I do agree about the most crucial part of fruiting though all of it is really but i just wanted to agree with you on that and i am thinking about using that 10k much more im just not sure about the whole way through because UV can become detrimental to those desireable oils...

eh, I hear ya but now your getting into an hours of light discussion. UV radiation was my point, as well as spectrum. I hear ya though. Lot of stresses that decide the eventual outcome.

caveman4.20 said:

I do agree about the most crucial part of fruiting though all of it is really but i just wanted to agree with you on that and i am thinking about using that 10k much more im just not sure about the whole way through because UV can become detrimental to those desireable oils...

Click to expand...

10k bulbs dont put out more UV radiation than any other HID its strictly the spectrum.

You're welcome to disagree--but until testing has been done, and my hypothesis has been borne out in that way, I don't feel uncomfortable saying that neither of us really knows the answer.

Until all avenues have been exhausted, there exists no answer.

As much as you want to prove what something is doing, it's important to also prove what things are not doing it.


I hypothesized my idea about the 10K based on my knowledge of botany (which isn't exhaustive, but its not insignificant either)--all arrows point to this idea that oils are produced for UV resistance and water-retention (at least to my mind).

If that turns out to be true, there's no question the 10K might be beneficial.

However, the 10K also produces intense light, which can degrade the active compounds (as I discussed at length earlier). In this way it can be beneficial to reduce the intensity as you near harvest--and this is the natural process the plants would encounter outdoors, which is an added benefit (in my opinion). Some people take this a step further and go for a 2-3day dark period before harvest. They claim it boosts trich production (and I call shenanigans)--but I think what its doing is arresting the process of natural degradation by the light and allowing the oil production to peak under non-degradative conditions.

after 36 hrs nothing happens is what i read somewhere but cool i appreciate the input and im going to try and cop a 10k

squiggly said:

Every decent strain in existence today is an example of this.

Potency of MJ strains has increased exponentially over the last 40 years--through selective breeding.

There was a time when 20 joints was equal to one of today's--and weed came by the garbage bag.

Click to expand...

Squiggly buddy; Let me get (my old man voice in gear, ya by gumm it back in the old days)
Costa Rican Red Sinsemilla 1968 Super strong sticky
Jamacan Sinsemilla spears 1968 Really wonderful taste and super strong
Nepalese, back in 1970 I got a package of some temple balls and some of the best weed I ever smoked.
Various Golds some of which were A+
Some Tia's that are as strong as stuff today
Hawain Red Sinsemilla in 1974 that would knock your socks off
My first MH light was 1979 and I got a script of plants brought from Nor Cal they grew 8' tall under two 1K MH's and was the best weed I EVER SMOKED.
U smoke 20 joints of any of this and U are dead or what might be worse than death LOL
Love U bro!

DrBudACola said:

Squiggly buddy; Let me get (my old man voice in gear, ya by gumm it back in the old days)
Costa Rican Red Sinsemilla 1968 Super strong sticky
Jamacan Sinsemilla spears 1968 Really wonderful taste and super strong
Nepalese, back in 1970 I got a package of some temple balls and some of the best weed I ever smoked.
Various Golds some of which were A+
Some Tia's that are as strong as stuff today
Hawain Red Sinsemilla in 1974 that would knock your socks off
My first MH light was 1979 and I got a script of plants brought from Nor Cal they grew 8' tall under two 1K MH's and was the best weed I EVER SMOKED.
U smoke 20 joints of any of this and U are dead or what might be worse than death LOL
Love U bro!

Click to expand...

I'm not saying there was no good smoke back in the days (because I wouldn't know, first of all--i was nothing but a quantum possibility in my dad's nuts at that time). What I'm saying is that there's clearly been genetic drift.

We can say this about almost every crop that is selectively bred and especially about those which are brought indoors to controlled environments. It's a natural consequence of doing this, and selecting varieties that posses traits we desire. The trend is going to tend towards better varieties (not necessarily in a competitive way) in terms of the things we like about them.

Bigger, juicier, tomatoes--stinkier buds, more pest resistant corn (of the non transgenic type), etc. In the end we are probably causing havoc and destruction to the genetic diversity of the species--but as a whole bud is gonna be stinkier, better yielding, and less larfy today than it was then.

There's also something to be said for the propagation of better growing techniques and how that's affected things.

So yeah, there definitely could've been bomb strains then--and I'll take your word for it--but there are more of them now, and they're the norm rather than the exception these days (and they aren't geographically bound--as they certainly would've been in those days).

if you want it to be more potent smoke it harder


but forreal, potency is directly affected by the amount of essential oils the plant produces. adding anything with a high brix content will help your potency. I like molasses. Environmental stress can make your plant more potent, but remember it only takes slight alterations to the environment for changes - shaving 15 minutes off each end of the cycle in the last week and during harvest really makes buds dense up and pump oils - especially if you flush with a light molasses mix. I can also definitely say my potency has gone way up since using ACT. And if you're ever worried about potency just wait to harvest until they are getting close to 30-40% amber. might not always taste good but it will put you down...

I'm thinking that there's a lot of information of available on the internet that comes from reputable growers that isn't good info. Ya know, if someone has a journal with a thousand pictures of 1 pound nugs, then they have a better reputation. The problem comes when there is never an actual experiment with a control group.

I've heard a lot of things that just seem unreasonable, but the grower gives credit to a new technique or something, when really they probably just finally improved their skills as a grower.

as far as strains from back in the day compared to today, im from the school of thought that says back in the day we as people selected clones or mothers that expressed less Cannibinol and if im not mistaken its the oil that makes you paranoid feel free to correct me cuz i take everything with a grain of salt, so we breed away from potent strands back then because they were undesireable to some or most folks who couldnt handle a great sativa so if you believe this route we actually have done the opposite and are now breeding to bring some of those traits back and i believe thats potency when your mind is altered keep your eyes open for the sativas of yesteryear and watch that trend get regurgitated like every other trend.

Some of us are inspired by what makes you paranoid. I need some Cindy 99

PurpleSticky said:

I'm thinking that there's a lot of information of available on the internet that comes from reputable growers that isn't good info. Ya know, if someone has a journal with a thousand pictures of 1 pound nugs, then they have a better reputation. The problem comes when there is never an actual experiment with a control group.

I've heard a lot of things that just seem unreasonable, but the grower gives credit to a new technique or something, when really they probably just finally improved their skills as a grower.

Click to expand...

I see that happening in my own room do you think new verse old bulbs change potency ...

There's no way to tell unless you do an actual experiment. A lot of guys will draw conclusions because they think it's helping.

A side by side is pretty good, but I feel like the growers who make these claims need to know exactly what makes a good experiment and how to conduct a solid experiment. Otherwise, their information isn't credible at all. You just have a bunch of growers making assumptions that carry no real weight.

PurpleSticky said:

You just have a bunch of growers making assumptions that carry no real weight.

Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much.

Every time I see some guy using a 'homemade' CO2 setup I just snicker to myself. I can't count the number of times that I've seen somebody trying to make their plants grow better by using yeast and sugar or even using soda water as a foliar spray. It's insane.

I'm simplistic and stick to a single part nutrient formula. There's always going to be people using 1,800 different nutrients and additives to grow a plant when a single part nutrient will work just as well.

My favorite is when people suggest things to other people when they have zero empirical evidence that it actually does anything. Then it spreads through the internet like a wildfire and every new grower uses it without question. People will mindlessly amend their substrate just because they read a single post that some guy had results.

PurpleSticky said:

There's always going to be people using 1,800 different nutrients and additives to grow a plant when a single part nutrient will work just as well.

Click to expand...

I think this is an "all-or-nothing" viewpoint, really.

In reality, there is almost no question that there are benefits to be gleaned from certain additives and amendments (and there is plenty of empirical research out there to support this).

I'd make one small, but significant, correction to what you said here:

Instead of saying:

"...to grow a plant when a single part nutrient will work just as well."

I think it should really say

"...to grow a plant when a single part nutrient will work."



If we're going to split hairs, there are innumerable articles and studies which suggest adding this or that for plant growth has beneficial consequences--whereas there are absolutely zero that say what' you're saying (essentially that none of these additives/extras make a difference).

In your haste to decry those who would bandwagoneer on hippy science (which I agree with you is a common and growing problem)--you've done exactly the thing you've suggested that they should not.

You've made a claim with no support, no data, no empiricism--and unfortunately you've done it:

1. While saying others should.

and most importantly

2. In the face of what virtually all of the empirical data that does exist tells us.


My intention isn't to dig on you about it, to be clear about that. It's just, hey--if we're gonna be sticklers, let's be sticklers.

lol yeah, I see where you're getting.

I may have been a bit unclear, but you're completely right.

The irritation, I guess, that I get is from new growers that insist on using a ton of different additives just because they came in a pack. Kind of a ''I saw x, y, and z from someone else's grow and their plants were amazing.".

I see a lot of posts in new grower areas of forums with guys on their first grow with 3-4 different additives. It's like tuning a car before you've ever driven it. It's the American way of more is always better, and I'm unsure if that's always the case. It's similar to seeing someone on their first grow trying to supplement CO2 by using yeast+sugar or even those myco bags.

I just think that for a new grower, and any new strains, it's best to start basic. The more variables you add to your grow, the more difficult it is to single out which one is causing any sort of issue.

I'm a HUGE fan of single part formulas, it's what I like to do. I've been working with a single part for a really long time now, and there are quarks and issues with it, but that's where I think additives should be used. Additives should be used to amend to the basic grow formula if your plants suffer deficiencies.

Now, the biggest hole in this entire post is the fact that I really don't have experience with additives. I've always been a bare bones kind of guy. Hell, I have been living on brown rice for the past 3-4 months and I only drink water, it's just who I am. Of course some additives will have benefits, but is should all be taken with a grain of salt. Of course Nutrient Company X's brand of Super-Sonic-Massive-Ninja-Bloom-Booster will say that'll increase your buddage 900% by weight... but they are a business, of course they'll say that.

The internet is a beautiful thing. Before I ever consider buying any nutrient or additive, I do extensive research to see who's using it and their results. Since marijuana cultivation has so many different forums, it's fairly easy to source information. I think it's what everyone needs to do. The problem comes when someone see's one guy with excellent looking plants and just decides to copy his regimen.

There's so much variability. Once you start to slowly get rid of some of that variability, you may be getting somewhere!

Those myco bags work your talking about exhale bags ya they make the co2 monitor go up in sealed room with plants anyhow back to potency when i mentioned short phenos are more potent than taller phrnos i meant that for 100 % sisters but the short pheno of one dna may not be as potent as a tall pheno from completely different par3nts but from within the same parents the shorter plants ar3 usually stinkier and more potent....hopefully this post is thought provoking enough or thebthread dies!

I'm not sure height has anything to do with potency though. I think those observations are all subjective. In your experience, it may have been the case. but I don't think it's really an occurrence that can be counted on in all other situations.

I suppose if you were to see if shortness made more potent buds, you'd have to define what potency is. I'm just not convinced that all short phenotypes are more potent than the taller ones.

What. Corelations have you made in your grow room with potency?