squiggly
- Posts
- 3,277
- Reactions
- 4,541
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Points
- 263
I think it's important to really get at the nitty gritty of this argument.
The poll question, as stated, is too ambiguous and doesn't really address what the debate has been about.
First and foremost, I believe this idea originated from speculation that THC/Cannabinoids/Terpenes are produced by cannabis as a natural sun-block (both to block UV radiation, and to better hold moisture).
This came from the knowledge that other plants use similar chemicals (terpenes especially) in this way.
Over the long game of e-telephone, this has somehow turned into an argument about increasing trich, rather than oil, production.
Some people may well believe that this does increase trich production--but I think the evidence in this area is lacking.
There is, however, significant support for changes in oil production based on environment. Light intensity, wavelength, time of day, and the list goes on and on. Part of the reason there is so much debate about this is that it's quite difficult to do a true side by side with plants without a fully climate controlled area and rigorous experiment design.
As a chemistry nerd I can lend some insight and say that yes, THC, terpenes, and other cannabinoids can act as a sun block. They absorb, and are destroyed by, UV radiation. This is how our sunblock works--as it is hit with a photon, the molecule is destroyed or "used up" and thus we must reapply the sunblock once it's been depleted.
So these chemicals definitely can act as a sunblock. Also possessing significant non-polar character, they would serve to help a plant retain water.
There is a good amount of evidence suggesting that oil production is closely related to moisture conditions (both air and soil) in cannabis. Some have claimed drought conditions greatly increase oil output.
The initial idea of turning off the lights came from the knowledge that non-UV spectrum light can also degrade cannabis oils. Because the oils are constantly being destroyed by the light, and subsequently regenerated--it was thought that turning off the lights may allow for a buildup of oil prior to harvest. The hope was the plant would continue producing oil, while its degradation would be halted for that period of time--causing a net increase in total oils.
An inverse effect is quite common, wherein the tops of plants are allowed to come too close to intense light and finish lacking smell (terpenes depleted due to light/heat).
This idea really stems from common knowledge that we all repeat day in and day out when speaking about drying procedures. Dry your flowers in a dark place, we all know that--it's because the active oils degrade in light.
To my mind, this method makes a lot of sense. I think its entirely plausible that it's beneficial. However, to test it would require a large sample size--say at least 25 plants (normal light) vs 25 plants (2 days off)--and efficient methods for extracting oils/quantifying oil production.
The poll question, as stated, is too ambiguous and doesn't really address what the debate has been about.
First and foremost, I believe this idea originated from speculation that THC/Cannabinoids/Terpenes are produced by cannabis as a natural sun-block (both to block UV radiation, and to better hold moisture).
This came from the knowledge that other plants use similar chemicals (terpenes especially) in this way.
Over the long game of e-telephone, this has somehow turned into an argument about increasing trich, rather than oil, production.
Some people may well believe that this does increase trich production--but I think the evidence in this area is lacking.
There is, however, significant support for changes in oil production based on environment. Light intensity, wavelength, time of day, and the list goes on and on. Part of the reason there is so much debate about this is that it's quite difficult to do a true side by side with plants without a fully climate controlled area and rigorous experiment design.
As a chemistry nerd I can lend some insight and say that yes, THC, terpenes, and other cannabinoids can act as a sun block. They absorb, and are destroyed by, UV radiation. This is how our sunblock works--as it is hit with a photon, the molecule is destroyed or "used up" and thus we must reapply the sunblock once it's been depleted.
So these chemicals definitely can act as a sunblock. Also possessing significant non-polar character, they would serve to help a plant retain water.
There is a good amount of evidence suggesting that oil production is closely related to moisture conditions (both air and soil) in cannabis. Some have claimed drought conditions greatly increase oil output.
The initial idea of turning off the lights came from the knowledge that non-UV spectrum light can also degrade cannabis oils. Because the oils are constantly being destroyed by the light, and subsequently regenerated--it was thought that turning off the lights may allow for a buildup of oil prior to harvest. The hope was the plant would continue producing oil, while its degradation would be halted for that period of time--causing a net increase in total oils.
An inverse effect is quite common, wherein the tops of plants are allowed to come too close to intense light and finish lacking smell (terpenes depleted due to light/heat).
This idea really stems from common knowledge that we all repeat day in and day out when speaking about drying procedures. Dry your flowers in a dark place, we all know that--it's because the active oils degrade in light.
To my mind, this method makes a lot of sense. I think its entirely plausible that it's beneficial. However, to test it would require a large sample size--say at least 25 plants (normal light) vs 25 plants (2 days off)--and efficient methods for extracting oils/quantifying oil production.