lucifer

thc is only one part of the story, genetics is more than raw thc numbers, what we have is a level of thc that interacts with 60+ terpenoids (essential oils) in varying ratios, essential oils are a very important part of the equation otherwise 18% thc indica and 18% thc sativa would have the same effect

I believe that when my buddy said the negative and positive photons he was referring more to the rotation of the photons, like positrons and electrons
did you know lemons are the only food that is anionic, all other food is cationic

OldTimer

Yep. I concur on the fact that THC is not the be all of potency Lucifer. This is why I refer to it all as activation/realisation, instead of the old wives tale about THC content being the only governer of potency. I did read the article on the test conducted on many subjects that were given samples of 18%thc from a sativa and an 18%thc sample from an indica, who unanimously agreed that the sativa sample was more potent. Which proves that thc contents are not benchmarking for potency.

I was told that Photons have no rotation during their propergation. They propergate directionally on a 3D (x,y,z axis) plane, but even there, there is no difference between the propergation of natural or artificial light. Let's not forget that if in doubt about this one can always email or ring and ask any Body or person who are/is qualified in Photometry at university Physics Degree level. Which I have done so already.

But then again it does not mean that the boffins maybe overlooking something when they interpret the anaology of 'some form of polarity' on the 2 differing types of light. One thing that was also pointed out to me is that polarity can occur with photons, 'but only' with polarized light. Perhaps that is what your friend may have been refering to? But that too wouldn't make sense, as naturally occuring light without the appropriate filtration, is not what is commonly known as polarized-light - as in the type that polarized-sunglasses produce.

When I put it to the boffins as to what they thought was the difference between natural and artificial light, the explination I was given about it was that it is only in the 'all encumbassing higher Spectrual bandwidth and 'high yet biologically acceptable' levels/amplitude' that the sun's light has.

Fair enough about the polarization existance of foods, as for the cation and anionic foods, but we cannot compare foods with photons - not in this instance anyway. It'd be like comparing food with harmonics or electricity. There is no correlation. Lemons produce it due to the electrolytic state of the high levels of acid and some NaCl within it, that offsets it electolytically compared to all other foods - an exception more than a rule, so to speak.

All roads do lead to Rome with this though, in that the Sun is the supreme horticultural HID in the sky.

OT

lucifer

good points, the sun is supreme,
I have been quite sensitve to light since I can remember, and when I stare at any source of light be it the sun, a candle or some street lights I tend to see the center of the light as a white ball surrounded by a magenta, purple, blue, green, yellow, orange and red bands like a rainbow, and if I keep staring there will be more bands visible, a white ball inside a rainbow inside a rainbow inside a rainbow, etc., like octaves, it is easy to do with candles
so I watch the hids and the light seems disorganized, it looks foggy and it flickers to the beat of ac, and it makes a real high pitched sound so it is easy to understand in my own mind at least that the plants are doing a fine job adjusting to the environment, we find some strains that just don't work indoors, they can't seem to adjust to the light or it is not quite right for healthy growth
did we talk about the role that nutrition plays in the creation of truely trippy buds?

OldTimer

I don't believe we did Lucifer.

The only real common demoninator that I have found with all highly hallucigenic plants grown that I have witnessed or grown myself is blood&bone in the soil. Not to say that that is the only demoninator, but I have tried growing the same strain in the same place and in the same soil after growinig it truly hallucigenic previously with B&B in the soil, but added other manurers in latter grows and excluded the B&B but they wouldn't become as devestatingly hallucigenic again. Till I again added the B&B in latter grows. Not to say that only B&B will do it, but I have noticed they grow more hallucigenic with it.

Other than that, I'm all ears.

OT

Grass_Hopper

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer Not off the top I don't. But ... if it's a top quality indoor HID setup you're after, then I would recommend you have a look at the Gavita systems, and especially the P.L.Light Systems. They make the best horticultural HIDs in the world ...

Hi there OT ~

Thanks for the recommendations!! I've seen some ads for these, and will definitely take a closer look at them, now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer YES, as the sole source of light for the 1st and last hour of the indoor veg photoperiod ... The UVB fluros are a supplemental source to the HIDs and are run in conjunction with the HIDs only during the period that is within the 'first and last hours of lights-on', after and before the incandescent lights are run. Rememeber also, that the transition between the incandescent lights and the HIDs+UVfluros is a MAKE-BEFORE-BREAK scenario that assures the plants are not left in darkness.

Thanks again. I was'nt clear on that point, as my question reveals. I'm curious, though, if a 3 minute transition overlap would present a problem; where the incandescent turns on 3 mins before the HID turns off ? I'm assuming a similar transition phase occurs in nature, where the increase of red light occurs similtaneous, at day's end, with the dispersal of the blue.

While we're on the topic of "red-light", though, I'm trying to understand what the MO article means when it says red light inhibits flowering in "short-day" plants.

Quote:

"The red light in sunrise returns the Pr to the Pfr form. 'Phytochrome Pfr is the active form and controls flowering ... It inhibits flowering of short-day plants (the long night period is required for the conversion of Pfr to Pr) and promotes flowering of long day plants' ( MO, footnote 7- #2c )."

I've been trying to decipher it from the context, but either I'm missing something, for being too thick; or something's askew in the way its written.

A "short-day" plant, I presume, is one planted and grown during the "off-season" in tropical zones, where two crops a year can be fully grown and harvested. It has a shorter day and longer night than plants grown "in-season". That much seems clear, but if red light converts Pr to Pfr, which the flowering process apparently requires, in which way does it hinder flowering in "short-day" plants? Does this apply to indoor growing? Would red incandescent light, for example, hinder budset in Neville's Haze that's being flowered under 6 hrs light, followed by 13 hrs darkness, and should a MH be used for "short-day" plants, instead of HPS, if the red spectrum can be a hindrance, under these circumstances?

I have another question, though, concerning the optimum nm range for THC realization. You write that the optimum range is 300-315 nm, and I've been trying to correlate that with the MO article, which says,

Quote:

"Pate (1983) indicated that in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UVB (280-320 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis,"

and that

Quote:

"all cannabinolic compounds show an absorption maximum between 270 and 280 nm in the ultraviolet region."

And Clarke says:

Quote:

"In the laboratory, Mechoulam has converted CBD acid to THC acids by exposing a solution of CBD in n-hexane to ultraviolet light of 235-285 nm ( MB, p. 132 )."

I'm confused, then, as to which range is optimum: 235-285, 270-280, 280-320, or 300-315?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer Capitate-stalked glandular trichomes only exist on bracts that are seeded, as the article by Marijuana-optics outlines, as do other sources. When fully realized, it is the most potent form of triclom.

Marijuana Optics says, if I'm reading it correctly, that

Quote:

"this (capitate-stalked glandular) trichome is triggered into growth by either of the two ways that the floral bract is turned into fruit.( 7 )"

Either, one, by pollination, or two, by the floral bract becoming parthenocarpic:-

Quote:

(7) #2: The floral bract has become parthenocarpic: Parthenocarpic fruits develop without fertilization and have no seeds ... Only the photoperiod (c) will trigger parthenocarpy in flowering female marijuana plants. Marijuana parthenocarpy occurring before the autumnal equinox is considered by the author to be "long-day" and marijuana parthenocarpy occurring after the autumnal equinox to be "short-day".

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer You're getting into ground that I best advise you not too - ie intense UVB grows indoors. 10W is a massive amount of UVB and would be extremely dangerous. For information purposes only, I can tell you that HIDs can be ordered/bought without any UV protective coating on their sleeve. But once again, it too requires the use of full protective clothing to use.

My question was more hypothetical, from the stand-point that I've not yet decided what form my UVB supplementation will take; as I'm still in the research mode. I might decide to start UVB supplementation on a smaller/safer scale, and scale-up slowly, if necessary, 'til I feel I'm producing genuine "trip-weed". The logical way to go, it seems to me, is to ascertain the minmal amount of UVB supplementation it takes to produce "grail-quality" trip-weed. Approaching it from that perspective, I'd start at the ground level and work upwards incrementally. But, strictly "for information purposes only," if I did have a 400W MH with a total UVB output of 10W, what distance should this lamp be kept from the canopy? Same as usual, for a standard MH HID?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer ... if you are willing to go to such lengths to grow it, then why not do it outdoors? It would be safer, cheaper. Spend the money on stealth and security for your outdoor enviroment ...

I live in Canada, not the best place for outdoor; and my precise residential location kind'a makes guerilla growing a virtual impossibility. Safer? Yes, but only in terms of health. "Cheaper"? Maybe, but I'm not so sure about that , given my specific circumstances. More convenient? Probably not. Plus , the MO article states that the UVB photon is missing as well " in glass or corrugated fiberglass covered greenhouses".

I've been working toward greenhouse growing , and will continue in that direction , but that is not around the corner , in my current situation. It's a good 2 - 4 years off , and until then , I must work indoor(s). However , I'll keep an open mind to all suggestions on how to grow sativa dominant trip-weed , in the great Canadian outdoors , at my present latitude.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer ... high-emitting UVB tubes are not made for any applications where there is exposure to human skin or eyes at all. They are contained within a housing that emits the light only in one direction which minimises any stray light emissions, and they all come with a manufactures warning that they are NEVER to be used by anyone, or ini the presence of anyone, who is not completely dressed with UV protective clothing and eyewear.

As I was reading this, I began to wonder if there's something in artificially produced UVB that makes it more harmful than UVB naturally occuring outdoors? I'm getting the feeling there might be, as I don't see this type of concern about natural UVB; or have I missed it, because of living in Canada? If indoor UVB is supplied at roughly the same concentration level as that naturally occuring outdoor(s), then what's all the extra fuss about? Please don't misunderstand me, though. I'm not trying to belittle the risk, by asking such a question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer Sure genetics will govern even the level of different strains's fully-realized potencies, in that some strains when fully realized will be more trippy than the level of trippiness that others have. But I was attempting to point out that ... the differance between most good to excellent strains is not that vast. A strain either has what it takes, or it doesn't, the rest is up to the grower ... potency levels can be fundamentally classified into no more than 3 grades of potency - low, good and excellent. The low grades of potency level cannabis is no longer available from any decent seed suppliers today ... if it is a reputed bank/supplier you are dealing with, then you will only get one of two types of strians in regards to potency - good or excellent. Either will produce tripping weed if grown correctly.

Pardon me for making an issue out of this. Besides, I was finding it a little difficult to convince myself you were saying genetics might be irrelevant; as, in fact, you were not. On the other hand, I've never had the impression from any seed company, Dutch or otherwise, that genetics were all that mattered. I think they'd all agree with you, as do I, that, the skill and experience of the grower makes the difference - every time - in the final analysis. Hence the tendency of some seed companies to rate or classify their seedlines in terms of growing difficulty: e.g. very easy, easy, not-so-easy, difficult, and very difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer The term fully-realized has more to do with the concept of fully-psychoactivated resin, that can only be accomplished under the immense spectral output of the Sun, rather than how much THC the resin has. ie it's got it, or it hasn't. It has been found now, that along with other issues, that even the ratios of the THCs, CBNs/Ds etc also play a large role in the overall potency of the resin, not just the THC percentage.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out, too, OT. I've been reflecting on this question further , about the nature of fully-realized THC , and was actually going to post something on it, in this thread, while waiting for your reply.

According to R.C. Clarke,

Quote:

"total psychoactivity is attributed to the ratios of the primary cannabinoids of CBC, CBD, THC and CBN; the ratios of methyl, propyl, and pentyl homologs of these cannabinoids; and the isomeric variations of each of these cannabinoids. Myriad subtle combinations are sure to exist. Also, terpenoid and other aromatic compounds might suppress or potentiate the effects of THCs ( Marijuana Botany, p. 133 ) ."

Lucifer's earlier post, in this thread, about the effect of terpenoids on quality /potency, alluded to this; and Jason King seems to point in the same direction as well:-



These passages, together with something I've read prior about the qualitative difference(s) between Delta 6 and Delta 9 THC, led me to reconsider my position, and to think that THC percentages are only half the story, if that much, and that "qualitative" differences in THCs, like "full-realization", as just one example, must account for the greater part of the story.

If I had taken more time to reflect longer on the meaning of "fully-realized", I might not've asked the question, or given so much importance to percentage. I don't know how, but I failed to realize there's a world of difference between 20% "fully-realized" THC and 20% THC only partially "realized"; and that world is one "wholly psychoactive" in nature, as you say.

Given this basic consideration, I'd much prefer a strain of 10% "fully-realized" THC over one with 20% THC *not* "fully-realized". Comparing the two is sort-of like comparing apples and oranges, in one sense; as there is no real comparison, when you get right down to it !!

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer But I do beleieve that if we start to look at those aspects and others of the overall potency of the resin, we would require another thread. That is not really the reason I posted this thread either.

I can appreciate that, and while I probably could not contribute much, if anything, to a thread of that nature, delving into the finer technical details about THC chemistry, and the way different potencies and qualities of high are manufactured at the bio-chemical level, I would'nt hesitate to follow it, as far as I can to learn what I could, if it would make me a better grower, in the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldTimer ... nothing against you or anyone else GH, but from now on I would only feel right about responding to questions that are not in relation to high intensity UVB indoor grows. Apart from the safty issue, that is not why I posted this issue to begin with. So I hope you don't mind ...

Thanks , sincerely, for taking time-out to entertain my questions. Your reply was very enlightening , as usual , I found. And it was cool of you to still reply despite the fact my line of questioning , and apparent intent , seemed to unsettle you a little , on account of the potential health risks.

Your reservations toward discussing the subject any further are entirely reasonable , and as I wish not to appear unreasonable, you have my word not to press the issue(s) any further, beyond these final questions. If you'd prefer not to answer even these, I will understand.

peace ~
gh

Grass_Hopper

Apart from the utterly invaluable information it provided on the importance of the UVB photon, to "fully-realized" THC production, the Marijuana Optics article makes
several other observations that greatly fascinated me. One such observation concerned the age-old cultivation practice, in both Nepal and India, of the systematic elimination of the male among certain land race populations of indica; in favour of the "feminized" method of seed production, through cross-pollination and selfing. For example, see this :-

Though I cannot speak from experience on this, I've heard of instances in the past where "true" males were extremely rare in some land race populations; to the extent of existing in a ratio of 1:100, or even 1:1000, in very rare instances. But these reports have been of sativas, and not indicas. I was under the impression that this might've been the case with Dalat. And I've always wondered why there was such a comparatively high ratio of hermies in such strains, like Thai, for example, over other strains; but for some odd reason, I never seemed to attribute it directly to the intended and systematic assault, by some indigenous growers, upon the male in those populations; and their complete dependence on "feminized" seed production !!

Marijuana Optics appears to provide two reasons for this practice:- 1 ) A preference for parthenocarpy over fertilization ( pollination ) for triggering growth of " the capitate-stalked glandular trichome " ; and 2 ) A preference for "long-day" plants over "short-day"; which can be triggered, by parthenocary, into "trippy" trichome production. It seems the main reason for preferring "long-day" plants over "short-day" is twofold in nature, respecting both potency and yield. Long-day plants will be the most potent, due to the greater UVB exposure they receive, and will yield better because "red" light hinders flower production in short-day plants.

swampy

with the holes in the ozone couldnt better weed be grown in southern Argentina outside or way up north?

Grass_Hopper

Good question. I don't know. What are the other growing conditions like in those places? How long are the days and nights? How long is the growing season? What's the weather like? etc. From the standpoint of just UVB light, does the o-zone layer filter anything harmful out of it ? If the "unfiltered" light stream remains basically unchanged, other than the UVB level(s) being more intense, it would then seem possible; depending on the other enviromental co-factors.

Grass_Hopper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grass_Hopper A "short-day" plant, I presume, is ...

MO states it like this :-

Quote:

"(d)In the Indica gene pool, female-produced pollen carries an allele for long-day parthenocarpy ... The allele for long-day parthenocarpy in the female-produced pollen is carried into the gene pool by self-pollination and cross-pollination ... etc.

Critical night-lengths are genetically determined. A "short-day" plant cannot bloom before the autumnal equinox, because the days are too long and the nights too short. I must have been having a brain-seizure, when I missed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grass_Hopper ... but if red light converts Pr to Pfr, which the flowering process apparently requires, in which way does it hinder flowering in "short-day" plants?

While I think I have a better understanding today of the difference between "long-day" and "short-day" plants, I'm still unclear about why exactly phytochrome Pfr, ( and thus red-light,) hinders flowering in "short-day" plants.

Again, MO states that :-

" The red light in sunrise returns the Pr to the Pfr form. "Phytochrome Pfr is the active form and controls flowering and germination. It inhibits flowering of short-day plants (the long night period is required for the conversion of Pfr to Pr) and promotes flowering of long day plants. "

According to this, too much Pfr is what hinders budset in short day plants. And thus the need for a longer night period, to convert it back to its precursor stage, phytochrome Pr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grass_Hopper Does this apply to indoor growing? Would red incandescent light, for example, hinder budset in Neville's Haze that's being flowered under 6 hrs light, followed by 13 hrs darkness, ...

The question seems a little confused, I must admit, the way it's been structured; but what I'm basically asking here, again, is that, since Neville's Haze falls into the "short-day" category, would red light somehow reduce its ability to flower? And, in that connection, whether or not MH is better for "short-day" plants.

Well, according to MO , the longer nights, of the short day season, combat the Pfr, by returning or converting it back to the precursor stage of Pr. So, it seems that red light is not a problem to flowering, so long as the nights are long enough to deal with the Pfr.

But I'm still wondering why red-light supplementation is a good thing for short-day plants, if it creates more phytochrome Pfr, which then requires a longer night to convert it back to Pr. Is it possible that if short-day plants are flowered under MH lamps, they would'nt need longer nights to convert the Pfr back to Pr ?

MO is very clear, though, that :-

Quote:

"All unfertilized flowering female marijuana plants will become parthenocarpic in a 9:00 hour photoperiod (15:00 hour dark period) ... etc."

Both short-day and long-day plants, heterozygous and homozygous alike.

Grass_Hopper

I've never used B&B before, so was wondering if all brands are as good as the next, or if you recommend a particular brand over the rest, and what's the ratio of mixture in the soil. Thanks OT.

lucifer

it's the angle of the sun, the further away we are from the equator the more red light, the sun passes pretty much overhead at the equator which makes for more blue light, correct me if I'm wrong though, it seems to me though that sunsets have more apparent red light and last longer up here in the north

Grass_Hopper

Thanks for that information, lucifer. I appreciate it. Very helpful !! It appears, then, after all, that pure equatorial sativas ( or "short-day" plants, in general ) may not require red-light supplementation, according to their natural enviroment. However, the opposite appears to hold equally true for all "long-day" plants grown at N35Lat, or above.

As far as which lamp is better suited for growing pure equatorial sativas and doms, indoors, OT's recommendation seems good to me, about using 1600 w of both MH and HPS in a small room. Based on UV and red-light considerations, it seems logical that the 1 K lamp should be MH, with a 600w HPS, rotated on a light mover.

If one plans to supplement with UVB, and flower under a 10/14 cycle, or 9/15, or even a 6/13 cycle, as some indoor growers are doing, then perhaps a 1K HPS, with a 600w MH will work equally as well. Just a few miscellaneous thoughts revolving around my head, which I only casually considered before reading Marijuana Optics .

Grass_Hopper

Marijuana Optics says:-


What I find fascinating here, in this passage, is the observation that the legendary power of pure grade "A" Thai sativa is cultivated during the winter season, when UVB radiation is considerably weaker than before the equinox. One can only wonder how potent it would be if grown during the summer months !! However, it seems lower UVB levels over a longer flowering period, may actually produce a more potent product than peak levels during a shorter flowering period. Any comments?

1981

Hi Grasshopper
I think yes, if you grow the same strain inside within 3 months or outside within 5-6 months, there is more powerfull indica-component in the high and the trippy element of the sativas are in full swing.
Last year, i had the chance to test AK-47, White Russian and Jack Flash grown from in- and outside. The inside plants gave a solid but compared to the outside grown a solid boring high. The outside grass was stronger, lasted 20-30% of the time longer and was much more trippier.

lucifer

and outdoor bud is usually tastier too

Grass_Hopper

Hi there ' 81 ~

You know - I'd give up almost anything to be able to grow pure sativa outdoors, especially if its "Haze" quality in taste and potency !! That's not possible for me, right now, but sativa doms are possible, and 50:50's are a definite go, for sure. I started growing outdoors, and after I got ripped-off a few times, I moved indoors and stayed there.

I've been working towards getting myself a nicely secluded and very private greenhouse, and will keep working on that "breeding" project; but when it comes to my own personal stash-weed, I plan to grow that outdoors, whenever I can. Not more than about half-a-dozen plants, though, I'd imagine. Just enough to keep me fully supplied for the year, with a little extra to spread around with close friends.

Pure equatorial sativas, however, cannot be grown here, as the growing season is just too cold and short. If UVB supplementation does what I'm hoping it will, maybe the quality of the pure sativa, grown indoors, will be superior to anything I can grow outdoors here, of a hybridized nature. If I just had a sure, steady, and safe supply of outdoor grown pure sativa trip-weed, I probably would'nt grow it !!

Grass_Hopper

hi lucifer ~

Taste is such an important quality. While I'm hesitant to say it's more important than the quality of the high, I'm equally reluctant to say it's less important. Taste is such a big part of the whole smoking experience, I honestly can't see why anyone would want to smoke anything but the tastiest herb they can cultivate. That's partially why I can't see why anyone would grow their own personal stash-weed in hydro, rather than dirt. For personal-stash, I rate yield as the least important trait. For personal stash-weed, I want only the "tastiest", smelliest, trippiest, highest kind there is !!

lucifer

I'm going to take one step further and boldly state that taste is directly related to the quality of high which may very well be the next frontier of cannabis research, to understand the role of essential oils (terpenoids) and their contribution to high/medicinal effect by themselves and when combined with cannabinoids
we're building an extraction vessel that in theory will extract everything within a specific gravity, using an unknown solvent that is benign, and extracting using freshly harvested material at ambient temps., so our goal is to create 'total extracts' from strains and then analysis, in the mean time we'll be testing some of our strains for thc, willie nelson a few others will be sent to the lab soon

swampy

Ill be watch , this sounds great