What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Metal Halides in flowering... a better high?

N

Nostromo

While reading a long thread I noticed that someone stated that, if metal halides were used for vegging and fruiting, the yield would be a little less, but that the buds would be more sugary, potent, and would result in a better high. After that, I made a couple of searches in this forum and found several comments along the same line. I will be starting my first grow (3 Hashberries, 3 Sadhus, 3 Satoris and 3 Tribal Visions, on a 4 x 4 Hydrohut, on soil) in a couple of weeks and I intended to go for the orthodoxy and use a 400w mh (enhanced red spectrum) for vegging and a 400w HPS Hortilux eye for fruiting, but these posts got me into thinking. Given the fact that I don´t care about big yields, since I grow for myself (an ounce a month or so) and I do care about the potency and quality of the high, do you think it would be better to use the MH for the whole process? :confused:
 
G

Guest

All you need for those things are good genetics, you should never flower under a MH over an HPS. You just won't get the fat juicy buds if you want consensuer strains they are all over the place... the low-yielding super potent rock hard nugs...
 
Last edited:
N

Nostromo

Night Tiger: That is exactly what one of the threads I read is about: someone used both and noticed that the plants that were under the MH, being the same strain, were more sugary than the ones that flowered on the side of the HPS. The guy stated that the high of the plants under the MH was superior. I know this could be due to phenos and so on, but the subject is interesting.
Messiah: I know (and have) the genetics you are talking about (LSD, Blue Moon Rocks... and about 20 well chosen strain, etc). The issue is if the same strain, let's say Tribal Vision, could have a superior high if flowered with the MH only, compared with a Tribal Vision flowered under the HPS. Maybe some of our colleagues has done this experiment. Let's see.
 

NiteTiger

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright...
Veteran
Well, I've heard people say that the higher amount of UV from MH develops the high in a different manner, and also causes more resin production.

But I'm not talking about having two separate lights, I'm talking about both under the same hood, where both are being received equally. Not having two lights in the same room, where there's a clear delineation between the lights.

Matter of fact, I'm fixing to order some equipment, maybe I'll add a 1kw MH to go alongside my 1kw HPS, and see how it goes. Of course, one run of the same strain under each alone to get a good control reference.

Damn, did I just set myself up for an 8 month project? Doh...
 
G

Guest

Me$$iah said:
All you need for those things are good genetics, you should never flower under a MH over an HPS. You just won't get the fat juicy buds if you want consensuer strains they are all over the place... the low-yielding super potent rock hard nugs...
It almost doesn't matter anymore as there are 'enhanced spectrum' MH and HPS bulbs available. If you wanna go extreme flower under 'cool' halides. I've done it. Seems like sativa dominant plants love the blue spectrum. The Kali Mist in that round, I grew 8 other strains at the same time and a bunch of phenotypes no less to make it interesting, and just about everything was absolutely awesome. That Kali was the best smoke I've had yet. I grew Bubbleberry, Blueberry, C99, Master Kush, Chronic, Kali Mist, Pot of Gold, Grapefruit x Haze and something else. I look forward to flowering under those cool halides again...for now it's straight HPS.

For whatever it's worth...
 

Verite

My little pony.. my little pony
Veteran
I havent used HPS for over ten years now and dont miss it one bit. MH can make just as juicy nugs. Outdoor locations like Hawaii, Jamaica, Nepal, etc that get high levels of UV exposure seem to enjoy much stronger varieties of weed. Most people will also confirm the observation that the same strain grown outdoor is more potent than its indoor sisters.

HPS bulbs contain as close to zero % UV output but are still capable of producing highly resinous bud as much as the strain will allow. So my hunch is that the spectrum difference and the higher levels of UV produce an altered resin higher in THC [ assuming that MJ plants produce THC as sort of a defensive protectant against UV ]

Now the potency difference between outdoor to indoor is just enough to be noticable on a regular basis so considering the UV output of the basic MH is still just a fraction of the UV levels available outside [ but is still way much more than HPS ] that should make the difference somewhat less noticable between the two bulbs. Im guessing it would impact different strains differently.

That leaves the other possible area of impact, genetics. Does growing/breeding marijuana void of UV exposure evolve the genes to produce less THC?
 

Verite

My little pony.. my little pony
Veteran
Redux said:
It almost doesn't matter anymore as there are 'enhanced spectrum' MH and HPS bulbs available. If you wanna go extreme flower under 'cool' halides. I've done it. Seems like sativa dominant plants love the blue spectrum. The Kali Mist in that round, I grew 8 other strains at the same time and a bunch of phenotypes no less to make it interesting, and just about everything was absolutely awesome. That Kali was the best smoke I've had yet. I grew Bubbleberry, Blueberry, C99, Master Kush, Chronic, Kali Mist, Pot of Gold, Grapefruit x Haze and something else. I look forward to flowering under those cool halides again...for now it's straight HPS.

For whatever it's worth...


Hey you werent the one running the 'cool deluxe' bulb test grow thread were you?
 
MH's are better for people who want absolute quality. I don't think the yield loss is worth it, but i guess some people think it is. On my 1000w system, i have noticed over a 10% yield loss when using MH's for flowering, sometimes as much as almost 20%....that's a few extra ounces. The only pros of flowering with an MH is slightly higher potency and slightly shorter plant. I only noticed a few inches of height difference when using an HPS and the potency wasn't that far off. It's really up to you, most things in growing are personal preference.
 

NiteTiger

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright...
Veteran
So, what about the idea of a dual bulb hood and using both spectrums? Get the yield of the HPS with the potentcy of the MH?

Wouldn't that work? Not being confrontational, just curious.
 
NiteTiger said:
So, what about the idea of a dual bulb hood and using both spectrums? Get the yield of the HPS with the potentcy of the MH?

Wouldn't that work? Not being confrontational, just curious.

Yep, it would work quite well. I plan on doing that in the future, but for now, i don't have enough cash to buy another 1000w light.
 

NiteTiger

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright...
Veteran
If you're comfortable around wires and can follow instructions, you can do what I'm planning on doing and grab a DIY Ballast from htgsupply for $100, complete with socket.

:joint:
 
I prefer to buy nicer equipment. Not that those lights don't work great, i just like to invest alot of money into good equipment. I usually go with ballasts that have atleast a 5 year warranty, i just bought my powerhouse 1000w hps ballast for like $185 and it has an 8 year warranty. I usually go with a nice hood too, i decided to go with the valuebrite 6" air cooled reflector, i got it for like $80...which is a steal. It's basically an exact copy of the cool sun, which is over $150 i believe, and it has a large footprint. The place i got my light from also upgraded the bulb to a 1000w hortilux super hps in the original eye packaging for only $18. If i find another good deal on a 1000w, but an MH this time i'm going to jump on it. Theres my rant for the day lol
 

BCGrown

Member
It's funny actually, I've noticed the opposite. In past grows, the halides always seemed to produce slightly bigger or more dense buds but the hps seemed to produce much more resinous and stinkier plants. I've always noticed that and just figured the deep red spectrum of sodium made the plant produce more oils. That's also why I've never really noticed a yield difference, the halide produced bigger but the hps weighed more for it's size so in the end I always found them to be about the same weight. I just like the sodium buds better, that's why I run full hps for flower now.
Again, just my two bits...
BC

 

BudZad7

Active member
:wave: Hi All! There might be some truth to the MH vs HPS in flowering
used MH for flowering more than 20+ yrs and all was great!!!, but started using HPS for last 2 yrs and the difference I've noticed is that the buds start
to form about 2 weeks faster, and get larger faster, but the buzz is not as
complex as with MH.......and another thing that was tried, was a grow under
flouros 40watt, that was a big surprise, there was not a big yield, but the
quality was great, and the buzz was GOOD!



OG Kush under 40w flouros Peace!
 

- ezra -

.strangelove.
Veteran
Verite said:
[ assuming that MJ plants produce THC as sort of a defensive protectant against UV ]

With all due respect, I dont see how you can draw such a conclusion. THC is not found in high proportion in wild hemp which is exposed to the same UV radiation. THC concentration is high in drug cultivars due to selective breeding, not UV. I do agree that the full spectrum of natural sunlight does effect canabinoid profile in a positive way.
 
Last edited:
bcgrown- i agree with you on some points, but your contradicting yourself. Your basically saying MH's produce denser buds, but then saying HPS's produce denser buds. If two buds are the same size, but one weighs more...then that bud is denser. So if the HPS grown buds weighed more for their given size, then your saying they are denser. So which is it?

budzadz- those don't look like OG kush to me, definately not the clone version and they don't even look like the S1's either. But back to the main subject. What do you mean by a more complex buzz? When using HPS's versus MH's i haven't noticed ANY difference in the high, only a very slight difference in potency. The high is not going to be any different, if the plant is the same phenotype and both were picked at the same time. Maybe you harvested them at different times, or it was a different phenotype? There are many variables.

I do agree with you on the longer flowering time with blue spectrum lights though. When i use MH's or Fluro's the flowering period takes an extra 1 to 2 weeks compared to an HPS. I don't know exactly why that is, but i'm sure someone knows.

ezra- I agree with you 100%, i have found very little difference in the potency between HPS's and MH's. I believe the UV theory about buds being alot more potent is highly exagerated. I barely noticed a difference in potency, or trich production. Plus, someone needs to do an experiment in a controlled environment to draw the conclusion between the MH and HPS battle.
 

Verite

My little pony.. my little pony
Veteran
No offense taken but youre comparing apples to oranges, sure both are fruit you can eat but vastly different. Comparing fiber hemp to smoking MJ is the same. Both are bred for different reasons. UV isnt capable of creating something that isnt there by genetics, can it enhance something that is? I think so, and Im not the only one.


... It is postulated that THC was useful to the plant by providing protection from UV-B exposure. The cannabinoid complex (which includes THC) of compounds is secreted by epidermal resin glands which are most numerous on and around the reproductive structures. This makes sense, since the reproductive structures require the highest level of protection. Low-THC cultivars secrete resin, but it is composed of non-intoxicating substances. ...

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1999/v4-306.html

... The production of cannabinoids and their associated terpenes in Cannabis is subject to environmental influences as well as hereditary determinants. Their biosynthesis occurs in specialized glands populating the surface of all aerial structures of the plant. These compounds apparently serve as defensive agents in a variety of antidessication, antimicrobial, antifeedant and UV-B pigmentation roles. In addition, the more intense ambient UV-B of the tropics, in combination with the UV-B lability of cannabidiol, may have influenced the evolution of an alternative biogenetic route from cannabigerol to tetrahydrocannabinol in some varieties....

Ultraviolet radiation

Another stress to which plants are subject results from their daily exposure to sunlight. While necessary to sustain photosynthesis, natural light contains biologically destructive ultraviolet radiation. This selective pressure has apparently affected the evolution of certain defenses, among them, a chemical screening functionally analogous to the pigmentation of human skin. A preliminary investigation (Pate 1983) indicated that, in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). 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. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed. Two other explanations must now be considered. Even if CBD absorbs on par with THC, in areas of high ambient UV-B, the former compound may be more rapidly degraded. This could lower the availability of CBD present or render it the less energetically efficient compound to produce by the plant. Alternatively, the greater UV-B absorbency of CBC compared to THC and the relative stability of CBC compared to CBD might nominate this compound as the protective screening substance. The presence of large amounts of THC would then have to be explained as merely an accumulated storage compound at the end of the enzyme-mediated cannabinoid pathway. However, further work is required to resolve the fact that Lydon's (1985) experiments did not show a commensurate increase in CBC production with increased UV-B exposure.

This CBC pigmentation hypothesis would imply the development of an alternative to the accepted biochemical pathway from CBG to THC via CBD. Until 1973 (Turner and Hadley 1973), separation of CBD and CBC by gas chromatography was difficult to accomplish, so that many peaks identified as CBD in the preceding literature may in fact have been CBC. Indeed, it has been noted (De Faubert Maunder 1970) and corroborated by GC/MS (Turner and Hadley 1973) that some tropical drug strains of Cannabis do not contain any CBD at all, yet have an abundance of THC. This phenomenon has not been observed for northern temperate varieties of Cannabis. Absence of CBD has led some authors (De Faubert Maunder 1970, Turner and Hadley 1973) to speculate that another biogenetic route to THC is involved. Facts scattered through the literature do indeed indicate a possible alternative. Holley et al. (1975) have shown that Mississippi-grown plants contain a considerable content of CBC, often in excess of the CBD present. In some examples, either CBD or CBC was absent, but in no case were plants devoid of both. Their analysis of material grown in Mexico and Costa Rica served to accentuate this trend. Only one example actually grown in their respective countries revealed the presence of any CBD, although appreciable quantities of CBC were found. The reverse seemed true as well. Seed from Mexican material devoid of CBD was planted in Mississippi and produced plants containing CBD.

Could CBC be involved in an alternate biogenetic route to THC? Yagen and Mechoulam (1969) have synthesized THC (albeit in low yield) directly from CBC. The method used was similar to the acid catalyzed cyclization of CBD to THC (Gaoni and Mechoulam 1966). Reaction by-products included cannabicyclol, delta-8-THC and delta-4,8-iso-THC, all products which have been found in analyses of Cannabis (e.g., Novotny et al. 1976). Finally, radioisotope tracer studies (Shoyama et al. 1975) have uncovered the intriguing fact that radiolabeled CBG fed to a very low THC-producing strain of Cannabis is found as CBD, but when fed to high THC-producing plants, appeared only as CBC and THC. Labeled CBD fed to a Mexican example of these latter plants likewise appeared as THC. Unfortunately, radiolabeled CBC was not fed to their plants, apparently in the belief that CBC branched off the biogenetic pathway at CBD and dead ended. Their research indicated that incorporation of labeled CBG into CBD or CBC was age dependent. Vogelman et al. (1988) likewise report that the developmental stage of seedlings, as well as their exposure to light, affects the occurrence of CBG, CBC or THC in Mexican Cannabis. No CBD was reported.


http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha01201.html

.... THC: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol - Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC mimics the action of anandamide, a neurotransmitter produced naturally in the body, which binds with the cannabinoid receptors in the brain to produce the ???high??? associated with marijuana. THC possesses high UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties....

http://www.famouschinese.com/virtual/Cannabinoids
 
Top