Potency Theories!

[ttystikk]

While this analysis might seem the best way to go from the onset--if we look deeper into the science of what's happening we find that these two are inextricably linked (environment and DNA/its role) such that its not really proper to discuss their contributions independent of one another.

This is really what I try to get at mostly when I'm discussing genetics with people.

Yes genetics play an important role, and so does environment--but ultimately when you look at the results what you're getting is a DNA/environment combo. Previous environments affected the DNA that made it here in the first place, and the current environment will dictate which genetics you prefer for ANY living thing.

There is not 80/20 split. It's both of them, together.

You might take that potent weak plant down the street to a buddies environment and it will suck dick--while you take your unimpressive strong strain down there and it shits on yours.

See what I mean?

The DNA is what it is, and its going to do what it's going to do--but the environment is going to change that expression--and thus its going to change which strains we prefer and ultimately choose to breed with.

In this way trying to find the "perfect" environmental values (temp/RH/etc.) is going to greatly reduce the genetic diversity of the plant. We're picking plants for idealized environments and that might not always turn out as well as it has for us in the past 50 years.

Epigenetics, also known as the other 95% of the genome. Science has recently figured out that the 95% of our genetic code that doesn't correlate to specific characteristics is NOT just 'junk code' left over from evolution. Rather, it's there to be activated in response to environmental stimuli, often specific ones such as optimal breeding or feeding conditions.

This is the link between genetics and environment, and the mechanism through which our ability to manipulate the plant's characteristics through changes in environmental conditions operates.

Therefore, it follows that there are TWO basic avenues to pursue when trying to improve the potency of plants; selective breeding and experimentation with growing conditions.

Since I feel like there are already plenty of highly qualified people out there working on the genetic side of things, my interest follows my own general inclination to tinker and see how I can improve the growing area to help the plants express themselves as well as possible.

 

[ttystikk]

Interesting;
The idea that a cross can exceed the potency of its parents makes sense as it was explained.
Can someone tell me an instance where a cross resulted in a strain which was more potent than either of its parents?

Sure. Every seed catalog is chock full of them. You don't think they'd be selling their losers, do you?

 

[ttystikk]

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.

I don't know where you live, but around here weed STILL comes in garbage bags! They just want more money for it now...

 

[PurpleSticky]

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

I wasn't trying to personally attack you or anything.

It's just odd to me to consider that stature has something to do with potency. I feel like they are two independent traits of each other. Although, I could be wrong.

Just earlier in this thread, we did discuss how scientific studies should kind of be conducted. It's more or less finding out what all doesn't work in order to show that something is causal.

To see if height and potency are correlated at all, I think you'd need to do some experiments. If you've still got both phenotypes (short and tall) doing a side by side would be a swell idea. Of course, you can't get rid of all the variables because they are two different phenotypes which may require different environments to thrive. Send the buds from each to one of those labs that'll tell you the THC and CBD content.

If then the shorter was more potent, I think going into different strains would be the next step. That's a lot of work though!

 

[ttystikk]

I'm of the mind that drought conditions are likely to increase production of oils/terpenes. WITHIN REASON (and if applied at the correct time).

Just from a functionality standpoint, as a chemist I look at two things these chemicals are:

1. Hydrophobic.
2. UV-absorptive.

The hydrophobicity being stacked up on the outside can keep water from escaping--the same way that a waxy coating would on a cactus or just about anything really.

The UV absorption to me is, first and foremost, a known purpose of trichomes on everything from arabidopsis to cannabis (in my opinion)--and second it seems a pretty obvious adaptation.

UV radiation is really nasty stuff and just about everything on the planet has an advanced biological system for dealing with it. Many plants are known to do this with their trichomes (if not all of them, any botanists around?)--but at the same time just the perfect energies associated with many of the molecules in cannabis for absorbing UV is astounding.

Tiny chemistry lesson, going to leave a lot out, but just take my word for it.

Light is made of photons, photons have different energies--corresponding to frequency and wavelength. In a sense, to be a "UV" light particle a photon must have a specific energy.

When a molecule absorbs a photon--its doing so through interaction with an electron. In order to absorb a photon at a particular energy, there must be a free electron in the valence shell of that molecule which possess an EXACT MATCH to the energy of the photon in order for the absorption to take place.

This is because electrons exist in DISCRETE energy levels--and so something has to have the precise correct energy to knock it out of place. You can think of a photon with too much/little energy as being "out of phase" with the electrons, such that they can never interact.

There's a lot of chemical reasoning and experiments which demonstrate all of this--but without having to go into all of that, just suffice it to say that the idea that most of the compounds in the trichome are degradable by light is pretty telling (to my mind).

The idea, from the plants perspective, is that if light is degrading the compound--its not degrading my DNA, which is important to an organism. It is for essentially that same reason that some humans have darker skin and others have lighter. It is by no coincidence that darker skin correlates to distance from the equator (where UV bombardment is often at its highest).

Its also worth mentioning that many of the reactions involving synthesis of cannabinoids and terpenes include the elmination of water from a molecule (hence the creation of a water molecule which is now available to the plant). In this way the plant can work from both ends, produce some of its own water--while simultaneously protecting itself from losing too much.

This is where I think that manipulating UV- specifically by augmenting UVB- could have benefits to harvested potentcy numbers. Because this would be an environmental change, it has the potential to make nearly any strain more potent. Flowamasta has done some early work on the Farm with small CFL UVB sources. I'm investigating how to scale this up, which leads me to another question; how do I calculate the amount of UVB wavelength light to apply? Does anyone have any idea where to start? Also, I'm guessing that plants will need to be hardened off to UVB augmentation- because it's so 'nasty'. When and how that's done is another line of enquiry.

 

[ttystikk]

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.

I think height and potency can certainly have correlations in indoor gardening.

Remembering that our lights are so close that the inverse square law of light intensity is a paramount factor in design and placement, it seems perfectly logical to me that intense light on the top buds could cook the resins off and make them less potent, while further down, things are ideal- and at the bottom, they're light and larfy due to insufficient light levels.

This is why trellising has become such a standard practice, and yes, it's another example of manipulating environmental factors- and manipulating the plant's growth pattern- to achieve better results.

 

[ttystikk]

Someone asked about VPD above, so I thought I'd drop the chart I have saved:

VPD = Vapor Pressure Differential This theory, based on and supported by plenty of empirical experiment and observation, states that the plant's stomata open fully only under a relatively narrow set of environmental circumstances, and it's only then that the plant's growth can accelerate due to absorbing more CO2 through them.

Among other things, this chart says that if your growroom's environmental conditions are not in the green- or at least in the white- then any CO2 augmentation is likely to be wasted.

 

[Dirty White Boy]

Something too add too this is adding UV light too augment resin production is totally speculation. There is no data anywhere that proves there are photoreceptors that recognize UV light waves......There is actually plenty of data that shows we have yet too discover any such correlation. Another huge misconception is that red light triggers flowering and promotes larger buds, thats actually false. Its blue light that actually dictates the flowering cycle of plants. Over time though plants have evolved to be phototrophic, at one point though plants flowered and bloomed based solely on the light spectrum sent from the sun. Sun in the fall has a different nM than sun in the spring.

 

[squiggly]

Something too add too this is adding UV light too augment resin production is totally speculation. There is no data anywhere that proves there are photoreceptors that recognize UV light waves......There is actually plenty of data that shows we have yet too discover any such correlation. Another huge misconception is that red light triggers flowering and promotes larger buds, thats actually false. Its blue light that actually dictates the flowering cycle of plants. Over time though plants have evolved to be phototrophic, at one point though plants flowered and bloomed based solely on the light spectrum sent from the sun. Sun in the fall has a different nM than sun in the spring.

It doesn't necessarily need a photoreceptor in the UV spectrum. There are innumerable cellular mechanisms where simply the depeletion of a compound alone is enough to trigger a biological response. Since the compounds are UV sensitive and can be depleted by it, I think the hypothesis still lives.

It definitely is a hypothesis--but here's the thing dude, it's what trichomes are known (not speculated) to do in a variety of other species.

From a botany perspective, trichomes do the following:

1. Attenuate UV radiation to protect the leaf.

2. Buffer leaf surface temperature against shock.

3. Direct airflow across leaf surfaces.

This is documented in probably thousands of species. I don't think it's a big leap to guess cannabis might be doing the same thing, even if we don't have the data as you correctly point out.

 

[Dirty White Boy]

It doesn't necessarily need a photoreceptor in the UV spectrum. There are innumerable cellular mechanisms where simply the depeletion of a compound alone is enough to trigger a biological response. Since the compounds are UV sensitive and can be depleted by it, I think the hypothesis still lives.

It definitely is a hypothesis--but here's the thing dude, it's what trichomes are known (not speculated) to do in a variety of other species.

From a botany perspective, trichomes do the following:

1. Attenuate UV radiation to protect the leaf.

2. Buffer leaf surface temperature against shock.

3. Direct airflow across leaf surfaces.

This is documented in probably thousands of species. I don't think it's a big leap to guess cannabis might be doing the same thing, even if we don't have the data as you correctly point out.

I totally agree, however the biology major in me says no facts, no truth. It at this point at least is all strictly speculation. Another thing im guilty of myself is comparing one species to another. Fact is none of us know, there is no empirical data that proves one way or another.

 

[squiggly]

I totally agree, however the biology major in me says no facts, no truth. It at this point at least is all strictly speculation. Another thing im guilty of myself is comparing one species to another. Fact is none of us know, there is no empirical data that proves one way or another.

Well I invite you to sweep a UV light over a plant for 2-3 minutes (moving it constantly).

I think you'll find that any area which is not covered by trichomes will be burned.

 

[Dirty White Boy]

Well I invite you to sweep a UV light over a plant for 2-3 minutes (moving it constantly).

I think you'll find that any area which is not covered by trichomes will be burned.

Have you personally done this too a cannabis plant......curious.

 

[caveman4.20]

Someone asked about VPD above, so I thought I'd drop the chart I have saved:

View attachment 278832

VPD = Vapor Pressure Differential This theory, based on and supported by plenty of empiricail experiment and observation, states that the plant's stomata open fully only under a relatively narrow looset of environmental circumstances, and it's only then that the plant's growth can accelerate due to absorbing more CO2 through them.

Among other things, this chart says that if your growroom's environmental conditions are not in the green- or at least in the white- then any CO2 augmentation is likely to be wasted.

i love this chart

 

[ttystikk]

I totally agree, however the biology major in me says no facts, no truth. It at this point at least is all strictly speculation. Another thing im guilty of myself is comparing one species to another. Fact is none of us know, there is no empirical data that proves one way or another.

Check out Flowamasta's threads. He has experimented- informally- with CFL based UVB lighting, and has reported consistent and very positive results. This is enough for me to continue the investigation.

There IS plenty of research out there; just recently, I saw a study that someone posted here on the Farm someplace about the structure of the trichome itself. First, it is transparent to UVB. Second, they confirmed that UVB light was very active on the photoreceptors within the trichomes. Third, they confirmed that nearly all the psychoactive components are produced within trichomes, on those same photoreceptors.

If the structure is transparent to this specific wavelength of light, AND the biologists were able to confirm the plant's use of UVB (and they ruled out other spectra, including visible blue and purple, UVA and UVC) in its biochemical production of cannabinoids, then how could the two NOT be positively correlated??

All this adds up to a pretty obvious working hypothesis; that adding appropriate levels of UVB will resultsin more trichomes and more resin production from them, and thus a more potent yield.

You're a biology major, Squiggly is a research chemist, and I'm just a troublemaker who asks tough questions... at this point, I don't care if some grad student does his PhD paper on cannabis and UVB lighting so people have an academic paper to wave around. I'm after results, and I think this approach has legs- and, importantly, if the best that anyone can throw up as counterpoint is that there isn't yet 'empirical data', then it seems this idea has promise.

 

[squiggly]

Have you personally done this too a cannabis plant......curious.

No, but I've read into this quite a bit from several different angles.

By "read into" I mean literally read research articles, I've attended about 8 seminars dealing with trichome function/morphology/genetics, as well as having personally thought about it quite a bit given the knowledge I have from chemistry/biochem.

That said, I'm confident enough that if YOU do it--the result will be as I've suggested. I could certainly be wrong, but I do not believe that I am. I am 99% certain, let's put it that way--even without having done it.

Furthermore I'll bet there is some evidence of someone out there having already done this if you look for it.

 

[ttystikk]

No, but I've read into this quite a bit from several different angles.

By "read into" I mean literally read research articles, I've attended about 8 seminars dealing with trichome function/morphology/genetics, as well as having personally thought about it quite a bit given the knowledge I have from chemistry/biochem.

That said, I'm confident enough that if YOU do it--the result will be as I've suggested. I could certainly be wrong, but I do not believe that I am. I am 99% certain, let's put it that way--even without having done it.

Furthermore I'll bet there is some evidence of someone out there having already done this if you look for it.

Yes, like Flowamasta. I'm still waiting for someone to say they have proof it doesn't work...

 

[caveman4.20]

Yo tystikk what up and thanks for your interest and input....what do you think of the potent chronic that isnt blingy do you think or know if there is an internal or subsrructure of the trichome that relates.to potency?
Has anyone else thought of this?

 

[midwestdensies]

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.

NO way buddy seen it many of times harvest after harvest dark period is the way. Test after test with blind taste tests with multiple homies for several years. Now its standard procedure. I cut off lights and start trimming a day later that way I can get it done in a couple days.
MW

 

[midwestdensies]

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!

Heath Robinson prefers MH also to get 3.18 gpw. Not sure if he still does but interesting nonetheless.

 

[midwestdensies]

Flowered out plants same strain same room currently same everything that have almost no veg and some 2-3 weeks and others that have had 8 weeks. Same shit. Height doesnt seem to have any factor on potency. Never has. ENVIRONMENT is #1 always.