants even when they came from the same strand and grown in identical conditions. That's why many growers choose from the seeds that germinate the fastest and throw away the slower ones. The upshot of all this is that if a plant can vary this much, how in the world are you going to determine if it's the UVB light or the natural variance from the plant itself? I submit you cannot. Couple this with the subjectiveness of the high experience and now you have TWO moving variables! It's a losing game. This is why scientists conduct double blind tests even when the variation of the item they are testing is not polymorphic. Subjective experiences have no place in determining quantities of THC particles. The only reliable way to know how much THC is in a plant is to measure it, and the mind is a terrible measuring instrument.
thanks for explaining in 2000 words what I said in one sentence : I know its not convincing from a statistical standpoint. To assert that a smoker cannot differentiate between quality is ludircrous, but I understand that its not quantatative. But yeah, thanks. secondly, did I imagine this? :: "The precursors of cannabinoids are synthesized from 2 pathways, the polyketide pathway (Shoyama et al., 1975) and the deoxyxylulose phosphate/methyl-erythritol phosphate (DOXP/MEP) pathway (Fellermeier et al ., 2001) (Figure 3). From the polyketide pathway, olivetolic acid is derived and from the DOXP/MEP pathway, geranyl diphosphate (GPP) is derived. Both are condensed by the prenylase geranyl diphosphatelivetolate geranyltransferase (GOT) (Fellermeier and Zenk, 1998) to form cannabigerolic acid (CBGA), which is a common substrate for three oxydocyclases: Cannabidiolic acid synthase (Taura et al ., 1996), Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase (Taura et al ., 1995a) and Cannabichromenic acid synthase (Morimoto et al ., 1998), forming cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (Δ9-THCA) and cannabichromenic acid (CBCA), respectively (Morimoto et al ., 1999)." link : https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/13206/6/01.pdf seems olivetol is in fact a precursor to THC.
Did you imagine things? Yes I think you did. From the same study it says that although flavonoids have been detected from flowers, leaves, twigs and pollen, they are missing from trichomes where the vast majority of THC is manufactured! Read it for yourself: There is NO evidence indicating the presence of flavonoids in glandular trichom. [caps, mine} https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dsp...13206/6/01.pdf and: "Although the flavonoid pathway has been extensively studied in several plants (Davies and Schwinn, 2006), there IS NO data on the biosynthesis of flavonoids in cannabis." [caps, mine] https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dsp...13206/6/01.pdf No data on the biosynthesis of flavonoids yet you're seeing things that aren't in that study. I mean really, whew!. This is about a stretched an argument as it and get. Also, you didn't answer my question. So why are you editing and taking out segments from your posts?
Ok amoril, I read through the "Introduction to secondary metabolism in cannabis" and there is nothing at all there about UVB influencing flavinoids. In fact it doesn't mention UV light at all. It appears that you are trying to connect a distant study on UVB with flavinoids (that mentions nothing about cannabis) to this article which says nothing about UVB. This is indeed creative imagination. Now don't get me wrong, imagination is important to create new hypothesis, but a hypothesis is not evidence. There is no evidence there. Moreover, UVB is *necessary* for the formation of some of these flavinoids and like vitamin D in animals, UVB is also necessary. However for THC, UVB is NOT necessary. Your argument about flavinoids is unfounded. I find it entertainingly puzzling that you will go to such great lengths to connect unsubstantiated claims based on a far fetched hypothesis yet you are unwilling to see valid correlations with other methods of THC formation such as desiccation, and increased light exposure (which always accompanies UVB). In fact you said that you don't even want to discuss desiccation at all! This is strange considering that the end purpose is to create greater THC potency in cannabis. You'd think you'd jump at these possibilities, yet you either ignore them or dismiss them out of hand. Why is that? Let me take a guess at what I think is going on. The only hypothesis you are willing to accept are only those that require UVB. Those that don't require UVB are out of the question for you. You are desperately trying to justify the use of UVB bulbs. I think what we are seeing here is an example of extreme bias here. A bias hell bent on using UVB bulbs but complete silence on other methods that might work better and safer. I don't know what role THC has for the cannabis. I only have suspicions. I am willing to acknowledge my ignorance. Biologists are also unconvinced by the evidence, and there is contrary evidence that shows that UVB lights don't work. In fact no one in the world really knows the role of THC, yet you claim to know, (at least you did in the beginning of this discussion). Read this confession from Michael Sharks who has studied potency in cannabis: "As with virtually all other psychoactive compounds occurring in plants, the function of cannabinoids is unknown. In order to have evolved the many genes necessary for the synthesis of such complex molecules, they or their precursors probably serve an important purpose. This makes the failure to have a ready explanation for their presence all the more frustrating, especially in view of the tremendous advances in plant biochemistry. It seems likely that the cannabinoids are an important constituent of tesin, which serves to protect the plant from pathogens or herbivores such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects and cows." --Marijuana Chemistry Genetics, Processing & Potency by Michael Sharks You said that you are convinced. Well sir, I am not, and you have not presented any information in favor of your argument. Perhaps it is time for a confession amoril. Do you *really* think you know something more than all the biologists in the world? Or have you changed you mind a little? You have finally acknowledged that your methods of determining THC potency are not good methods, and that, at the very least, is a good start and I admire that confession.
I have something for you all that should interest you. I wrote it back in the days of Overgrow, and it was a hell of a discussion that followed. Lots of very smart people chimed in, I wish I knew where all those guys went when OG went down, I miss 'em! This is only my second post on this forum. I had only created my account a few days ago. After OG went down I took a break from all grow forums until now. I just did a search to see if anyone was still discussing UV-B's effects on cannabis and this thread came up. I just found the document, still formatted for forum posting, but I do not have the pictures that went with it, they were all saved on OG's servers. Also, I had revised and updated this document a few times and have no idea what revision this one is. Therefore, there might be spelling/grammar or incomplete sentences/ideas. Still, the general idea of the whole paper is there. Without further ado I give you my dissertation. DO NOT STEAL IT OR ATTEMPT TO PASS IT OFF AS YOUR OWN WORK! I WILL FIND YOU AND MAKE YOU SUFFER!