THCFarmer.com
121,273 Members Log In Register
Log In Register

Unlocking Cannabis’ Full Potential: The Case For and Against UV Scynce Led Light UV Cannabis Relation What is the true UV and Cannabis relation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonnainTripp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Unlocking Cannabis’ Full Potential: The Case For and Against UV Scynce Led Light UV Cannabis Relation What is the true UV and Cannabis relation?

DonnainTripp 112 Replies 16,573 Views
Page 3 of 6 · Replies 41–60 of 113
#43
Moe.Red said:
Not sure your analogy holds there for a couple reasons. The vascular system in people is very different than plants. Plants don’t circulate like people. And yes if you pick up a radioactive sample in your left hand and hold it away from your body the effects are primarily in your hand. But again that’s not what we are talking about.

I don’t have a dog in this fight I don’t “want uv to work” any more than I want CO2 or nutrients to work. I just want to be clear on if it does. And by work I mean more cannabinoid molecules production across the plant if you count the number, primarily THC. Using that definition I do not think it does. For me it consistently produces less plant mass. Maybe as a percentage it might do a tiny bump, but I am not conceding that yet either. Not across the board.

As far as the less plant mass, scroll back a bit and look at the effects it has on the leaves. Turns them into tacos. I have witnessed this several times. There is no way those leaves can be more efficient than normal flat leaves. That is one of multiple morphological changes I have seen with uvb.
Click to expand...
Well, no analogy is exact, it was really just an example of how "partial plant" may not be a good way to test things out. As far as leaves curling, are you saying that's a downside of UV? It seems as if you are.........and wouldn't the answer be to move the UV light farther away? You would want it as close as possible just up to the point of not causing any damage.......

I don't know if we're on the same wavelength......I plan on adding UV and tweaking when and how I use it, but I don't think there's any difinitive proof yet either way that UV accomplishes the goal of more resin/more THC than without (added) UV. But even if it made improvements in flavor/aroma and not resin and THC, it still might be worth adding
 
#44
Harpua88 said:
Well, no analogy is exact, it was really just an example of how "partial plant" may not be a good way to test things out. As far as leaves curling, are you saying that's a downside of UV? It seems as if you are.........and wouldn't the answer be to move the UV light farther away? You would want it as close as possible just up to the point of not causing any damage.......

I don't know if we're on the same wavelength......I plan on adding UV and tweaking when and how I use it, but I don't think there's any difinitive proof yet either way that UV accomplishes the goal of more resin/more THC than without (added) UV. But even if it made improvements in flavor/aroma and not resin and THC, it still might be worth adding
Click to expand...
I was trying to steer the conversation away from the plants having circulatory systems like humans, or that sort of thinking. What I referenced in my original post - exudates - is an example of how a single branch speaks to the whole plant. The mechanism is not similar to humans and for the purpose of understanding UVB it's good to be as accurate as we can. Beliefs run rampant on this topic.

In the test I referenced, the results showed different response within the plant left to right. It was clear to me that the effect was local, at least to the visible perspective. It was the equivalent of having a farmers tan in humans where changes happened under UV that did not without. That does not rule out a system wide impact across the plant in addition to the farmers tan.

In my testing, plant mass decreased in UVB irradiated branches. And yes. I think damage to leaf tissue from UVB caused it.

Testing of cannabinoids from UV to non showed no change, except a higher CBG level in the UV side. This could have been instrumentation because I use TLC for testing and it is not as precise as a lab.

So what I am saying is that I saw detrimental effects without any positive feedback in the form of a THC blip.

I tested this more than once, at different light intensities and durations. I did it with clones rather than a single plant. I have failed to get the fabled 4% THC spike, or anything approaching it.

In the process of all this, I had many conversations with "experts." Dennis, the founder of Solacure is one who spent a fair amount of time here on the farm and privately assisting in our understanding and testing methods. Ultimately, no one I have ever bumped into has been able to supply the formula for how to achieve this spike. There is a lot of "try this, and if that doesn't work, change the time, if that doesn't work, change the height" but nothing solid. And the vast majority - virtually all really - people on forums who claim that it works, and to just do this or that, have done no lab testing, no side by side, no controlled grows. Those types of posts are belief, not fact. And then you get the folks that have grown one plant, read a paper, and think they got it all figured out. We have one of those on this very thread.

I still hope someone finds the recipe. Could be you. I'm rooting for you. We have a lot to learn.
 
#45
Moe.Red said:
I was trying to steer the conversation away from the plants having circulatory systems like humans, or that sort of thinking. What I referenced in my original post - exudates - is an example of how a single branch speaks to the whole plant. The mechanism is not similar to humans and for the purpose of understanding UVB it's good to be as accurate as we can. Beliefs run rampant on this topic.

In the test I referenced, the results showed different response within the plant left to right. It was clear to me that the effect was local, at least to the visible perspective. It was the equivalent of having a farmers tan in humans where changes happened under UV that did not without. Thatin some qays were does not rule out a system wide impact across the plant in addition to the farmers tan.

In my testing, plant mass decreased in UVB irradiated branches. And yes. I think damage to leaf tissue from UVB caused it.

Testing of cannabinoids from UV to non showed no change, except a higher CBG level in the UV side. This could have been instrumentation because I use TLC for testing and it is not as precise as a lab.

So what I am saying is that I saw detrimental effects without any positive feedback in the form of a THC blip.

I tested this more than once, at different light intensities and durations. I did it with clones rather than a single plant. I have failed to get the fabled 4% THC spike, or anything approaching it.

In the process of all this, I had many conversations with "experts." Dennis, the founder of Solacure is one who spent a fair amount of time here on the farm and privately assisting in our understanding and testing methods. Ultimately, no one I have ever bumped into has been able to supply the formula for how to achieve this spike. There is a lot of "try this, and if that doesn't work, change the time, if that doesn't work, change the height" but nothing solid. And the vast majority - virtually all really - people on forums who claim that it works, and to just do this or that, have done no lab testing, no side by side, no controlled grows. Those types of posts are belief, not fact. And then you get the folks that have grown one plant, read a paper, and think they got it all figured out. We have one of those on this very thread.

I still hope someone finds the recipe. Could be you. I'm rooting for you. We have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

Moe.Red said:
I was trying to steer the conversation away from the plants having circulatory systems like humans, or that sort of thinking. What I referenced in my original post - exudates - is an example of how a single branch speaks to the whole plant. The mechanism is not similar to humans and for the purpose of understanding UVB it's good to be as accurate as we can. Beliefs run rampant on this topic.

In the test I referenced, the results showed different response within the plant left to right. It was clear to me that the effect was local, at least to the visible perspective. It was the equivalent of having a farmers tan in humans where changes happened under UV that did not without. That does not rule out a system wide impact across the plant in addition to the farmers tan.

In my testing, plant mass decreased in UVB irradiated branches. And yes. I think damage to leaf tissue from UVB caused it.

Testing of cannabinoids from UV to non showed no change, except a higher CBG level in the UV side. This could have been instrumentation because I use TLC for testing and it is not as precise as a lab.

So what I am saying is that I saw detrimental effects without any positive feedback in the form of a THC blip.

I tested this more than once, at different light intensities and durations. I did it with clones rather than a single plant. I have failed to get the fabled 4% THC spike, or anything approaching it.

In the process of all this, I had many conversations with "experts." Dennis, the founder of Solacure is one who spent a fair amount of time here on the farm and privately assisting in our understanding and testing methods. Ultimately, no one I have ever bumped into has been able to supply the formula for how to achieve this spike. There is a lot of "try this, and if that doesn't work, change the time, if that doesn't work, change the height" but nothing solid. And the vast majority - virtually all really - people on forums who claim that it works, and to just do this or that, have done no lab testing, no side by side, no controlled grows. Those types of posts are belief, not fact. And then you get the folks that have grown one plant, read a paper, and think they got it all figured out. We have one of those on this very thread.

I still hope someone finds the recipe. Could be you. I'm rooting for you. We have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...
This is all a good thing, and it sounds like you've done some good testing around UV (have you tried UV/A? .....it opens up so many questions.....even though it's small, I believe UVs have their own wavelength ranges......does the testing use all wavelengths? Some? How about the "when" part? Is the last 2 weeks before harvest where UV could help?....by help I mean more resin, more THC.......all 12 hours? 1 hour?, what about UVA and B?)....

But you've done good work......whether it would be scientifically accepted work, or helpful in drawing conclusions, I don't know. But just the fact that you're doing things and doing them well......that's already helpful.
 
#46
Just my opinion.. I went the uv route, I just got rid of every one of them and don’t see myself going back.
My organic method suffered with them. They prayed constantly and my take dropped. I did a two year stint with them, so I think they got a fair shake.
In answer to the why women don’t get so involved, I can tell you first hand. Women are more prone to be practical. If it looks good, smells good and has a damn good kick…run with it!
Men by nature are always seeking bigger better faster, I mean admit it, men do stuff to make the lawnmower run faster!
@Moe.Red you did a perfect read on me! When I began teaching classes, one of the first things I learned was the ones that wanted to argue knew the least. If one cannot speak from experience they should remain silent, until such a time that experience can speak. I refuse to argue at all.
My older students fully know when I say “go ahead and do that, come back and tell us how it worked for you” is actually a kiss of death😅. I fully encourage experimentation just not of a detrimental ending.
When I first came to this forum, it was kind of a hard place. I just chose to put my money where my mouth was and show people what I have learned. I tended to be looked over at times simply I felt, because I was female. I still every once in awhile will run into a chest bumper in here and I fully know the prob simply is that I am a woman. I have special tricks for those guys!
Im glad I stayed as there are so many of you men that I have truly enjoyed getting to know.
My advice to any new females coming aboard, cuss well, shoot well, grow gorgeous plants and enjoy the laughter!
Below, typical praying stance under uv even in near perfect conditions.
 

Attachments

  • 7EB11C95-F406-4A90-9AAD-061DDE2FFBEF.jpeg
    7EB11C95-F406-4A90-9AAD-061DDE2FFBEF.jpeg
    143.2 KB · Views: 90
Last edited:
#47
CannaGranny said:
Just my opinion.. I went the uv route, I just got rid of every one of them and don’t see myself going back.
My organic method suffered with them. They prayed constantly and my take dropped. I did a two year stint with them, so I think they got a fair shake.
In answer to the why women don’t get so involved, I can tell you first hand. Women are more prone to be practical. If it looks good, smells good and has a damn good kick…run with it!
Men by nature are always seeking bigger better faster, I mean admit it, men do stuff to make the lawnmower run faster!
@Moe.Red you did a perfect read on me! When I began teaching classes, one of the first things I learned was the ones that wanted to argue knew the least. If one cannot speak from experience they should remain silent, until such a time that experience can speak. I refuse to argue at all.
My older students fully know when I say “go ahead and do that, come back and tell us how it worked for you” is actually a kiss of death😅. I fully encourage experimentation just not of a detrimental ending.
When I first came to this forum, it was kind of a hard place. I just chose to put my money where my mouth was and show people what I have learned. I tended to be looked over at times simply I felt, because I was female. I still every once in awhile will run into a chest bumper in here and I fully know the prob simply is that I am a woman. I have special tricks for those guys!
Im glad I stayed as there are so many of you men that I have truly enjoyed getting to know.
My advice to any new females coming aboard, cuss well, shoot well, grow gorgeous plants and enjoy the laughter!
Click to expand...
Hello there. I don't know what exact methods you used, and I tend to agree about the male,/female thing......but, if we ever get to a point where proven science can say "UV/A, B.....does help increase resin, THC, terpenes.....and here's the way it needs to be done to achieve the results", then men, women, tall, short........we're all going to do it.
 
#48
Harpua88 said:
This is all a good thing, and it sounds like you've done some good testing around UV (have you tried UV/A? .....it opens up so many questions.....even though it's small, I believe UVs have their own wavelength ranges......does the testing use all wavelengths? Some? How about the "when" part? Is the last 2 weeks before harvest where UV could help?....by help I mean more resin, more THC.......all 12 hours? 1 hour?, what about UVA and B?)....

But you've done good work......whether it would be scientifically accepted work, or helpful in drawing conclusions, I don't know. But just the fact that you're doing things and doing them well......that's already helpful.
Click to expand...
At some point, I just need to pull this all together in on spot. Yes, I have done UVA and UVB together and separately, although not really separately because the UVB tubes still put out at least 25% UVA. Just not UVA specific supplementation. I have posts all over the place on this stuff, and it will be hard to find because I haven't posted on it recently. I'm one of those weird guys that has an apogee PAR / Far Red quantum meter as well as UVA and UVB meters - went down the rabbit hole on trying to figure this out.

Here is a thread that I dusted off some UVB bulbs on a lark to answer some questions for a fellow grower and it attracted some people. Got some interesting help on this thread:

www.thcfarmer.com

Should I add UVB Light?

Hello, I have been growing on a very small scale for about 4 years. I am always trying to learn more about growing and I know that I have so much more to learn. I also know that it's probably a life long process! I started with auto-flowers in a 2 x 2 tent with a horrible LED light. I also...
www.thcfarmer.com www.thcfarmer.com

It didn't result in anything special like finding the spike, so it just died out. But I used what I learned there and continued on. I just never got the benefit I was searching for, including a side quest of trying to bring out THCv for, reasons... and that got me into a lot if UVA testing as well.

In terms of timings and distance, like I said I don't know how to advise you. I was never successful. I can tell you what didn't do anything but damage plants or turn them purple, if you like bag appeal.

All those lights are removed now (including Far Red, a whole other thing) and I don't expect to go back. I am off testing visible spectrum now using Raging Kush II which has an adjustable spectrum.

It's up to somebody else to make a breakthru on this. They recently had a successful fusion reaction, anything is possible.

If you need any help when you get to your testing tag me in I'll do what I can.

EDIT: My views have changed on UV over the past couple years. If you are looking at threads from 3 years ago, well, things have changed since then with new data coming in.
 
Last edited:
#49
CannaGranny said:
Just my opinion.. I went the uv route, I just got rid of every one of them and don’t see myself going back.
My organic method suffered with them. They prayed constantly and my take dropped. I did a two year stint with them, so I think they got a fair shake.
In answer to the why women don’t get so involved, I can tell you first hand. Women are more prone to be practical. If it looks good, smells good and has a damn good kick…run with it!
Men by nature are always seeking bigger better faster, I mean admit it, men do stuff to make the lawnmower run faster!
@Moe.Red you did a perfect read on me! When I began teaching classes, one of the first things I learned was the ones that wanted to argue knew the least. If one cannot speak from experience they should remain silent, until such a time that experience can speak. I refuse to argue at all.
My older students fully know when I say “go ahead and do that, come back and tell us how it worked for you” is actually a kiss of death😅. I fully encourage experimentation just not of a detrimental ending.
When I first came to this forum, it was kind of a hard place. I just chose to put my money where my mouth was and show people what I have learned. I tended to be looked over at times simply I felt, because I was female. I still every once in awhile will run into a chest bumper in here and I fully know the prob simply is that I am a woman. I have special tricks for those guys!
Im glad I stayed as there are so many of you men that I have truly enjoyed getting to know.
My advice to any new females coming aboard, cuss well, shoot well, grow gorgeous plants and enjoy the laughter!
Below, typical praying stance under uv even in near perfect conditions.
Click to expand...
That pic is beautiful Granny. Really stunning.

Yes, I will always admit that I can't help re-engineering the lawnmower. It's a sickness really. The truth is I lie awake in bed at night solving little engineering puzzles in my brain.

I'm glad you stayed too. I can see why it would take a special woman to fit in and feel comfortable here. What should we do to make it more inviting?
 
#50
This whole UV thing is fascinating. Were these UV grow lights made in a quest to better mimic the sun? I get that, but also, it's only a small portion of the sun's rays that are UV, mostly UVA with a small portion being UVB, so if there's some magic in the sun that makes it produce more THC/terpenes/cannabinoids or the like, it's likely not solely the UV anyhow. Also, it makes total sense that the plants that you guys grew under UV suffered and showed damage, UV is inherently damaging, it's that ionizing radiation that morphs our skin cells causing skin cancer, so of course some detrimental effects should be expected in any plants grown under them at close range for extended periods, longer than they'd receive per day outdoors and much closer too, with no ozone layer to filter either. Plus what about detrimental effects on the growers exposed to them while tending thier ladies? Surely it would be at least as detrimental as visiting a tanning bed regularly, if not more due to frequency. Sounds like the disadvantages take the win on this one.
 
#51
Moe.Red said:
At some point, I just need to pull this all together in on spot. Yes, I have done UVA and UVB together and separately, although not really separately because the UVB tubes still put out at least 25% UVA. Just not UVA specific supplementation. I have posts all over the place on this stuff, and it will be hard to find because I haven't posted on it recently. I'm one of those weird guys that has an apogee PAR / Far Red quantum meter as well as UVA and UVB meters - went down the rabbit hole on trying to figure this out.

Here is a thread that I dusted off some UVB bulbs on a lark to answer some questions for a fellow grower and it attracted some people. Got some interesting help on this thread:

www.thcfarmer.com

Should I add UVB Light?

Hello, I have been growing on a very small scale for about 4 years. I am always trying to learn more about growing and I know that I have so much more to learn. I also know that it's probably a life long process! I started with auto-flowers in a 2 x 2 tent with a horrible LED light. I also...
www.thcfarmer.com www.thcfarmer.com

It didn't result in anything special like finding the spike, so it just died out. But I used what I learned there and continued on. I just never got the benefit I was searching for, including a side quest of trying to bring out THCv for, reasons... and that got me into a lot if UVA testing as well.

In terms of timings and distance, like I said I don't know how to advise you. I was never successful. I can tell you what didn't do anything but damage plants or turn them purple, if you like bag appeal.

All those lights are removed now (including Far Red, a whole other thing) and I don't expect to go back. I am off testing visible spectrum now using Raging Kush II which has an adjustable spectrum.

It's up to somebody else to make a breakthru on this. They recently had a successful fusion reaction, anything is possible.

If you need any help when you get to your testing tag me in I'll do what I can.

EDIT: My views have changed on UV over the past couple years. If you are looking at threads from 3 years ago, well, things have changed since then with new data coming in.
Click to expand...
There are people who just wonder, and people who try things out.......so thanks. :)

Maybe the best breakthrough would be for LED light manufacturers to add in a % of UV/A and B that just matches the amounts that gets through to plants outdoors in the sun. Until some study proves one way or another, if they can be included in "full spectrum" lights, then that's more complete than not including them. Can A and B even be produced in LED form? And they have to make them last just as long as the rest of the diodes so that they don't have to be replaced before the others. And the cost would have to be low.

Right now I think LED light manufacturers only have maybe a trace amount of A and B, and don't add more than that, for all of those manufacturing reasons.
 
#52
Harpua88 said:
Hello there. I don't know what exact methods you used, and I tend to agree about the male,/female thing......but, if we ever get to a point where proven science can say "UV/A, B.....does help increase resin, THC, terpenes.....and here's the way it needs to be done to achieve the results", then men, women, tall, short........we're all going to do it.
Click to expand...
Moe.Red said:
That pic is beautiful Granny. Really stunning.

Yes, I will always admit that I can't help re-engineering the lawnmower. It's a sickness really. The truth is I lie awake in bed at night solving little engineering puzzles in my brain.

I'm glad you stayed too. I can see why it would take a special woman to fit in and feel comfortable here. What should we do to make it more inviting?
Click to expand...
Thanks Moe! My Hubby helped with that one by holding the black cloth behind it. That is a landrace Durban Poison.
I think by nature it’s how mens brains just work. I believe it’s perfectly normal, but women are wired different. We tend to be more intuitive. Which is great, would be boring as hell if we were all alike.
Hard question you asked about making it more inviting. I knew when I came in here what to expect. Even at that I still met many welcoming folks.
 
#55
Harpua88 said:
There are people who just wonder, and people who try things out.......so thanks. :)

Maybe the best breakthrough would be for LED light manufacturers to add in a % of UV/A and B that just matches the amounts that gets through to plants outdoors in the sun. Until some study proves one way or another, if they can be included in "full spectrum" lights, then that's more complete than not including them. Can A and B even be produced in LED form? And they have to make them last just as long as the rest of the diodes so that they don't have to be replaced before the others. And the cost would have to be low.

Right now I think LED light manufacturers only have maybe a trace amount of A and B, and don't add more than that, for all of those manufacturing reasons.
Click to expand...
The assumption there is that outdoor weed tests higher than indoor weed on average. I believe that is false. Matching nature is not what we are attempting to accomplish here. Pushing past nature is.

Currently there are no reasonable cost UVB LEDs being manufactured. Prototypes and LEDs that last in the hundreds of hours before becoming another spectrum or dying completely. They are being developed, but there is a physics hurdle with UVB. Florescent tubes are the current answer and are inexpensive.

UVA and Far Red are available in many commercial lights now, including individual light bars you can use to supplement main lights that don't have that channel.
 
#56
Harpua88 said:
Shouldn't you......buy her dinner first?

Aaaaand I'm out.....

Sorry.. :( . Hopefully that was funny..
Click to expand...
OMG, I'm so embarrassed! That's funny when I read that back. Normally I joke on purpose, and folks don't have to point my jokes out to me.

But really I'm not, Granny is coming up to my town to shoot hairs off fleas in a little while, she knows what I meant. Durban Poison is one of my all time favorites. I probably got something here she wants too. My latest shipment was from Dragons Flame and I got enough to share.
 
#57
Moe.Red said:
Matching nature is not what we are attempting to accomplish here. Pushing past nature is.
Click to expand...
I feel like that's a big ask as far as the sun is concerned, unless we invent some type of personal nuclear fusion device that we can hang in our tents... but as far as all the other environmental factors, sure, I'll concede that indoor can be superior simply for the fact that there is so much control and so many negative factors can be completely removed from the equation.
 
#58
Moe.Red said:
The assumption there is that outdoor weed tests higher than indoor weed on average. I believe that is false. Matching nature is not what we are attempting to accomplish here. Pushing past nature is.

I never assumed that. Outdoor could test higher than indoor, or vice versa, depending on whatever factors. And yes, we're pushing.....past nature, naximizing nature, however you want to word it, we can only go to the point of diimnishing returns. Maximum light, until they burn......maximum nutrients.....until it causes more harm than good.....
Click to expand...
 
#59
TSD said:
I feel like that's a big ask as far as the sun is concerned, unless we invent some type of personal nuclear fusion device that we can hang in our tents... but as far as all the other environmental factors, sure, I'll concede that indoor can be superior simply for the fact that there is so much control and so many negative factors can be completely removed from the equation.
Click to expand...
I was referring to places like California where power is really expensive, folks grow cheap weed outside and good stuff inside. The THC is already higher with indoor weed, and we are trying to make it higher still with lighting trickery. Essentially trying to hack into the plant.
 
#60
TSD said:
I feel like that's a big ask as far as the sun is concerned, unless we invent some type of personal nuclear fusion device that we can hang in our tents... but as far as all the other environmental factors, sure, I'll concede that indoor can be superior simply for the fact that there is so much control and so many negative factors can be completely removed from the equation.
Click to expand...
All those numbers......ppfd, micromoles......what is "maximum sun". Even the sun can't bathe plants in more light than it already does. Whether we measured it on the equator at high noon, or someace close but up in elevation, on a perfectlyclear, dry day......there's a max. I don't know if we can yet pump out more.......and if so would it help? There's a limit to everything. If we gave plants the sun + 1%......maybe slowly the plants would become accustomed and then we go sun +2%....

For now, if we can recreate Hawaii at noon on a clear day.....or Peru.....whatever....that's pretty much as good as we can want.
 
Page 3 of 6 · Replies 41–60 of 113
Back
Top Bottom