Full text thread: post papers you want in full text...

spurr said:

Avenger was nice enough to email it to me, I will email it you later today or tomorrow

Click to expand...

Avenger said:

Only a few more credits left, so pick and choose wisely.

Click to expand...

spurr said:

@ MicrobeMan,

I know you didn't ask for this study, but I thought you would be interested in it. I thought you would especially be interested the section tilted "Root-Microbe Communication"

"Root Exudation and Rhizosphere Biology"
Travis S. Walker, Harsh Pal Bais, Erich Grotewold, and Jorge M. Vivanco
Plant Physiology, May 2003, Vol. 132, pp. 44–5

Click to expand...

junior_grower said:

okay I finished the last exam @ 6:30 tonight, emailed off my last paper, and have finally smoked some wonderfully pot maybe a little to much. The point is what papers are still needed cause I have lost track? I'm at school all day tomorrow cleaning out the lab locker so ill have time to grab a few dozen papers between beers.

Click to expand...

There are a couple of issues with the wording of that abstract:

1. It doesn't list the levels of P, K, etc. used in fertigation water relative to the results. Ex., it doesn't list the ppm level of P that gave the highest level of THC, CBD and growth; and same goes for level of K. I.e., "...Phosphorus and K from super-phosphate and KCI, respectively, were applied at 0, 50, and 150 ppm.". For all we know, 50 ppm P gave the best results for P (verses 150 ppm), and 150 ppm K gave the worst rustles for K (verses 50 ppm). The following sentence of the quote is a prime example of why I think 50 ppm P was better than 150 ppm P: "Thus, it was possible to partially characterize a soil by tissue analysis. For example, all of the plants grown on soil with less than 100 ppm of extractable P2O5 contained less than 8,000 ppm {Delta}9THC."


2. The last two sentences of the abstract basically nullify the study as a means to form a definitive answer: "Usefulness of such relationships will be dependent upon extensive evaluation of Cannabis on different soils under various cultural conditions. At this time, the reliability required for determination of origin of Cannabis derivatives via chemical analysis does not exist when only essential elements and cannabinoids are considered."


3. The abstract doesn't list the levels of P, K, etc. extracted from the soil relative to the results; it only gives one ambiguous example of exacted P2O5. Without quantitative data we can not from definitive opinions based upon that abstract in terms of amounts of elements and their effect upon growth and cannabinoid levels of cannabis.


4. The soil extraction method used (via strong acids) is not representative of the actual P that was available to the plant (the same goes for K, N, etc., albeit to a lesser degree). In terms of P, it is because much of the inorganic P added to fertigation water is made insoluble once in soil; and also because soluble P has very low mobility in the "soil solution" (thin layer of water surround media particles). Using strong acids as a soil test of potentially plant usable ions (both soluble and insoluble) is flawed because it doesn't show what the plant has access to (see #5 below), thus it doesn't show only what the plant can take up.


5. The much better soil (and soilless) test method of potentially plant usable (both soluble and insoluble) elements, especially P, is the Co2 extraction method. Few soil scientists use that method, even though it's much more representative of what the roots have access to in soil. That is because the Co2 extraction method mimics the weak acids (ex. carbonic acidic, citric acid, etc.) found in soil that help solublize P and other ions for roots to take up.


FWIW,

My own trials with low P (via my mix at 39 ppm P) verses high P (via the Lucas formula, both the traditional 0-8-16 formula and his updated FloraNova Bloom formula; both with > 105 ppm P); showed reduced P did not reduce growth or yield or THC content (via my testing with comparative TLC). Also, Oswizzle has been testing my mix for a while now and he found the same as I did verses the Lucas formula (with FloraNova Bloom) in terms of growth and yield. Not only that, but Grat3fulh3ad's formula, which is used by MANY growers, has 60 ppm P, and no one has complained about reduced yield or high from his mix AFAIK...

Click to expand...

Honkytonk said:

J Biol Chem. 2004 Sep 17;279(38):39767-74. Epub 2004 Jun 9.
The gene controlling marijuana psychoactivity: molecular cloning and heterologous expression of Delta1-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase from Cannabis sativa L.

Sirikantaramas S, Morimoto S, Shoyama Y, Ishikawa Y, Wada Y, Shoyama Y, Taura F.

Click to expand...

spurr said:

hey all,

If Oldpink allows it, I would like to have a thread where Ic'ers can post papers they would like to read in full text, but not have to pay for. I, and others with access to many for-cost academic journals are willing to download the full text, and then upload it here.

Getting the full text without paying for it does not take any money away from the authors; just make sure to cite them because it's only fair to do so.

Click to expand...

messn'n'gommin' said:

Chemistry and Biological Activity of Tetrahydrocannabinol and its Derivatives
T. Flemming, R. Muntendam, C. Steup and Oliver Kayser
Chemistry and Materials Science
Bioactive Heterocycles IV
Topics in Heterocyclic Chemistry, 2007, Volume 10/2007 1-42

Click to expand...

G.O. Joe said:

The whole book:
http://ifile.it/ong20vd

Click to expand...