New Bulbs = prettier harvests?

[I_Love_THC]

Hey, Dr. Detroit - can I ask another question, hehe? /this being the first/
How come if THC breaks down to CBD, with the right spectrum of light /in our case - this is called UV-B/ we can catalyze more THC production, don't really get it...
Indicas are higher in CBD, while Sativas - in THC when it comes to THC 2 CBD ratio, right? So, first - can we say we can make a predominantly Indica plant have more THC? And second - are you saying that this kind of light helps getting more THC? Because as far as I can see it, Indicas or Indica-dominant strains are far frostier, so... High CBD - frostier. High THC - happier... Did I get things right or is it just my stupid high brain that makes these non-sence for me? Please, reply... :)
Lots of Love from the THC Lover, friends...
Peace and Blessings to you all and all of your loved ones.

 

[vancerz]

Wow, you really like to highlight in red. Do you feel that that color makes your argument compelling, or does it just make you seem like someone with too much emotional attachment to an internet message board?

I like to highlight your type when I start with a fresh batch of new growers. We'll just refer to you as the Know-It-all grower. You have your method, you're entranced by your produce and couldn't ever admit its faults, and experimentation (and often the ability to learn) has ceased completely on the subject. Your "frosty dank" would possibly throw you into a crying spell if a medical collective buyer rejected it or offered a realistic price. I've seen it many times.

UVB is a supplemental part of the lighting spectrum in my designs, usually compromising approximately ten to fifteen percent of the total wattage. It's included for a reason: its easily observable success. Any idiot can spend twelve bucks and see for themselves, though you seem to be the one that considers that an enormous amount to waste in the pursuit of quality...

By the way, your hero Nevil shows us his mistakes with his own words. He didn't understand the fundamental nature of the UVB-THC connection, which is that UVB reacts with CBD to catalyze THC. By thinking that he needed to "Condition" the plants beforehand because they were burning shows that he never understood the methodology behind UVB supplementation. The bulb (reptile or otherwise) is mounted at an intermediate distance (not as far as high output bulbs, not as close as fluorescents) and only activated during the peak of the light cycle during bloom for a few hours. By artificially simulating the equatorial levels of UVB you get the results that are desired. Light angle and total wattage also play a role, but I'm not here to teach right now.

Great growers look at everything from the plant's point of view. They're also not very likely to be pimping pictures of their work online to impress strangers, (unless a book is about to be released).

By the way, you misspelled 'Again'. Try and be more careful in the future or you may lose the respect of your anonymous internet peers.

"I find it strange that David Pate wrote this, when Sam Skunkman says that they did an experiment together that showed no difference. Hell, Pate's Ph.D. dissertation was all about the effects of light on Cannabis. Something is not adding up." guess sam dosent know shit to.

YOU linked me that peer review and all it did was prove you WRONG I dont follow nevil but he is a accomplished grower(much more then you or me) and if he said it worked im sure you would have posted that to your defense, your a joke you pick a peer review to back you up it doesn't so instead of admitting your wrong and admitting you didn't read shit.
you attack my spelling,my grow methods(that you know nothing of) my posting of 1 picture to prove you wrong and highlighting a few words red lol "straw man argument" look it up you failed epically.

and i have grown buds under a MH i don't need some dinky ass reptile light to know you don't know shit about shit.

show me your UVB buds otherwise YOUR ALL TALK! and if you reply please dont attack me anymore please attack my points becuse you have failed time and time agin to prove or show how critical UVB really is to THC and resin production like you keep saying.

 

[Seamaiden]

UVB spectral inclusion is critical to resin production and THC percentage.

It's been scientifically proven in the article: UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH AND CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis Sativa CHEMOTYPES.
By: JOHN LYDON, ALAN H. TERAMULA and C. BENJAMIN COFFMAN.
Department of Botany, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.

I can't seem to find a copy online, but it's a rigorous study and quite conclusive.

Mmm.. addition of this spectrum does seem to equate to increased production, but I can't base this on my own experience as I haven't played with it. I do know someone who has and he felt, by his own testing, that it increases resin and is more useful to growers than UVA.

However, IIRC, as far as how MH bulbs respond to age, spectrum can/does shift in very old MH bulbs, near the end of their lifetime. I'd have to double-check, but I think it's more than just lumen output loss that could be an issue, and this would be related to experience growing Scleractinians, etc. Some bulbs' color temp can drift toward a lower temperature, as I recall, which is very much a bad thing when growing these types of photosynthetics, it encourages cyanobacterial growth for one thing.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

"I find it strange that David Pate wrote this, when Sam Skunkman says that they did an experiment together that showed no difference. Hell, Pate's Ph.D. dissertation was all about the effects of light on Cannabis. Something is not adding up." guess sam dosent know shit to.

YOU linked me that peer review and all it did was prove you WRONG I dont follow nevil but he is a accomplished grower(much more then you or me) and if he said it worked im sure you would have posted that to your defense, your a joke you pick a peer review to back you up it doesn't so instead of admitting your wrong and admitting you didn't read shit.
you attack my spelling,my grow methods(that you know nothing of) my posting of 1 picture to prove you wrong and highlighting a few words red lol "straw man argument" look it up you failed epically.

and i have grown buds under a MH i don't need some dinky ass reptile light to know you don't know shit about shit.

show me your UVB buds otherwise YOUR ALL TALK! and if you reply please dont attack me anymore please attack my points becuse you have failed time and time agin to prove or show how critical UVB really is to THC and resin production like you keep saying.

It would be "You're all talk". Am I attacking you? If you consider my above replies to be an "attack", then maybe you're a bit too sensitive for the internet because I've been handling you with kid gloves (you seem sensitive).

Seriously though, you really need to work on your grammar. It's difficult to read when so many words are misspelled and misused...

Again, you have an inability to learn and an aversion to experimentation, which I can guarantee hampers any possible success. No one knows everything about growing, though I'm sure that you like to tell people that you're the one exception. The mark of a true amateur.

Why did you ignore the guy on the first page that claimed there was a visible line of higher-density trichome production where his MH overlapped his HPS? Is he another guy that doesn't know as much as you too?

I've proposed a simple experiment to prove my assertion, and you've decided that twelve bucks is just too much to risk in the pursuit of quality cannabis. Afraid to learn and experiment, or are you just afraid that I am right? Don't worry though, no one here will make fun of you if I'm proven correct. Just give it a try. If you really are growing the frostiest dank up in your Unabomber shack then twelve bucks shouldn't be much of a sacrifice.

Exactly what "points" am I to attack that you've made? Your only "point" is your assertion that no one knows anything but yourself about growing "frosty dank" and that UVB supplementation isn't necessary because you yourself don't know anything about it or its use. Your bud looks brown (I can use color too) and the trichomes are not capitate-stalked but sessile or bulbous from what I can see. Likely harvested before peak production, so you'll get no accolades from me. I haven't seen buds that brown since the last time that I went to Mexico.

Maybe you should take more photos. Everyone here will agree with you that appearances are everything when it comes to quality, right?

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Hey, Dr. Detroit - can I ask another question, hehe? /this being the first/
How come if THC breaks down to CBD, with the right spectrum of light /in our case - this is called UV-B/ we can catalyze more THC production, don't really get it...
Indicas are higher in CBD, while Sativas - in THC when it comes to THC 2 CBD ratio, right? So, first - can we say we can make a predominantly Indica plant have more THC? And second - are you saying that this kind of light helps getting more THC? Because as far as I can see it, Indicas or Indica-dominant strains are far frostier, so... High CBD - frostier. High THC - happier... Did I get things right or is it just my stupid high brain that makes these non-sence for me? Please, reply... :)
Lots of Love from the THC Lover, friends...
Peace and Blessings to you all and all of your loved ones.

There is a gene pair (I call them Bd and Bt) that controls CBD-THC ratios. Either gene may be replaced with the other, or they may remain distinct (Bd-Bt, Bd-Bd, or Bt-Bt). The Bd controls CBD levels while the Bt regulates THC percentages. Most modern hybrids have had the Bd gene replaced with the Bt gene to double the THC output (since CBD's don't get you high).

THC degrades into CBN's not CBD's. The UVB supplementation that I have been pimping in this thread's sole purpose is to react with the precursor CBD's to catalyze into THC molecules. Since CBD's don't get you high (though they do seem to play a role in regulation) I find them pointless to my goals. I like to focus on THC and THCV in my breeding experiments personally.

Sativas seem to be higher in THC and indicas in CBD because of the environmental factors of their evolution. While most sativas come from equatorial regions where UVB levels are high (therefore selecting naturally for high-THC production), most indicas come from a much higher latitude where UVB levels are much lower (selecting naturally for a more balanced CBD-THC ratio). Most of the "frosty" aspects of indicas is a result of unnatural selection (i.e. selecting for hash production over many generations), and the number of trichomes isn't as important as the percentage of THC within the trichomes. The frostiest stuff can look lovely, but it doesn't guarantee potency as looks can be very deceiving.

Acclimatize some high-CBD field hemp grown in the high latitudes in an equatorial region and within a few generations it will start expressing higher and higher THC percentages. Conversely if you were to take the best cannabis from the equator and move it to a higher latitude the THC levels would fall every generation.

That's the link between UVB exposure and cannabis potency, in a nutshell.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Mmm.. addition of this spectrum does seem to equate to increased production, but I can't base this on my own experience as I haven't played with it. I do know someone who has and he felt, by his own testing, that it increases resin and is more useful to growers than UVA.

However, IIRC, as far as how MH bulbs respond to age, spectrum can/does shift in very old MH bulbs, near the end of their lifetime. I'd have to double-check, but I think it's more than just lumen output loss that could be an issue, and this would be related to experience growing Scleractinians, etc. Some bulbs' color temp can drift toward a lower temperature, as I recall, which is very much a bad thing when growing these types of photosynthetics, it encourages cyanobacterial growth for one thing.

I'm working with magnetron lighting at the moment. Most of them are known as sulpher lamps. The interesting thing about them that has drawn me in their direction is that they have almost no light-degradation over time. The bulb is nearly as luminous on the thousandth day as it was on the first. The fact that they use no mercury, have full-spectrum, and suffer almost no degradation makes them very fascinating to me.

 

[vancerz]

DR.Detroit once agin I argue that it is not critical....Critical being the key word to resin and THC production, I am not saying that there is not some what of an increase I argue its small, your peer review that you gave me said that it had no increase by Sam the skunk man and Nevil and the person who did the test came to the conclusion it was not too important while it did have an effect lets get things straight.

My point is you can grow great buds with HPS alone and still push the resin and thc content.

and lets not forget HPS and MH are completely different light spectrum's as well as MH having the UV-B its not really accurate to credit all the difference of appearance of growth to just the UV-B part of the MH bulb.

this is what a simple HPS pushes and why I argue UVB is not "critical." and you know people can push there plants way better then me.

 

[GanjaGardener]

The CT of MH and HPS bulbs will shift as the bulbs degrade. MH -> warmer, HPS -> cooler. I was a cameraman by profession and prolly took somewhere around 100,000 CT readings during my career. We would gel older HMI bulbs (similar to MH's beginning CT- ie @100hr) w/ color temp blue in 1/16 transmission increments, ie 1/16 CTB, 1/8 CTB etc to extend the life of an aging bulb w/ the understanding that we'd be working w/ less luminance. I change every 9 mos- year and save the olds for emergency b/u.

 

[Seamaiden]

I didn't know that there is color temp shift in HPS as well, but those types of bulbs aren't normally used in the situations I have the most experience with. :)

 

[GanjaGardener]

I haven't documented, but have observed that HPS lamps, (in my old line of work 'bulbs' were something that got planted in the ground), have a steeper downward curve than MH's or HMI's (similar CT and some shared gases), do at the end of their lives. The MH's degrade slower and the spectral shift gradually slopes downward into the warms over a longer period of time.

Pair an older lamp in question w/ a newer one and seperate them w/ a black cloth- somthing to keep them from spilling on one another- white balance your camera to daylight (totally white field is optimum), and take a shot of the 2 lamps, bracket your exposure as necessary. This is an easy way to estimate age and CT difference.

PS If you have a sophisticated camera or could get your hands on a CT spot meter like the one I use, measuring is more precise and differences are more apparent. I took fc readings when I was dialing in my room and went around measuring CT w/ my spot meter just for kicks. You might be surprised by the variety of CT that's bouncing around and and reflecting back at you in your room.

 

[GanjaGardener]

Correction:
HPS lamps degrade -> the warms. I knew that and don't know how I got it flipped around. Glad I re-read the post. Here's a photo that demonstrates how older HPS lamps shift to warm using the DnD CT testing technique I outlined above (taken w/ an old $150 camera):

WB -> 3 month old lamp

My 9-12 month usage window doesn't apply to all lamp brands. I use cheap Plantmax HPS's and generally pull them @ 9-12 mos sometimes later depending upon the individual lamp. Even lamps from the same mnfr can have different lifespans.
​

 

[GanjaGardener]

Edit: Remove sardonic remark.

I'm going to clean this up and put it in a lighting tips/tricks thread. Looks like I kinda got into this one on the tail end.

 

[Seamaiden]

The sardonic remark may have kept this thread going. :giggle

 

[GanjaGardener]

The sardonic remark may have kept this thread going. :giggle

Thanks for the useful tip, Seamaiden. It'll come in handy. :evilgrin