Growing for Potency

simpleword · Mar 24, 2009

Tony Aroma said:
Just curious why any plant would evolve with such needs, since the sun is always the same spectrum.

Ahh but it's not. In the fall when the days are shorter, the sun is lower in the sky, causing a lower angle of incidence. The light is filtered through much more atmosphere than sunlight directly above you. Blue light is scattered more easily, thus there is a higher percentage of red light.

Same reason sunsets are red and orange.

purpledomgoddes · Mar 24, 2009

note1: re-posts from other threads here on ic.

the relative photosynthethic response ranges, apparently (no body of work can definitely say for all plants), ranges from ~350-850nm.

blue light:350-500nm
chlorophyll a catalyst
auxin catalyst
cell activity
split of water atom
influence on movement of plant

green/yellow500-650nm
limited to no response. plants reflect green light and so seem green to human eye. why green lights can be used @ dark w/out interrupting dark for plants. party lights are effective cheap option.

red light600-700
sugar production catalyst
chlorophyl b production catalyst/engine
seed germ signal
chloroplast adjustments to light
siganl light/dark times
chromosome catalyst/engine
soil composting enzyme catalyst

far red 700-780nm
signal seed dormancy
signals internode stretch

uvb already documented as catalyst for fruit end quality. ~ 300-400nm for uv

full sunlight=~2000 umol/sq m/sec - ~450 par watts/sq m (400-700nm)=5000 lumens=50,000 lux ['umol' is micro-moles. mole is quantity of substance that contains same number of ultimate particles as is contained in 12g of carbon-12, or avogadro's number, 6.0228x10^23]

~photon (par) saturation point: 300 par watts upon leaf surface/3000 lumens of full spectrum(mercury vapor+incandescent+uvb+cmh+hps+sulphur/etc).

1k hps ~ 5000 lumens @ 1 ft/~250 par watts

1k mh ~ 133 par watts @ 1ft (due to lack of par colors, standing alone)

pyranometer-measures photons between 400-1100nm.

~ 20 photons required to make/store 1 molecule of sugar.

note2: sunmaster warm deluxe states 345 par watts.

note3: lights 1 variable of many that include cultivar, temps, oxygen/gas exchange, vapor/atmospheric pressure, maturation stage(s), etc.

most important variable being gardener's own relaxation/measurement. carrots, tomatoes, and celery are always nutricious! even if tastiest, humans desire variation by nature. insatiable desire for highs and lows can be unceasing.

plant 10 every 60 days. inbreed ea batch. will find all sorts of variation in just doing seed-run and exploring. select for desired traits. they will evolve (w/ gardener) forever.

there is no ultimate. every gardener has potential energy to make own ultimate via kinetics of kiss+time(no substitute/magic for this variable).

hope this helps. enjoy your vegetables!

messn'n'gommin' · Mar 24, 2009

There are a number of things you can do, to improve THC levels. However, the qualifier is, as always, any one of these techniques, or a combination thereof, may be phenotypic, varietal, or even species specific. Different plants react differently to different stimuli. lol...Not very specific is it?

All that aside, plants are "aware" of their environment, they have to be, they can't escape it. So, it pays, evolutionarily speaking, to evolve self-defense mechanisms with physiological responses to external stressors, such as dessication, DNA damage, attacks by pathogens or insects, etc.

They has evolved a system of defensive measures to the harshness of it's environment. A system that has insecticidal, bactericidal, anti-pathogenic, and even herbicidal and sunscreening properties. One of weeds most potent (no pun intended) self-defense mechanisms is THC.

In an experiment done in Mexico a patch of cabbages was sprayed with pure THC and killed the cabbage horn worms infesting them. Further, although it did not kill any other species, it was attributed to have prevented further serious attack from other insects.

Sunlight causes the human skin to produce chemicals known to be precursors to melanoma. These chemicals fit the same receptors that also binds to THC.

All that is well and good, but how it applies to increasing potency is related to manipulating the plants natural defensive responses to enhance THC production as well as flavor and aroma.

Dessication:
Water sparingly the first half of the last month and don't water at all the last two weeks. The plant perceives it as a drought is at hand and will increase resins to protect it's own moisture content.

Nutrients:
Make sure that your plants are getting plenty of iron. Mg and Fe may act in concert to increase THC Production.

Predation:
Wounding has been used by indigenous peoples for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, to increase THC production. On a molecular level the plant interprets wounding as bugs with the munchies and sends in the insecticide troops (read: THC) to fend off the attack. Wherever a wound occurs, everything above the wound gets more THC bailout money. The last week or three, use a pointed, stiff bladed knife to pierce the plant through, below the first node and insert a stick (I use a bamboo skewer broken into about a 3 or 4 inch piece), pencil, rock or whatever is handy, to keep the wound separated.

Competition:
Companion planting is as old as farming. The additional terpenes cannabis produces and outgasses, help to suppress other plants growing too close to the resources the plant needs for it's own survival. As a matter of fact I just planted some garlic in a couple of 8" pots this evening. Garlic has a similar outgassing method of defense and I figured one would only enhance the other in production.

UV radiation:
As much as I like the CMH (and it doesn't mean that there are none out there), I haven't found any SPD's showing any UV-A or UV-B spectra other than what is just below 400nm (the upper reaches of UV-A). UV-A is closely linked to flavonoid production (read: taste and aroma), while UV-B is thought to be more of a THC response. I am going to use a reptile light when I switch to flower in a week or two.

Most people give their plants tender loving care and I'm beatin' the crap outta mine!

Now, for the caveat! Any or all of these methods will reduce yield to some extent. But, I am more into taking one hit and the only brain power I have left to say is, "Fu...," (and one hour later), "...ug!"

I know most are a bit reluctant to click on off-site links, but if you would like to read it in more detail, I include the following archived link of the "International Hemp Association," headquartered in Amsterdam.

The Chemical Ecology of Cannabis, D.W. Pate
http://www.hempfood.com/Iha/iha01201.html

Hope this helps some.

Namaste, mess

Rosy Cheeks · Mar 24, 2009

The UV-B threads keeps popping up regularly, and hardly anyone bothers to check facts.

Ultraviolet radiation is dangerous and bad for most living organisms, humans and plants included. The kind of ultraviolet radiation that we refer to as UV-B [ 280-320 nm ] is particularly dangerous. It does not penetrate far under the skin (or the epidermis of the plant), but it penetrates the cell structure of an exposed cell and destroys it from within. In both humans and plants, UV-B can cause DNA damage, and mutations (from defect DNA). We know with certainty that UV light causes cancer in humans.

There are a few positive effects from UV radiation, such as production of vitamin D3, which is necessary for calcium metabolism. Vitamin D3 is produced in the skin from UV radiation (sunlight). While vitamin D3 can be supplemented in the diet, certain reptiles make better use of vitamin D3 produced within their bodies than that provided in vitamin supplements, which is why - if they're kept indoors - they profit from restricted doses of artificial UV-B. But for humans, additional UV-B (apart from what you get from sunlight) brings nothing good. So called reptile lights (high in UV-B) should be handled with care.
Any organism exposed to UV-B has to try to protect themselves against this kind of radiation. Plants seem to suffer less from UV-B than humans. Still, research shows that secondary effects of this damage may include reductions in photosynthetic capacity. Furthermore, UV-B radiation may decrease the penetration of PAR, reduce photosynthetic and accessory pigments, impair stomatal function and alter canopy morphology, and thus indirectly retard photosynthetic carbon assimilation. Subsequently, UV-B radiation may limit productivity (yield) in many plant species, including Cannabis.

Preliminary research made by Pate and Lydon in the early/mid 80's indicated that THC could work as a defense mechanism against UV-B in Cannabis, and that increase in UV-B radiation therfore increased the THC production. Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC. They have also demonstrated the chemical lability of CBD upon exposure to UV-B (Lydon and Teramura 1987), in contrast to the stability of THC and CBC. However, studies by Brenneisen (1984) have shown only a minor difference in UV-B absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either.

Research made on use of artificial UV-B on indoor grown Cannabis has so far failed to prove any increase in THC levels. We still don't know exactly how the relation between UV-B and THC production in Cannabis works.

Pate and Lydon researched UV-B's effect on THC production in select Cannabis strains grown on high altitude. It could be that the high altitude environment in itself affected the results. In high altitude growing, air composition changes (less CO2, the lower air pressure makes it more difficult for oxygen to enter vascular systems), the bacterial culture also. In any case, a drect connection between UV-B and THC levels is not proven scientifically IMO.

messn'n'gommin' said:
There are a number of things you can do, to improve THC levels.

I beg to differ. There are a number of things some growers think will play on THC levels, such as hot temp/cold temps, humid/dry environment, running nails through the stem etc, but none to my knowledge that has - in a controlled experiment - shown repeatedly to alter THC levels.

If you've got some serious research to back up your statements, then post it and I'll change my mind.

Divine Cosmos · Mar 24, 2009

Tony Aroma said:
Just curious why any plant would evolve with such needs, since the sun is always the same spectrum.

The Sun's spectrum changes throughout the year, due to the precession of the equinoxes - which causes the light to pass through vary distances of atmosphere. In spring, The light is gradually passing through less atmosphere. Blue light is absorbed more than red light by the atmosphere; therefore, when there is less atmosphere in the Sun's way, more blue light can pass. In Autumn (or fall, for you yanks :nanana:

) it is the opposite - more atmosphere, less blue, more red - hence why spring/summer light looks blue/white, while autumn/winter has more red/orangey light.
As most plants have evolved to sprout in spring, they rely on the bountiful amount of blue light for their vegetative growth.

green_thumb... · Mar 24, 2009

Che said:
Ceramic Metal Halide bulb, you can get them up to 400W and they run on HPS ballasts.

so i heard that i cant run the cmh on my lumatek ballast, is that true?

barletta · Mar 24, 2009

S51 (400w) mag ballasts only.

foo_bird · Mar 24, 2009

if the lumatek is digital no won't work for CMH
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=40637

green_thumb... · Mar 24, 2009

so then will it only work in a hps ballast or could i use it with my mag MH ballast?

tenotoge · Mar 24, 2009

horror business said:
Would there be any increase in potency, etc... if you supplement HPS lighting with the Sun? For instance, if it's sunny out, and you take the plant with you to sit in the sun for a while?

I've done this in the past with my trademark hobo grows (1-2 LST). Take them out with you for a few hours of full sunlight. They seem to double in size after doing this for a few days.
I assume you could also build a box that the plant can sit in nicely, and you could put it in the car and bring it on vacation (if you're driving). THAT would be cool - "hey man this NL#5 has grown under the sun in 6 states." then if you take cuttings and grow them out you can call the strain like "America" or something, and then have a cool story about it. "Traveller" would be cool too.

Tony Aroma · Mar 24, 2009

Anybody know how CMH compares to regular old MH? I use 10,000 K MH bulbs for veg, which are high at the blue end of the spectrum. But I use Iwasaki 5200 K MH bulbs for flower. The Iwasaki are more toward the yellow/red end of the spectrum, but are known for having very high output across the entire visible spectrum. In the aquarium trade, which is where I'm coming from, these bulbs are supposed to be the closest thing to reproducing sunlight at the equator, or so they say. I was just wondering if there is that much difference between the MH bulbs I use and CMH bulbs.

Indonesia · Mar 25, 2009

In my experience outdoor bud is better than indoor grown every time(at least im my northern climate). There are complexities the sun and outdoors bring that can't be duplicated indoors at this time. Grow the same clone indoors and out to see for yourself. Taste is better outdoors as well. Outdoors at the end of flowering the temps get lower and the plants grow slower making more potent and dense imho. If you are looking for the most potent and tasty bud possible, grow outdoors in the full sun. I am not trash talking indoor bud, I'll smoke it all.

messn'n'gommin' · Mar 25, 2009

Rosy Cheeks said:
The UV-B threads keeps popping up regularly, and hardly anyone bothers to check facts.

Ultraviolet radiation is dangerous and bad for most living organisms, humans and plants included. The kind of ultraviolet radiation that we refer to as UV-B [ 280-320 nm ] is particularly dangerous. It does not penetrate far under the skin (or the epidermis of the plant), but it penetrates the cell structure of an exposed cell and destroys it from within. In both humans and plants, UV-B can cause DNA damage, and mutations (from defect DNA). We know with certainty that UV light causes cancer in humans.

There are a few positive effects from UV radiation, such as production of vitamin D3, which is necessary for calcium metabolism. Vitamin D3 is produced in the skin from UV radiation (sunlight). While vitamin D3 can be supplemented in the diet, certain reptiles make better use of vitamin D3 produced within their bodies than that provided in vitamin supplements, which is why - if they're kept indoors - they profit from restricted doses of artificial UV-B. But for humans, additional UV-B (apart from what you get from sunlight) brings nothing good. So called reptile lights (high in UV-B) should be handled with care.
Any organism exposed to UV-B has to try to protect themselves against this kind of radiation. Plants seem to suffer less from UV-B than humans. Still, research shows that secondary effects of this damage may include reductions in photosynthetic capacity. Furthermore, UV-B radiation may decrease the penetration of PAR, reduce photosynthetic and accessory pigments, impair stomatal function and alter canopy morphology, and thus indirectly retard photosynthetic carbon assimilation. Subsequently, UV-B radiation may limit productivity (yield) in many plant species, including Cannabis.

Preliminary research made by Pate and Lydon in the early/mid 80's indicated that THC could work as a defense mechanism against UV-B in Cannabis, and that increase in UV-B radiation therfore increased the THC production. Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC. They have also demonstrated the chemical lability of CBD upon exposure to UV-B (Lydon and Teramura 1987), in contrast to the stability of THC and CBC. However, studies by Brenneisen (1984) have shown only a minor difference in UV-B absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either.

Research made on use of artificial UV-B on indoor grown Cannabis has so far failed to prove any increase in THC levels. We still don't know exactly how the relation between UV-B and THC production in Cannabis works.

Pate and Lydon researched UV-B's effect on THC production in select Cannabis strains grown on high altitude. It could be that the high altitude environment in itself affected the results. In high altitude growing, air composition changes (less CO2, the lower air pressure makes it more difficult for oxygen to enter vascular systems), the bacterial culture also. In any case, a drect connection between UV-B and THC levels is not proven scientifically IMO.

I beg to differ. There are a number of things some growers think will play on THC levels, such as hot temp/cold temps, humid/dry environment, running nails through the stem etc, but none to my knowledge that has - in a controlled experiment - shown repeatedly to alter THC levels.

If you've got some serious research to back up your statements, then post it and I'll change my mind.

Firstly, and most importantly, I feel that a thank you for the above correction is in order. Ultraviolet radiation is nothing to take lightly. Emitted from either the sun itself or from a reptile bulb. Anyone who considers adding UV bulbs to their grow should be made aware of the dangers involved and I am guilty of the sin of omission. I offer my deepest apologies to Outdoe, you, and everyone else having read my inadequate post and will try harder to avoid it in future.

For a relative gauge of the power of UV "reptile" bulbs and the dangers involved:
UV Guide UK website
http://www.uvguide.co.uk/index.htm

Secondly, I would consider it an honor to share some of the things I’ve learned, directly and indirectly, because of the ICMag community! Granted, my understanding of those things may be in error. So, I welcome any correction of my interpretation.

Thirdly, I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean any other research than the one I linked to? I have a few UV related articles I could post if you like. Although not cannabis specific, they do offer a bit of insight on how plants in general respond to ultraviolet light.

Fourthly, sir, it was never my intention to change your mind. That is something only you can do. But, all of the research I can find on UV mediated responses in planta do indeed indicate a connection between defense mechanisms induced by UV irradiance and herbivorous attack. Not to mention outgassing (read: taste and aroma) for the suppression of competing flora. Just because something cannot be proved conclusively does not mean that it is automatically disproved, and vice versa.

For your consideration:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/indust/seasonal.html
Study: Seasonal Fluctuations in Cannabinoid Content of Kansas Marijuana

http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/132/4/1725
Stress Under the Sun: Spotlight on UV-B Responses

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/vol133/issue4/
UV-B Mediated Responses in Plants

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515072642.htm
Starting Point of Sun-induced Skin Cancer Discovered: Molecular ‘Hooks’ Also Pull Compounds From Marijuana From Bloodstream

Namaste, mess

Aeroguerilla · Mar 25, 2009

OKAY NOW NOT ONLY DIFFRENT SPECTRUMS OF LIGHT I FEEL HAVE INFLUENCE, ITS ALSO YOUR LOCATION ON THE EARTH... DIFFRENT ENERGY EVERYWHERE!!

Rosy Cheeks · Mar 26, 2009

messn'n'gommin' said:
Just because something cannot be proved conclusively does not mean that it is automatically disproved, and vice versa.

That's true.

We often see smoke where there might be fire, but science cannot figure out the direct correlations.

Music and plants is another such issue of controversy. It is known that music (or rather sound waves) affect plants, but how and to what extent is disputed.
While Western plant researchers rather stay away from that kind of 'dubious' type of research - since it could affect their careers and possibilities to receive grants and fundings if their research is considered 'crackpot' by the scientific establishment - Indian (Hindu) and Korean researchers are well advanced on the subject and have published several interesting reports.

As to UV-B and its impact on THC production in Cannabis, the whole theory is based on a couple of research studies dating more than 20 years back that so far has not been substantiated by additional research.

The study in itself is interesting, since high altitude growers continuously report that their crops are more potent than lowland crops. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the higher amount of UV-B radiation reaching the plants on high altitudes could have something to do with it, and the research done by Pate and Lydon clearly indicates that.

Nevertheless, lots of things affect plants differently on high altitudes. As I said, the microbial environment is different up there. The air composition changes, lower CO2 ratios affects growth rates and phenotype, so does wind, harsh climate and radical swings in climate, which is common on high altitudes. High altitude plants will generally grow smaller, more compact and yield less. Perhaps the altitude downscales flower production but not THC production, which leads to higher concentrations of THC in the flowers. It's a possibility to consider, so is the possibility of a connection between UV-B and THC production.

One thing is clear though,

You can grow drug type Cannabis with artificial lights containing no or almost no UV-B - such as High Pressure Sodium lights - and still get THC ratios above 20%, so UV-B radiation is NOT a driving factor in THC production. Perhaps an additional one, in certain circumstances.

Indoor growers have been experimenting with UV-B lights ever since these studies came out, still I have not seen one single researcher, grower or breeder do a gas chromatography test performed under controlled circumstances clearly showing that THC ratios are increased by artificial UV-B.

Individual opinion is always biased and flawed, so hearing one UV-B grower say "Yeah, adding 5 reptile lights to my grow made my pot a hell of a lot more potent" isn't proof, only a possible indication.
I've been following some of these growers ever since the early days of Overgrow, and most of them seem to agree that adding UV-B radiation in substantial amounts (several hundreds of watts) seem to do something to the high in the buds, hard to ay what, indicating that at least ratios in Cannabinoid content changes from it. But that can perhaps be tied in with differences in light spectrum, just as Metal Halide grown bud will smoke slightly different from HPS grown bud (without saying that one is more potent than the other).

In the end, science has to be prudent and cannot acknowledge something that cannot repeatedly be shown true.

So, kids, no whatsoever reason (for now) to rush off to the pet shop to get a reptile light. The plants will of course appreciate the extra light you're giving them, but not the UV-B, I assure you.

African herbman · Mar 26, 2009

dbfr3sh said:
i use a simple t5 light set up n theres no problems here...

Please could you elaborate on your t5 set up? Bud looks great man!
Ah

messn'n'gommin' · Mar 28, 2009

I am not sure that discounting any reports because of their age has the impact one may, at first, think. If they have been around for 20 years, that tells me that they have stood the test of time and scrutiny. Be that as it may, the terpenophenolic family of compounds evolved in higher plants as a defense mechanism against pathogenic and herbivorous attacks as well as ultraviolet radiation stresses. However, plants increase terpenophenolic production when under UV stress, not to mention pathogenic and herbivorous attack as both responses are generated by the same genes. The cannabinoids, being a part of this family, serve much the same function in weed. Also, as far as adding “5” reptile lights to one’s grow may, in fact, be unnecessary. The study below, “Ultrviolet-B Radiation-Mediated Responses in Plants,” indicates that UV at Low Fluence Rates (<1 mol/m2/s) generates the same photomorphological response as High Fluence Rates without the deleterious effects of high UV irradiation.

Furthermore, cannabis seeds have no cannabinoid content, but etiolated seedlings do. So, yes, you can grow weed without the utilization of UV into your grow. Cannabis is genetically programmed for the manufacture of said cannabinoids and the variety should certainly be taken into consideration for a base on which to build. However, it is environmental cues that “adjusts” how the plant responds. But, the question was not, can one grow weed without UV, but rather how to increase potency. The research of hemp not-withstanding, the legal status of weed has certainly slowed research of cannabis but that is not to say one cannot or should not consider a wider variety of research in the photomorphogenic and photomorphological responses of higher plants in general. If nothing else research on differing plants will serve as a direction in which to follow in the research of another as most share many of the same biogenetic pathways.

Below, along with links previously posted, is a short list of many reports one can read to help clarify my statements. By the way, please know that although I do not have the training or education to question the research, I do, repeatedly, question my own interpretation of the collected data. So, if you would like to share any information to contradict any misinterpretations on my part, I would be most appreciative. There are few things in this world that gives me greater pleasure (lol…short of good food, good music, or good sex) than to have one of those “Well, huh!” moments when a mistaken or preconceived notion is disproved.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/vol133/issue4/
UV-B Radiation-Mediated Responses in Plants

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/50/18225.full
“A UV-B-Specific Signaling Component Orchestrates Plant UV Protection,”

http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/127/4/1399
It Takes a Garden. How Work on Diverse Plant Species Has Contributed to an Understanding of Flavonoid Metabolism

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/vol146/issue3/
Focus Issue on Plant-Herbivore Interactions

http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/132/1/44
Root Exudation and Rhizosphere Biology

Namaste, mess

Mr. Greengenes · Aug 23, 2009

Theories about cultivational methods that increase potency have been around for years. Clones are a great method for settling the arguments. Naturally, one of the first things I did when I learned to make clones was test an indoor one against an outdoor one. Then, years later when I had a 1k MH bulb and aquired a 1k HPS. First thing I did was test a clone through veg and flowering under each light. I can tell you that genetic differences are far greater than any cultivational influences. If you grow decently well indoors, your bud will be more like outdoor grown. It was difficult to tell the difference between my indoor and outdoor clones, and impossible to tell (sorry, even yield) any difference between the HPS and the MH, even though the HPS did put out a few more lumens. The genetic differences between one plant and another are much greater than any cultivational influences can exert. It's true that the environment can put a nice finish on things, but the genes have to be there to start with or you might as well forget it.

JefersonAirplan · Aug 24, 2009

Ok real talk... I have a somewhat hybrid vertical grow goin on. I have a MH on top, blue and red cfls in the middle and CMH on the low side. I can say the buds on the flowers in the MIDDLE look the strongest. (by the ammount of sparkles on the nugs,and smell)

The ones on the bottom (CMH) look FATTER and more sparklin than the ones up top on the MH only. This is across the board on the same strain (purple kush), same pot size and age.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=132867