DennisBrown
- 37
- 33
I'm trying!
I can tell you even the plants under UV are showing signs of distress in the leaves, but the buds are still A1 quality. But I think that is more about the strain than the grower in this case.
Also, it seems that our original hypothesis that the UVR8 response is local to the area hit by UV seems to be holding up. I think that a dense canopy under UV will show results only in the areas directly in the path of UV, lower buds will probably not be effected. This might require a staged harvest where the tops are taken and lower buds are then allowed to further ripen now that they are getting UV. Dunno, it's still early.
Yield is dry weight flower in @sshz case, but it could absolutely be resin for someone making concentrate or an individual cannabinoid even for extracts (the idea!).I've been thinking about how to measure yield. I don't think I can do it cleanly. What is yeild exactly?
Dry weight?
Amount of resin / oz of plant material?
Cannabinoid density / oz?
I think yield means different things to different growers.
And what if you say its cannabinoid / oz, but the THC goes up and others go down, meaning net zero. Is that better yield?
I think the term yield is spurious and will be difficult to quantify. Right up there with how high this makes you. We are venturing into the zone of beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we are unlikely to achieve a specific result that works as a blanket statement.
I think.
Perhaps a different growing style than mine would lend itself more to whole plant illumination. Hell UV gets blocked by glass, those photons don't have a chance to get lower into my canopy. Thats yet another variable.I don't have hard data (which is hard to do for this) but anecdotally speaking, the whole plants SEEMS to benefit some if most of the plant is getting UV, so the lower and mids get some bump, but not nearly as much as the buds that are getting direct UV. It's one of those things we get conflicting feedback on, although most say it helps. It may very well be strain specific, or a false reading due to a lack of hard data. My guts says it probably helps some at least with some strain.
10-4I think the approach of "here is exactly what I did and what happened" is perfect for people to understand the experiment and take away something useful for their situation.
Yeah i agree this won't be a test that provides a clear data point for yield. You would need to be doing whole plants.I don't see a reliable way to quantify yield in dry weight with this test being multiple branches on the same plant. You would need a time machine to go back and change the UV parameters on the same bud and test. I'll get to work on the time machine later this week, gotta get to that sock drawer cleanup first tho.
I don't have hard data (which is hard to do for this) but anecdotally speaking, the whole plants SEEMS to benefit some if most of the plant is getting UV, so the lower and mids get some bump, but not nearly as much as the buds that are getting direct UV. It's one of those things we get conflicting feedback on, although most say it helps. It may very well be strain specific, or a false reading due to a lack of hard data. My guts says it probably helps some at least with some strain.
30 years ago they also had no idea how thc synthesis worked compared to now. Thcas was discovered more recently than that. The previous hypothesis involved a longer chain with cbd earlier than thc iirc. Pretty different.
View attachment 1110670View attachment 1110671
The above is from marijuana botany.
The claim it impacts thc exclusively is just silly. It's not even the claim given the structural changes.
It would have to be avoiding cbg at this point. It seems very unlikely not to have an effect.
If people want to have an argument about copywriting then whatever. Just seems besides the point.
This, by the way, fits into every common sense way I can think of w.r.t. what makes good weed: full expression of the plant's genetics, with 100% fullness being the expression in a hotspot like hawaii, colombia, thailand, panama, etc.
Fluence just sent me this which kinda talks about what I was saying but no data other than a few graphs which I have here..Demystifying Wavelengths Outside of PAR
Tune in to this exclusive Fluence webinar to see how using UV or Far Red treatments in your farm can affect your cultivation plan.fluence.science
I also asked them if I could get the actual data from the uv part...
Hey Dennis have you noticed any difference on the time of day to run the uv of even at night as I believe you told me that the uv is not bright enough to effect their photo period but I'm not positive..
There's 20 pics sorry if I clogged it up but it was all the main info from the hour long webinar and thought it can contribute and save some ppl time I mean there's some other stuff that they talked about not in slides and is still a great listen...
Perhaps a different growing style than mine would lend itself more to whole plant illumination. Hell UV gets blocked by glass, those photons don't have a chance to get lower into my canopy. Thats yet another variable.
I look at it like photosynthesis a bit, the UVR8 response should only occur in the presence of UV. The energy to excite the protein comes from the UV photon. If there is no UV at the bottom of the plant, I'm not sure how that would help down there except perhaps a hardening of the entire plant, or perhaps resources inside the plant being re-routed to handle the burn protection response. My gut would see that as detrimental overall.
There is just a lot we just don't know here.
In my case, I don't know how I would begin to quantify this effect, so we will end up with yet another anecdote at best.
Thinking about it, this is a pretty important distinction. If you think it's most likely cbd is a precursor to thc, you would expect to see them go up together. When they did not, you might theorize that is the breakpoint.30 years ago they also had no idea how thc synthesis worked compared to now. Thcas was discovered more recently than that. The previous hypothesis involved a longer chain with cbd earlier than thc iirc. Pretty different.
View attachment 1110670View attachment 1110671
The above is from marijuana botany.
The claim it impacts thc exclusively is just silly. It's not even the claim given the structural changes.
It would have to be avoiding cbg at this point. It seems very unlikely not to have an effect.
If people want to have an argument about copywriting then whatever. Just seems besides the point.
This, by the way, fits into every common sense way I can think of w.r.t. what makes good weed: full expression of the plant's genetics, with 100% fullness being the expression in a hotspot like hawaii, colombia, thailand, panama, etc.
This stream of thought brought to you by haze.Thinking about it, this is a pretty important distinction. If you think it's most likely cbd is a precursor to thc, you would expect to see them go up together. When they did not, you might theorize that is the breakpoint.
If you understand, as we do now, that cbg is a common precursor to thc, cbd, and cbc, with thcas, cbdas, and cbcas--enzymes not yet discovered at the time of this working hypothesis for the rosenthal studies but which scientists have now not just isolated but found the loci for the genes for--driving conversion between cbga and thca, cbda, and cbca respectively, it might color how you analyze the results.
In fact, a slight uptick in cbd in a 20:1 thc/cbd strain would be consistent with the model with the activating enzymes. There's not even really a discrepancy to solve for. Just a question about CBG and cbc, which I haven't heard any results either way for in part because they may have been mostly absent in the cultivars studied to date due to differences in the genetics behind, for instance, the cbcas enzyme, which I saw a study point out is oft-deleted in the cultivars sequenced so far.
I'm trying hard to remain neutral in this whole thing and just collect the data. Both you and Aquaman make interesting points, but ultimately we just don't know. Pieces of the puzzle are missing.If you understand, as we do now, that cbg is a common precursor to thc, cbd, and cbc, with thcas, cbdas, and cbcas--enzymes not yet discovered at the time of this working hypothesis for the rosenthal studies but which scientists have now not just isolated but found the loci for the genes for--driving conversion between cbga and thca, cbda, and cbca respectively, it might color how you analyze the results.
I'm trying hard to remain neutral in this whole thing and just collect the data.
Boy you are a fart smeller. Oh, sorry smart feller!In order to ensure a lack of bias, you could collect each sample and mark them clearly, but then leave the room and have one of your kids switch the position and marker around however they want and then write down the true identity of each sample with each marker and you only get to know the identity once you are analyzing the result (they write it down immediately after doing it and you can't look until you are done).
It improves the data (or protects against subconscious bias) and contributes to family science time!
You could record video of your child messing with the samples and markers if you don't trust them to remember which is which.
I say increase it and we watch. Maybe an hour fifteen? Hour Thirty? I'm kind of expecting to want to go back down as a senescence effect increases anyway (and/or we see damage), but maybe not. I very highly doubt any damage will have significant longer term effects if we go back down or have a cloudy day upon damage.It seems appropriate to me to either keep the photoperiod the same or increase it, but I'm listening for advice here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?