Proteus, in response to your Post #99. Check out this thread ---> http://forum.grasscity.com/advanced-growing-techniques/310097-lights-out-final-days.html it's got a couple good posts by Don Piano that are related. Peace.
well, smoove, you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. Im a UV advocate, but the implication of UV light on THC synthase is not well documented. The information available is more suggestive in this phase of THC production with relation to stimulating factors. what ive come to learn is that the *known* benefits from UV light will come in the forms that you mentioned, mainly increased terpenoid and flavanoid production. Let me start by saying that when you comment on aroma, flavor, etc youre noticing the terpenes and flavonoids. Not the cannabinoids. HOWEVER, some will tell you the two are not related. This is not the case. Through several chemical processes, the terpenoids undergo a transformation into olivetol, which when combined with GPP starts the cannabinoid synthesis. THC is the result of this final pathway. this is why i feel that the benefit from UV light is not a short timeframe effect, but instead requires exposure throughout the entire flowering phase, or even the entire grow, to actually have a result of increased THC. unfortunately, there havent been too many well-conducted tests on this matter to properly satisfy all of the variables, and still provide concrete analysis one way or the other. Some people will tell you that there is no effect, others say there is. And, as you mentioned, there is just as much evidence on the harm of UV radiation as there is on the benefits. Anyone could reasonably put themselves behind either school of thought, and not be wrong. im glad you didnt lose any yield either! we need more people talking about UV lights that have actually used them. I havent encountered very many people who have used them and not noticed a benefit. skunkman is one in a million. --- oddly enough, this feels a lot like LEDs. Ask someone who has never tried them, and theres no way in hell they could work. Not enough light, yadda yadda, too limited of a spectrum, blah blah, airy buds However, ask someone who grows with them, and they tell a different story. of course, im not trying to actually discuss the viability of LED, just sayin I think its funny how divisive people can be. --- just thought of something....the stone is startin to roll I am not only able to adapt UV radiation, but in low consistent amounts, it may actually be good for me. Now, if I stay indoors for a year, Im going to lose what little tan I have (im mostly irish). If I then go mow the yard without a shirt on, Im going to get some really wicked sunburn. I know this from experience. does that then imply that my body cant handle UV radiation? absolutely not. It does however mean that I have reasonably adapted to an environment void of it, and as such, have to gradually work my way back in. the fact that a cannabis plant grown indoors gets burnt when placed outdoors in the summer doesnt prove that UV is harmful to cannabis, only that it is actually getting UV light when it previously wasnt. just like me.
on post #99 Capitate stalked glandular trichs occur most frequently in flowering, so there is some connection. during the day, the plant is mainly focused on the production of sugars...this is where ricardo's mention of don piano comes in. he explains the transfer of sugars pretty nicely. mr. piano is a good man. i believe he has a really sweet cge grow going, but thats beside the point but the actual trich production? well, to actually answer that, id have a few more questions. like, are the CSGT (capitate-stalked, i dont wanna type it further) hollow at any point? As in, are they effectively empty at the beginning, and gradually fill up with secreted resins? or, do they start off simply as stalks, and accumulate the head through secretion? like a balloon. those two would imply very different functions, in my opinion. --- the other thing i would really like to know, and Im putting this out there hoping someone can link me to something with info on it. the CSGT has a head and stalk. Most research ive seen is on the head (for obvious reasons)...but what goes on in the stalk? specifically, what substances are permeable through the stalk and into the head gland, and vice versa. I think this could provide a lot of insight into other functions the CSGTs could serve.
This guy..... doesn't know how to take a compliment. LOL. I've boycott Holiday Inn for their false advertisements. Holiday my ass.
You bet it has implications. Not knowing that cuts your chances in half for you to be correct. At the very least that's one of the first things I'd like to find out before I invested the time and effort of using UVB bulbs. Yes, you need to think more. Oh, but he DID report some of his information. It's obvious you didn't read it thoroughly. He said he tested it on Haze, Skunk, Hemp. He used clones (which even the Lydon study didn't use). He said something about the conditions. He grew in a greenhouse, flowered the strains at the same time in the exact same conditions minus UVB. He tried UVB lights at different distances from close to far away. It's obvious Sam is thinking about controls. He has a scientific mind bent. But you either ignored this or didn't read it. And yes, his words don't count for a hill of beans until his methods are duplicated, but that's never held you back before has it? The same applies to YOU. Why all of a sudden are you so scientifically curious? I didn't see you questioning the Lydon study. You didn't question the Joe Knuc article you posted and his wild assertions about trichome glands as lens. I don't see you questioning the people who claim they can tell a difference by just "seeing". And what are YOUR controls, by the way? Answer me that. Here are some questions for you: 1. What conditions are you growing in? Humidity, temperature, lumens per meter, nutes, etc. 2. Why did you replace your 26 watt CFL with a 26 watt UVB CLF instead of adding it? 3. Why only 26 watts? 4. What controls are you testing for? Are you growing two in tandem, at the same time, one with UVB and another without? 5. What strains are you using? 6. You say you are using your eyes. How are you counting trichomes? 7. Are you using CO2? 8. What was your total yield with UVB vs. your grow without UVB? I think your fellow UVB light believers might like to know. Why horde it? You really don't understand why colder climates at high latitude would make a difference? Really? Have you ever grown cannabis at temperatures below 50F? My icicles example was not extreme. It does get that cold in Canada. The extreme part was thinking that UVB would help, yet that's the only part of the explanation you jumped on. I mean, come on! Of course the plants adjust to UVB (somehow). They do so as seedlings long before stalked glandular trichomes appear. Again this shows your complete incomprehension of what I've written. I've never said that I'm convinced UVB is bad. I don't KNOW how UVB affects cannabis. I did, however, report on scientific studies that claim UVB damages DNA and can lower yields. This is a chance I don't want to make. It's a myth, by the way, that people during Columbus' time thought the world was flat. Even the Greeks knew the earth was spherical. By the way, did you ever hear the joke about Columbus' ships? Most people don't know he had four. You see, three of them returned but the fourth ship fell over the edge. Ha-ha! However, most people in ancient times believed in a geocentric solar system. They believed the sun revolved around the earth. It certainly looked plausible at the time. The first thinker to develop a heliocentric theory was the Greek Aristarchus, in 270 BCE (It was not Copernicus as many people falsely believe). But the people did not believe him because the prevailing belief was that the solar system was geocentric. This brings up an interesting example of the bandwagon fallacy. Here we have a very simple system, just two objects in space, yet millions of people and the best minds of ancient times (except Aristarchus) were utterly and absolutely WRONG. Now think about THC which is ever more complex, several magnitudes more difficult to understand, yet people are willing to pretend to know just what is happening with only their eyes. I'm sorry, you are not convincing in the least.
Hi Smoove. No one really knows how ultraviolet light affects any of the cannabinoids, not even amoril As for you feelings about your use of UVB lights, you should realize that subjective feelings, emotions, and hunches are internal to the human body, and not external. Feelings can't really determine much about nature much less about cannabis. You say your experience has been positive. How do you know that it's due to UV? There are studies that show that THC levels differ dramatically even among clones. How do you know it's not that instead of UV lights? On the subject of UVA, I don't know. You'd have to provide citations for scientific studies. I think it would be highly improbable for any kind of light that could actually repair damaged dna and cells. It might, however, trigger chemical reactions, controlled by genetics that could replace damaged cells, etc., but I would think the damaged cells rather than the light would play a more important role. Your blood cells die all the time, for example, but your body detects that somehow and the bone marrow churns out more stem cells to produce red blood cells. Maybe plants do a similar thing. No one knows.
There is no connection to sugar formation and trichs. Sugar is produced by photosynthetic reaction in chlorophyll. You don't need trichomes for that. Plants utilize sugars for all growth, day and night. You need to learn more about plant biology before you pretend you know something about it. It's embarrassing for you. I've read of a couple of theories about this from biologists. This doesn't refer to cannabis but to other plants. Surely you don't think stalked glandular trichomes are only common to cannabis do you? Trichomes appear in about 30% of all plants. Anyway, one theory is that they are stalked in order to raise the gland higher above the leaves so larger insects will get caught in the resin. Another theory is that the glands produce toxins dangerous even to the plant itself, thus keeping it away from the leaves to protect itself from harm. I don't know if they are right.
Thanks for the link. Interesting. Don Piano didn't say how he knows it isn't beneficial for trichs. I don't think he knows. There is lots of growth during the dark period. Stems, for example dramatically grow vertically looking for light. Why not trichs? It needs to be tested. I should think this could be tested. Put a light blocker on a leaf or two, just when trichs begin to show. Use aluminum foil, for example, clipped around the edge of the leaf but a few millimeters above the leaf surface to allow for trich growth. Don't cover the bottom because you want the stomates to "breath." Do trichs grow under a shield? If they do, then you don't need light for their production. Of course that doesn't mean they don't grow during the day either.
I've been ordered to catch a plane in a few of hours for a several day job. Unfortunately where I'm going I won't have access to the internet. I have to rush to pack and leave you guys, but I want to get out some other ideas out to you before I leave. I apologize for the short burst sentences. I'm in a rush! I think this is a good time to stop anyway. The arguments are beginning to repeat. It's getting boring. It appears that amoril and others aren't reading my posts or they don't understand them, so what's the point to continue? I hope I've made some people think. I've made my point: there isn't enough evidence to say that UVB has an effect on THC. As you can see, no one has provided a bit of convincing evidence. At least amoril has admitted that his methods of determining THC via UVB bulbs is not reliable. Too bad he's convinced by bad "evidence." So here's something more to think about: Lots of evidence that UVB destroys or degrades THC directly, sorry I don't have time to get the full studies to you. There are also studies that show that amber trichs have less THC than cloudy ones (up to 40% I think). Look it up. Brown trichs have even less THC. So why not harvest sooner if you're aim is high THC content? A trich gland could act like a thermal oven. My early physics class had us calculate what a perfectly unvented box with a single heat source will do: Temperatures will climb toward infinity! How well do trich glands vent off heat? If THC absorbs UVB light as well as people think, the glands could very well reach temperatures high enough to destroy THC. A UVB photon has a lot of energy. I think that's what the studies indicate. I could be wrong but why risk destroying THC? Maybe the degradation (brown glands) is producing the couch-lock that makes everyone think it's more powerful. Think about it. The "THC-absorbs-UVB-therefore-it's-purpose-is-to-protect -the-plant-from-UVB damage" theory doesn't make sense. Chlorophyll and cellulose also absorbs UVB. In fact many UVB absorption filters use thin-film cellulose to block UVB. Carbon blocks UVB and all life forms on earth are carbon based. Just because THC absorbs UVB doesn't mean UVB protection is its purpose. It's a very weak hypothesis. Should I make the claim that cellulose or chlorophyll is there to protect the plant from UVB? Correlations don't prove cause. My best guess as to the purpose of THC is that it's there to prevent insects or some other microbe or animal from hurting the plant. Lots of biologists also think this is the leading hypothesis. It fits better than any other hypothesis. Think Occams razor. Makes sense. Animals with brains have THC receptors. The THC is most abundant during flowering. You don't want bugs eating the seed producing calyxes. People have used THC as a bug repellant on other plants. I think it was used against some species of caterpillar I think. I don't remember. Look it up. The trichs are there for several reasons, mainly to protect the plant from drying out, at least that's what most biologists think. THC is just riding on the resin. You want a better way to increase THC? Flames destroys THC. Some claim up to 50% depending on what kind of flame (match flame, butane, etc.) Use a vaporizer instead. It only destroys around 2% or less. You want your pot potency to increase by as much as 48%? Use a vaporizer. Hypoventilate your inhalation; that will also effectively do the same as high yields. Your pot will last longer. There you go: these two things will effectively make stronger pot and make it last longer to boot. How about that? Don't just buy a story just because someone is respected or just makes a claim. Many people try to make themselves out as experts when they don't understand what they are talking about. I think this is what we are seeing on these cannabis boards. I'm probably older than most people here. I've heard lots of crazy theories about pot potency. To give one example, around 40 years ago, some infamous pot head wrote a book claimed that storing pot with dry ice in a refrigerator will dramatically improve potency. Ever heard of it? Lots of people bought it just because he said it. (I tried it but I couldn't tell a difference). In my town, the dry ice manufacturer suddenly started getting large purchases of dry ice from teenagers. The police were called in, the town committee made them stop making dry ice. The fad eventually went away. People who want to believe will only see what they want to see. This is how spoon benders and horoscopes work. Below is a little humorous lesson from Monty Python: Mrs. O [reading her horoscope]: You have green, scaly skin, and a soft yellow underbelly with a series of fin-like ridges running down your spine and tail. Although lizardlike in shape, you can grow anything up to thirty feet in length with huge teeth that can bite off great rocks and trees. You inhabit arid sub-tropical zones and you wear spectacles. Mrs. Trepidatious: It's very good about the spectacles. Mrs. O: It's amazing! --From Monty Python's Flying Circus ("What the Stars Foretell," episode 37) It's been fun, so respect to all, good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night! Keep token, keep it real. Explain to your marijuana friends how to grow their own. Flood the world with cannabis. The police can't arrest us all. Good luck, and over and out. Don't believe that correlations prove cause. And one more thing (and not just for cannabis research but for your life): THINK INSTEAD OF BELIEVE!
dude, you have yet to address the actual idea ive had. I openly admitted that once I thought carefully about the various reports, not all of them made sense. however, your only answer to the terpene production is that Im making it up. thats simply not true. just because one study/journal hasnt mapped the entire thought process out doesnt mean that it cant be assembled. UVB light is known to increase terpene production. In multiple plants. period. Olivetol is a required precursor chemical for cannabinoids. It is a terpenophenolic. It requires a terpene. It has been shown that olivetol can be derived from multiple terpenoids. THIS explains why the presence of UV light is able to increase THC production, even in the presence of less UV light later in flowering. The terpenes are produced in periods of high UV radiation as a defense mechanism. As the terpenoids develop, they form other compounds...specifically olivetol. now, wouldnt it certainly stand to reason that if I allow for more of the first chemical, that I can get more of the derivative? the more that goes in, the more potential exists for the byproducts. I understand why you dont want to discuss this any further, youve been saying the same things repeatedly. but simply saying im imagining this is not a reply. I posted all the links for each of the steps previously, I dont feel the need to cite it again. All im saying is this : you havent experimented with UV light, at all. Dont tell people it wont work. Simply put, it does. Just because you dont know the science behind it doesnt mean it isnt present. I admit that Im no expert either, but Im at least interpreting the given data. maybe in a few years we will have a lot more info to go on, until then, we are required to add our own pieces of the puzzle. Besides, if you step back, this explanation is much more rational than most of Joe Knuc's (although its not all useless information, just poorly applied at times). It fits with the predation theory. Terpenes are chemicals produced to protect the plant. It makes sense to convert them into forms that also protect from insects/animals. Why have two processes when you could have one, that just moves on down the line. This would be the simplest explanation. yet, i imagine it....so you say at least. i still like the medicinal example presented by bobby digital. these people are on consistent amounts of product, and that amount varied. thats cut and dry.
id also like to point out a couple things :: why is THC produced at all indoors with no UV light? GENETICS. the plant is going to try and protect itself automatically because emperically, it has had to do so for generations. It expects this for the future. HOWEVER, this does not mean that THC production is fully realized, it could imply the opposite. simple adaptations. Why does putting an indoor plant outside hurt/kill it? because its had no uv light currently, and the sun puts out a lot. its defenses arent honed. the plant will adapt within its own life cycle to a certain degree, and over a few generations to a fairly substantial degree. it has adapted to a "soft" environment. if the same plant is gradually introduced to UV light, it can be placed outside safely in flowering. ---- the rest of the information you posted is good/true, but not exactly new. At least Ive known about lowered THC content when trichs degrade...thats why some people harvest early, some later, depending on the type of buzz they are after. its common knowledge that for a heady, clear, THC high clear to cloudy is best. For a more narcotic, couchlock effect, amber to brown, depending on desired intensity and amount of associated head buzz (THC). however, it is possible to have *more* cannabinoids, regardless of what state they are in. all im saying is this. people get so concerned about pH being 0.2 off, temps 5 degrees too hot, light overwatering, relative humidity, etc...and pay no attention to what portions of the spectra are actually present, and what purposes they may enable in the plant. the studies showing terpenoid production being linked to UVB radiation are fairly clear. It doesnt take a genius to assume that if cannabinoid synthesis requires a chemical derived from a terpene, more terpenes *allows* for more cannabinoids. I never said that there arent other factors. there are. tons. probably dozens the scientific community hasnt even considered. that doesnt mean that each step doesnt contribute something. If you feed your plant, but shitty light, youre not getting much. If you have great light, and only a peat pellet, you wont get much. Too humid? not good. pH way off? you wont get a thing. but saying that I can produce cannabinoids without UV light is not a response to the effectiveness of it. I can produce cannabinoids without a ph meter too. I could probably do it with miracle grow soil, and no supplementation/feeding. I could probably do it in a 12" space. would any of those be optimal? i highly doubt it. am i able to create the *perfect* habitat for cannabis? absolutely not. can you? probably no better than me. so, theoretically, we are both producing cannabinoids in sub-optimal conditions. that would mean that there are in fact other processes in place.
and, since youve said it a couple times....YES, i know trichomes are found in multiple species of plants. did you know that the trichs in cannabis are the only ones known to contain THC? did you know that in some plants they serve as defense mechanisms, some serve as reproductive aids, and some actually work photosynthetically. Looks like apples and oranges to me....but you seem to like pointing out they can be found elsewhere.
vaporizing pot doesnt make it stronger. it just means you get a better percentage of the THC. did you know you can set flame to a stick/hemp strand, and let the cherry of that ignite your bud? its almost the same thing as a vaporizer without spending a couple hundred bucks. and, you still get to use your favorite pipe/bong. in the same sense, simply holding your hit in longer will increase the amount of THC you absorb into your lungs. you may also have a head rush from lack of oxygen storing your buds in dark/airtight places slows the decomposition of cannabinoids(ziplocs are terrible). however, NONE of these have anything to do with UV light. yes, they all work. THAT DOESNT MEAN UV LIGHT DOESNT WORK. ----
Excerpts from supporting research for my previous post: UV-B FLAVONOID RELATIONSHIP UV-B TERPENOID RELATIONSHIP POSITIVE EFFECTS OF UV-A ON PLANTS The decision to supplement my grows with UV lights isn't for Uber-THC production. It's based on a working theory that Flavonoid and Terpenoid accumulation directly effects the quality of my plants. "Quality" being subjective I leave room to argue this assertion. All things considered, if you agree that greater flavonoid accumulation in the plant = more flavor, and greater terpenoid accumulation = more aromatic, and that Ultraviolet light exposure = increased flavanoid and terpenoid accumulation... well, I'll just leave the rest to your imagination. Good Times.
smoove, thats good stuff. Id encountered many of those studies in forming my similar conclusions, but there were a few I hadnt seen. Great work. and, Id like to reinforce the conclusion Ive drawn, using smoove's links since they are fresh. olivetol is a terpenophenolic, and is also the chemical precursor to cannabinoids. terpenophenolic is a terpenoid + a phenolic(flavanoids). the evidence shows that UVB light promotes the development of both of these compounds. It would be silly to think that there is no direct correlation between UVB and cannabinoid production
yo amoril i've got a bit of a mind bender for you... I just found an interesting bit of research, it got me thinking and I wanted to get your thoughts... It may take a second to wrap your head around the question and I can clarify if it's not worded clearly... but here goes... If you could biosynthetically culture THC molecules, in essence, culture non-cannabis cells that produce and secrete pure THC without the presence of any trichome structure and under artificial non UV emitting light sources.... could that be interpreted to mean Ultraviolet light is NOT a prerequisite for fully realized THC molecules? LOL. I know it seems random but I really do have a good reason for asking.
ok, first thing that came to my mind is "i need to load a bowl"....5 minutes later, here's where Im at Ive seen information on artificial THC, it seems that olivetol was easily derived from limonene (iirc). from this point, they were able to chemically derive THC, or probably whatever target cannabinoid you wanted. in that sense, no, ultraviolet light is NOT required for THC production. in cannabis, limonene (a flavanoid) is part of the equation, but not presented artificially. it appears that this is why UVB light is useful in THC biosynthesis, to provide the compounds required. if you can start with the compounds, then no, UVB light is not required to convert them to THC. ---- i also saw someone's grow where they were attempting to make african violets (or something) that produced THC. to do this, he had DNA primers for 5 genetic sequences, and was going to try to culture them in e. coli and then substitute to the flowers. something i found interesting was his foresight in including some of cannabis' natural flavanoid/terpene compounds, as well as the marker for olivetol. However, I dont think he had gotten very far...so its mostly theoretical. beyond that, im still skeptical that it is that simple...serendipity can be cool though. in this example, UVB light may still be required to fully realize the olivetol potential, and thusly the THC. but, his intentions in doing this were to be able to freely grow his plants outdoors (where they would get UVB light, so not a problem) ---- either of these on par with what you were asking? or are we two ships in the night?
Check this out and tell me what you think... I elaborated more detail in my question than is provided in this research (absence of trichomes and UV-light) but this is what got me thinking about that question. http://www.nisr.or.jp/englishHP/report2004/NISR04taura.pdf Basically they cultured BY-2 tobacco hairy root cells expressing THCA synthase enzymes!!! hmmmm
thats cool shit. probably what gave the african violet guy his inspiration lol. couple things though first, the yeast and hairy roots were very inefficient, and the best result was only around 50% yield...so, not ideal. but, this really doesnt have much to do with UV...ill try to explain this study establishes that THCA synthase is what converts CBGA into THCA, independently of other plant processes. For this to work, both CBGA and THCA synthase must be present. the author 'spliced' the marker for THCA synthase into various cellular cultures, including tobacco hairy roots and BY-2 cells. so, this element was now included in the culture. He then supplemented the CBGA, since it was not present, nor would it be produced at any point in any of the cultures. and thats why it doesnt apply to UV light the argument in favor of UV light is that terpenoids and flavanoids are produced in higher levels under UVB radiation. these terp/flavs are required to produce olivetolic acid. olivetolic acid combines with geranyl-pyrophosphate to produce CBGA. the author has skipped these steps by supplementing CBGA. so, this goes back to my first guess, the artificial production of THC. if you are providing the precursor chemicals, then no, UV light is not necessary. cannabis needs UVB light to fully produce these chemicals. It will produce some without, because genetically it is told to do so, but it will produce more to protect itself if it needs to. it wont need to with no UVB light. (other forms of stress may invoke similar responses, but the more the merrier)