What's new

Low Mg, High P for High THC Content?

dizzlekush

Member
Cannabinoid Profile and Elemental Uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as Influenced by Soil Characteristics.
"Soil Mg was negatively correlated with Ag THC concentrations in leaf tissue (Table 7). Mean Ag THC concentrations greater than 6,900 ppm were found in leaf tissue of plants grown on two soils with <40 ppm extractable Mg. However, one soil with <40 ppm Mg produced plants with a mean Ag THC concentration of only 2,257 ppm(Table 6, soil 3). Plant N, previously shown negatively correlated with soil Mg(Table 4), was positively correlated with Ag THC (Table 7). Haney and Kutscheid (1973) reported positive correlation of total soil N with A~THC levels in wild C. sativa in Illinois. A highly significant positive correlation was found for the Ca/Mg soil ratio to A~THC concentration (Table 7). A balance between Ca and Mg appeared to be required for maximum Ag THC accumulation in leaf tissue. As Mg levels increased relative to Ca, Ag THC concentrations decreased. These relationships will be examined in future experiments....
Ratios of concentrations of /xgTHC/CCC were positively correlated with leaf P, P/Fe, and P/Zn ratios (Table 8). Consequently, the P content of plant tissue seemed to affect the A~THC-CCC relationship, which
suggested involvement of P in CCC breakdown or /~gTHC formation. Added involvement of P was shown by the positive correlation between the A~THC/ CBD ratio and plant P. Several writers have indicated that CBD may be a precursor of Ag THC in C. sativa (Kiippers, Lousberg, and Bercht, 1973; Farnsworth, 1969). These data suggested that increased concentrations of P in leaf tissue may have enhanced the conversion of CBD to Ag THC.
Cannabinoids belong to the chemical class of natural terpenophenols. P may be involved in cannabinoid reactions by interaction of geraniol phosphate and olivetol which may form CBD precursors (Mechou- lam, 1973). These, in turn, may transform to Ag THC and eventually CBN."

Responses of Greenhouse-grown Cannabis sativa L. to Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium.
"Concentration means of CBD and A°THC ranged from 183 to 2,532 ppm and 2,434 to 9,472 ppm, respectively, but did not differ significantly among treatments (Table 5). Mean total yields of AO THC ranged from 0.3 mg to 61.2 rag/plant and were significantly different among treatments. The significance of these differences was largely due to growth responses to P. Total AO THC yield was significantly correlated with soil P205and applied P (r --- 0.82,** 0.84,** respectively). Concentrations of CBD and AO THC were both positively correlated with soil P205(Table 6) and plant P (Table 7).
Plant Mn and Ca were negatively correlated with CBD and A9THC concentrations (Table 7). These relationships probably reflected the influence of P on cannabinoid concentrations and on Mn and Ca levels in the plants. Plant B and Zn were also negatively correlated with concentration of Ag THC.The biochemical mechanisms responsible for synthesis of cannabinoids are not clearly understood; therefore, we cannot yet explain how previously discussed elements affect cannabinoid production. Phosphorus may be involved in cannabinoid biosynthesis via the interaction of geraniol phosphate and olivetol (Mechoulam,. 1973). The other elements may affect related enzymatic reactions."

Seems to be some possible benefits of high P after all, in late bloom especially. Mg having negative correlations with THC surprises me personally.
 

Attachments

  • Cannabinoid Profile and Elemental Uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as Influenced by Soil Characteris.PDF
    216.7 KB · Views: 61
  • Responses of greenhouse grown cannabis - NPK - 1977.pdf
    164.3 KB · Views: 63

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Hey buddy,

IIRC, the second study (which I posted here some months ago and) I read a while ago, also found high K was (weakly) negatively correlated to THC-A quantity. Correct? Also, as I wrote in my fertilizer thread, I really do wish the second study authors had quantified trichome density (trichome per mm^2) instead of simply hypothesizing about why they found a increase in THC.

In the first study I think we can draw less strong conclusion being that it was carried out in soil. However, from my understanding it's not high Mg per say that has the strongest correlation to THC, it's the Ca:Mg ratio. Once the ratio falls below 1, according to my understanding, THC quantity sufferers. That is why I keep the Ca:Mg ratio 2 during full-flowering, and Mg at ~66 ppm, that and due to the antagonistic relationship of Ca and Mg. Also, if we reduce Mg we reduce leaf Chl (chlorophyll) which will reduce Pn (rate of photosynthesis) and have other negative impacts. I think the 'happy medium' is keeping Mg less than 80 ppm and and Ca:Mg ratio equal to and greater than 2 during full-flowering.

I am happy that C.B. Coffman authored the first paper, he seems to like THC :D

UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes
Lydon J, Teramura AH,Coffman CB.
Photochem Photobiol. 1987 Aug;46(2):201-6​
It's nice to see those two studies both found high P is (strongly) correlated to THC. That lends more weight to the evidence of high P and THC.

Also, below is a study I have been meaning to get, however, it's from 1947 so its quality could be poor:
The effect of soil fertilization on the formation and the amount of cannabinoid substances in Cannabis sativa L. in the course of one vegetation period
Lumír Hanuš, Marie Dostálová (1947)
Acta Univ Palacki Olomuc Fac Med. 1994;138:11-5.


Abstract

The study followed the effect of the soil fertilization on the growth of plants and on the formation and the amount of extractible substances as well that of two main cannbinoid substances (CBD, delta-9-THC) in the Czechoslovak variety of hemp, Rastislavice, cultivated in Czechoslovakia for fibre production in the course of the vegetation period of 1988. In fourteen various vegetation stages of the plant growth, the samples of the plant tops, cultivated on five fields with different soil fertilization, were collected and analyzed in the dried state.
FWIW,
Because of those studies I made my nutrient formulations have increased P during second stage flowering, what I call full-flowering. K is only increased during first stage flowering, what I call early-flowering.
 
Last edited:

dizzlekush

Member
Hey buddy,

IIRC, the second study (which I posted here some months ago and) I read a while ago, also found high K was (weakly) negatively correlated to THC-A quantity. Correct?


Responses of Greenhouse-grown Cannabis sativa L. to Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium.

"Growth of C. sativa, concentration of the hallucinogen A.9THC, and yield of AflTHC were positively related to soil P levels in a greenhouse study employing anthssic 45-day-old plants. There were no significant growth or cannabinoid responses to varied rates of applied N and K, although maximum plant growth and A9THC yields were associated with soil P in conjunction with high N or moderate to high K levels in the soil. C. sativa plants accumulated Mn up to 1,800 ppm under low P without exhibiting visual toxicity symptoms although plant and soil Mn concentrations were negatively correlated with plant growth.
Levels of several elements in leaf tissue were shown to be related to soil P2O5, Mn, B, and Mg concentrations, suggesting an approach to determination of origin of Cannabis derivatives by their chemical analyses."

from the 2nd study.

but looking at the actual data graph actually shows a conclusion different than the conclusion given. it shows your conclusion.

out of the 21 different feeding methods in the study, 5 produced a significantly higher THC content in hemp plants.

Oppm N, 150ppm P, 0ppm K - had a 4.5g yield on average
25ppm N, 150ppm P, 0ppm K - had a 3.41g yield on average
125ppm N, 150ppm P, 0ppm K- had a 6.58g yield on average (highest yield in study by almost 1 g)
0ppm N, 50ppm P, 50ppm K- had a 3.41g yield on average
0ppm N, 150ppm P, 50ppm K- had a 5.54g yield on average (highest THC concentration in study)

threw the dry yield in there just for kicks.

every single plant fed 150ppm P was in the highest group when it comes to THC content except the one group that was fed 150ppm K.

from my understanding it's not high Mg per say that has the strongest correlation to THC, it's the Ca:Mg ratio. Once the ratio falls below 1, according to my understanding, THC quantity sufferers. That is why I keep the Ca:Mg ratio at and greater than 2, that and due to the antagonistic relationship of Ca and Mg. Also, if we reduce Mg we reduce leaf Chl (chlorophyll) which will reduce Pn (rate of photosynthesis) and have other negative impacts. I think the 'happy medium' is keeping Mg less than 80 ppm and and Ca:Mg ratio equal to and greater than 2.

i think the first study related reduced THC production with >40ppm Mg
 

dizzlekush

Member
Thanks for clarifying that for me, my brain isn't working well today ;)

you are very possibly right that increased K will limit inceased THC production via increased P (not sure how, just what the data shows), but K by itself seems to have no antagonistic effects on THC production.
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Cool. I thought i was going mad there for a minute. Thanks for looking at it again, I don't have time to review those papers today and it's been some months since I last read them.
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
but looking at the actual data graph actually shows a conclusion different than the conclusion given. it shows your conclusion.

out of the 21 different feeding methods in the study, 5 produced a significantly higher THC content in hemp plants.

Oppm N, 150ppm P, 0ppm K - had a 4.5g yield on average
25ppm N, 150ppm P, 0ppm K - had a 3.41g yield on average
125ppm N, 150ppm P, 0ppm K- had a 6.58g yield on average (highest yield in study by almost 1 g)
0ppm N, 50ppm P, 50ppm K- had a 3.41g yield on average
0ppm N, 150ppm P, 50ppm K- had a 5.54g yield on average (highest THC concentration in study)

threw the dry yield in there just for kicks.

every single plant fed 150ppm P was in the highest group when it comes to THC content except the one group that was fed 150ppm K.

I tried to place P ppm above 100 in my full-flowering mix but it's not possible while keeping K near 200 ppm and ammonium low (re NO3:NH4 ratio). Sadly, there are not a great many sources of P; there's MAP, DAP, MKP, phosphoric acid, etc., but all contain other elements that affect the profile.

DizzleKush said:
spurr said:
from my understanding it's not high Mg per say that has the strongest correlation to THC, it's the Ca:Mg ratio. Once the ratio falls below 1, according to my understanding, THC quantity sufferers. That is why I keep the Ca:Mg ratio at and greater than 2, that and due to the antagonistic relationship of Ca and Mg. Also, if we reduce Mg we reduce leaf Chl (chlorophyll) which will reduce Pn (rate of photosynthesis) and have other negative impacts. I think the 'happy medium' is keeping Mg less than 80 ppm and and Ca:Mg ratio equal to and greater than 2.
i think the first study related reduced THC production with >40ppm Mg

This is what I focused on:

"A highly significant positive correlation was found for the Ca/Mg soil ratio to A~THC concentration (Table 7). A balance between Ca and Mg appeared to be required for maximum Ag THC accumulation in leaf tissue. As Mg levels increased relative to Ca, Ag THC concentrations decreased. These relationships will be examined in future experiments...."
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
spurr said:
It's nice to see those two studies both found high P is (strongly) correlated to THC. That lends more weight to the evidence of high P and THC.

Sounds like the high P myth has been revived, and Papa's got a brand new bag.

Ha. Only for later-flowering phase IMO ;). Not for vegetative or early-flowering (i.e., pre-flowering and a week or two after that point), when roots and shoots are still growing.
 

Storm Shadow

Well-known member
Veteran
Spurr...any relation to my comment about 15ml per gallon of FN Bloom gave me frostier nugs and this data? I used the FN at 1300 PPM per your suggestion and it was always bomb results...I think I also noticed plants gettings trichs sooner also ...
 

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Ha. Only for later-flowering phase IMO ;). Not for vegetative or early-flowering (i.e., pre-flowering and a week or two after that point), when roots and shoots are still growing.


I was just going to say the same thing. I remember some heated discusions about this.. Insert foot in mouth lol........
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Storm Shadow said:
Spurr...any relation to my comment about 15ml per gallon of FN Bloom gave me frostier nugs and this data? I used the FN at 1300 PPM per your suggestion and it was always bomb results...I think I also noticed plants gettings trichs sooner also ...

Hey bud,

I commented to you on that point in my fertilizer thread. I think the increased P may have had an effect, yes. And other big growers such as yourself, e.g., iSMOKEKUSH, found when increasing P (and K) via bloom booster with my GH formulation he got more trichs.

Of course, all of that is pretty biased considering it's factually nearly impossible for humans to visually judge such things in an unbiased manner, even when they try to be unbiased. That is why it's imperative that I and others like you, Dizzlekush, etc, study this issue via THC assays and by quantifying trichcome density. ... the same way we should test effects from jasmonic acid, triacontanol, etc.
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
spurr said:
DizzleKush said:
spurr said:
It's nice to see those two studies both found high P is (strongly) correlated to THC. That lends more weight to the evidence of high P and THC.
Sounds like the high P myth has been revived, and Papa's got a brand new bag.

Ha. Only for later-flowering phase IMO
wink.gif
. Not for vegetative or early-flowering (i.e., pre-flowering and a week or two after that point), when roots and shoots are still growing.
I was just going to say the same thing. I remember some heated discusions about this.. Insert foot in mouth lol........

Hey there,

It's nice to see you, and I'm happy bygones are bygones. I was always of the opinion we may benefit from boosting P after roots and shoots stop growing, that is, after I read those two studies and a few others (on topic) many, many moons ago.

:ying: :tiphat:
 
Last edited:

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Hey there,

It's nice to see you, and I'm happy bygones are bygones. I was always of the opinion we may benefit from boosting P after roots and shoots stop growing, that is, after I read those two studies and a few others (on topic) many, many moons ago.

:ying: :tiphat:

Why would you post this if you knew that P was better then K to Boost.....

IMO 'high' P is > 80 ppm and 'low' P is <30. The boost in yeild you see is mostly due to K, IME/IMO, not P.

So now we know its P thats most beneficial Right
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
spurr said:
Hey there,

It's nice to see you, and I'm happy bygones are bygones. I was always of the opinion we may benefit from boosting P after roots and shoots stop growing, that is, after I read those two studies and a few others (on topic) many, many moons ago.

Why would you post this if you knew that P was better then K to Boost.....

IMO 'high' P is > 80 ppm and 'low' P is <30. The boost in yeild you see is mostly due to K, IME/IMO, not P.

So now we know its P thats most beneficial Right

No, P is not most beneficial in terms of yield, K is. That's because it's not a boost in YIELD from P, but (possibly) a boost in THC (mode of action not yet determined). The yield boost comes from K, IMO and according to the science I understand. My comment above wrt high and low P stands.
 
Last edited:

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
lol OK you can continue with your assumption's... ... It takes a big man to admit when your wrong....I guess that wont ever happen. Good luck with your Fert's
 

spurr

Active member
Veteran
Look man, I was trying to be friendly to you, but if you really want me to make you look like a fool (yet again) I can oblige. Either STFU or be honest, it's your choice.

Between the two of us, I'm the one that likes to be proven wrong, and I'm the one that thanks the person who proves it, there are many people here that can attest to my claim. However, you must PROVE it, or at least make a strong argument. Just because you're still mad that I owned you so many times before doesn't mean you proved shit. In fact, I have NEVER seen you post a single reference to any academic lit. So kindly GTFO of this thread, I'm sure DizzleKush would agree, considering you're adding nothing of value or substance.

Furthermore, if you're trying to claim high P boosts yield from that ONE study, as a MATTER OF FACT (i.e., as a factual statement), I would ask you to pull your head out of your arse. That data is so far from conclusive it's not even funny. In fact, we can't even say for sure high P does boost THC, as a MATTER OF FACT (i.e., as a factual statement).

That study wasn't focusing on yield so there is much missing data, not to mention there is no way in hell giving plants zero K will boost yield for hydro and soilless. You CANNOT form an opinion from that one part of the one study. Well, you shouldn't but you can, and if you do you will make yourself look foolish for me. ;)

You're with the big boys now son, you're in the science sub-form, so don't bring your assumptions and scientific misunderstandings here and try to claim them as fact. Because you'll get spanked and sent back to the sand box to play with the other kids. Ummkay?
 
Last edited:

Hammerhead

Disabled Farmer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I will be the big man and appolagize. Even though I dont agree with you. IMO high P and low K will grow massive buds that are higher in THC content then high K and Low P..I wont hinder your quest to make the perfect ferts... Good luck in what ever you do... I will leave your threads in peace .....
 
Last edited:

dizzlekush

Member
You're with the big boys now son, you're in the science sub-form, so don't bring your assumptions and scientific misunderstandings here and try to claim them as fact. Because you'll get spanked and sent back to the sand box to play with the other kids. Ummkay?

this should be a banner that pops down whenever someone visits this sub-forum for the first time. imagine it being said in the voice of crocodile dundee.

glad we got that over with.
 
Y

YosemiteSam

OK I don't pretend to be a big dog at all scientifically speaking. But is it not true that the reason we use P at all so that the plant can form ATP? And isn't ATP also dependent on a shit load (that is a scientific term btw) of enzymes and aren't those enzymes almost totally dependent on Mg?

Seems to me getting the ratio right might be the most important thing.

I have tried low Mg...no fuckin bueno and I don't need a scientist to tell me that.

I have tried all kinds of levels of K and find somewhere around equal to N to be pretty good...maybe bumping a hair after stretch.

I have tried all kinds of P levels...although, honestly, I have not tried high P and low K together so I cannot comment on Hammerhead's technique...and I personally don't think it much matters within reason. In fact, I find no real reason to go over 30 ppm ever in a grow, unless you don't have another source of K.

But that is just me...all personal observation with zero time spent reading scientific articles.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top