Damn it's strange how so many of us have this desire to put our knowledge out to the world

  • Thread starter ritoMox
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Peat_Phreak

Peat_Phreak

540
143
Ahhhh, impossible.

There is no such thing that applies to all plants / growers. WAAAAY too many factors. But if you have strong evidence, perhaps we can make a generalization, but more likely a correlation.

I'm willing to debate it with you tho.

You will have to debate the people that wrote the paper that analyzed many papers on the subject.
 
Moe.Red

Moe.Red

5,044
313
Try UV-B for maximum something!
I have. Lots.


With full documentation, cannabinoid testing, and much more.

What else you got LOL. Just kidding.
 
Peat_Phreak

Peat_Phreak

540
143
I have. Lots.


With full documentation, cannabinoid testing, and much more.

What else you got LOL. Just kidding.

I'm still sticking with the study that says UVB isn't worth the electricity it burns.

 
N1ghtL1ght

N1ghtL1ght

Staff
Supporter
670
143
I'm still sticking with the study that says UVB isn't worth the electricity it burns.
from that study:
"The objectives of this study were to: (1) characterize morphological and physiological responses of indoor-grown cannabis to UV exposure, and (2) investigate the relationships between UV exposure levels applied during the flowering stage and inflorescence yield and secondary metabolite composition of modern chemotype II cannabis genotypes."
 
R

ritoMox

700
143
from that study:
"The objectives of this study were to: (1) characterize morphological and physiological responses of indoor-grown cannabis to UV exposure, and (2) investigate the relationships between UV exposure levels applied during the flowering stage and inflorescence yield and secondary metabolite composition of modern chemotype II cannabis genotypes."
Why would they be using chemotype ll if the idea is to determine the effects on THC?
 
josefrahl

josefrahl

698
143
Why would they be using chemotype ll if the idea is to determine the effects on THC?
Probably wanted to see the effects on both the major cannabinoids as Chemotype II contains both THC and CBD? Title says "..cannabinoid concentration not increased..", not just THC. Chemotype I is THC, II is THC/CBD, III is CBD.
 
N1ghtL1ght

N1ghtL1ght

Staff
Supporter
670
143
Why would they be using chemotype ll if the idea is to determine the effects on THC?
I just wanted to point out that this was with a medical strain, whereas about 85% or so of all cannabis strains are type I. With which Lydon tested positive.
And that they did lack UVA & DLI. But it's hard to say that this is actually the reason, well it could be anything. Problem is there are many interrelated features affecting this....
 
josefrahl

josefrahl

698
143
this one

This just means they have a theory. The data is flawed because it's from different studies which means different strain, environment, ect.. Now a study has to be done on various strains in the same environment with various veg times by one team to prove the theory.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

26,480
638
A study is always specific to its variables… the worst thing people can do is blanket results as a factual blanket statement as has been shown time and time again in the scientific community. To many variables to make blanket statements.

eg. at over 1000ppfd green become the most photosynthetic spectrum. Low ppfd it is the least.

Eg. Par range was thought to be the only photosynthetic spectral range until other studies proved this wrong… i haven’t read a study that has not had a flaw or potential misinterpretation point in it.

tldr: data from a study while can give a general concept is not applicable to being ised as fact outside of its specific study.
 
growsince79

growsince79

9,065
313
This just means they have a theory. The data is flawed because it's from different studies which means different strain, environment, ect.. Now a study has to be done on various strains in the same environment with various veg times by one team to prove the theory.
It's 100% bullshit. Anyone can prove it. Plant a seed, clone it and flower right away then veg the other. I've never been able to notice any difference at all. Some might say otherwise, but I can't. It's always exactly the same.
 
Peat_Phreak

Peat_Phreak

540
143
It's 100% bullshit. Anyone can prove it. Plant a seed, clone it and flower right away then veg the other. I've never been able to notice any difference at all. Some might say otherwise, but I can't. It's always exactly the same.

You need to measure the THC. The study is not about the perception of getting high.
 
Top Bottom