It's 2019, What IS the Known OPTIMAL Spectrum for Resin/Terpene Rich Cannabis?

Ibechillin · Feb 17, 2019

"The lumen is a unit of measure of the quantity of visible light emitted by a source, Lumens are weighted according to a model of the human eye’s sensitivity to various wavelengths. This weighting means that light in the green-yellow spectrum will register significantly higher in lumens than red or blue light – the most important colors for photosynthesis in plants. While lumens may reflect how much light humans perceive, they do not adequately account for how much light your plants are actually receiving."

^this is where it gets complicated.

sethimus · Feb 17, 2019

Koondense said:
Of course blue light is at higher energy state than red light, that's a basic physical property of light.
Regarding those two spectrums...not the same.
Look closely at red and blue spikes, the fluence light has more blue than red, gavita otherwise.
Basically it could be two identical designs, one using 3000K white leds, the other using 4000K white leds(or using 3000K + a few blue leds).

Cheers

i suppose both use 4000k + 660nm, the difference in spectrum is that fluence uses lm561c and gavita the lm301b, check the spectrum of those, the lm301b has more blue

Weird · Feb 17, 2019

only certain secondary metabolites are produced in a linear fashion in conjunction to nutrients and other work off reverse cues making the topic past the laws of minimums counter productive depending on what you are trying to improve production of

f-e · Feb 17, 2019

There is so much going on here..

I think the water penetration info isn't really showing a relationship between wavelength and depth penetration. It shows blue gets deeper than both longer and shorter waves. It's telling us something about water.

I have a big problem with the model taught to me. Perhaps I should air it.
Energy=massXspeed squared. Blue has more energy, so the mass X speed values have changed. We are told the speed is that of light so that didn't change. We are told a photon at rest has no mass. So it can't change. So how can the sum be balanced to allow the Energy to increase, while mass and speed and the function of squaring are fixed.

Perhaps I will walk away at this point. At 16 I was sent to work, to pay back my step farther for my upbringing. My physics teacher tracked down my mum because I showed such potential, but I deliver parcels now. I have missed the boat on this one, but it looks like it's sinking anyway.

Douglas.Curtis · Feb 17, 2019

So, like everything else in life, it's all interconnected. Still, it's interesting picking at this knotted ball of twine with a fork. lol

Which wavelengths, and combinations of wavelengths, are responsible for terpene and resin production?

Which wavelengths and combinations of same, are responsible for physical flower production with low leaf?

Which combinations of these will produce the maximum resin and terpenes the genetics allow, and what flower size can be accomplished along with these maximums?

So it's 2019 and we're just beginning to see a dim glow ahead. Got it.

lol

Koondense · Feb 17, 2019

Yeah, sorry for the typo, I was looking at these pictures in crop mode.
F-e, nothing's wrong with your sanity bro, all is good

Cheers

Ibechillin · Feb 17, 2019

The important thing to focus on is the physiological responses of the plants/flower analysis results, and not the energy physics. The blue light ocean penetration post was to explain why the absorption peaks are higher/violet spectrum is more efficiently utilized (the first light source).

The study I linked in post #6 shows that the more UVA and blue used the more total cannabinoids and terpenes produced, the bud formation may not be as favorable (leafy) but it will be higher quality. Something else I try to rationalize also is whether the minimal increase in cannabinoids/terps (a few % tops) is worth reduced overall yield (as much of the energy is going towards leaf production).

Genetics are really the main factor to most aspects (calyx to leaf ratio, cannabinoids, terpenes).

chronic82 · Feb 17, 2019

Stoner science at its finest in here

Drop That Sound · Feb 17, 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...rowing-underwater-sea-pods-nemos-garden-italy

Douglas.Curtis · Feb 17, 2019

Drop That Sound said:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...rowing-underwater-sea-pods-nemos-garden-italy

This is interesting, but not quite helpful here. I can see an underwater cannabis discussion thread in the future. lol

[FONT=Verdana said:
Ibechillin][/FONT]
The study I linked in post #6 shows that the more UVA and blue used the more total cannabinoids and terpenes produced, the bud formation may not be as favorable (leafy) but it will be higher quality. Something else I try to rationalize also is whether the minimal increase in cannabinoids/terps (a few % tops) is worth reduced overall yield (as much of the energy is going towards leaf production).

Though genetics play a large part in how the end flower looks, I still believe there's an optimal balance to be reached for resin rich smoking flowers(Now I notice I did not include this in the title lol). There should be a general program of spectrum changes which will work with all genetics. Not necessarily ideal for all strains, but at least 'decent' enough of a place to start.

UVA and the Blues. Sounds like a band. :tiphat:

Ibechillin · Feb 17, 2019

Drop That Sound said:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...rowing-underwater-sea-pods-nemos-garden-italy

^Good article on experiments/research being done growing plants underwater. The pods are only 5-8m below the waters surface so they can utilize the full visible spectrum and UV but not IR.

Douglas.Curtis said:
Though genetics play a large part in how the end flower looks, I still believe there's an optimal balance to be reached for resin rich smoking flowers(Now I notice I did not include this in the title lol). There should be a general program of spectrum changes which will work with all genetics. Not necessarily ideal for all strains, but at least 'decent' enough of a place to start.

UVA and the Blues. Sounds like a band.

The blue light effect on cannabinoid study used 2 different LED, the broader spectrum one with UVA, 100% intensity blue and moderate green/yellow did have the highest totals compared to the LED with no UVA, 60% intensity blue almost no green/yellow and 100% intensity red.

Results said there was no significant difference between the 2 led systems used overall though indicating less than 60% intensity blue is probably plenty and the UVA is negligible for cannabinoids/terpenes. UVA could be working in synergy boosting photosynthesis ability of blue light similar to the emerson effect with 670nm red and 700nm red though so im not ready to discredit it usefulness yet.

Drop That Sound · Feb 18, 2019

Douglas.Curtis said:
This is interesting, but not quite helpful here. I can see an underwater cannabis discussion thread in the future. lol

Would give a new meaning to the term sea weed

I wonder how far the team has come and any new discoveries they've made..

Im totally picturing under water sub marine cannabis farms ever since I first read the artical.. Powered by tidal wave generators that are also tethered to the floor and stay under the surface unlike current models. The farmers could also live in the bubbles, helping to create the c02 as well. Sharks and sea spiders as a good security measure. Imagine the environmental stability and non existent threat from pests and disease..

And also can't undo the thought now that Luke's light saber would slice Vaders right in half?

Weird · Feb 18, 2019

those spectrum tests are misleading in regards to "full spectrum expression" as cannabis secondary metabolites don't all react equally to the same cue because some are triggered by lack not abundance

those that do express in maximum fashion do so across all cultivars making them seem more similar than dissimilar

once again because some metabolite production is triggered by dysfunctional not efficient environmental cues

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/367580?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract

ABSTRACT Several hypotheses, mainly Optimal Defense (OD), Carbon:Nutrient Balance (CNB), Growth Rate (GR), and Growth‐Differentiation Balance (GDB), have individually served as frameworks for investigating the patterns of plant defense against herbivores, in particular the pattern of constitutive defense. The predictions and tests of these hypotheses have been problematic for a variety of reasons and have led to considerable confusion about the state of the “theory of plant defense.” The primary contribution of the OD hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of genotypic expression of plant defense, with the emphasis on allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the CNB hypothesis is that it has served as the main framework for investigation of how resources affect phenotypic expression of plant defense, often with studies concerned about allocation cost of defense. The primary contribution of the GR hypothesis is that it explains how intrinsic growth rate of plants shaped evolutionarily by resource availability affects defensive patterns. The primary contribution of the expanded GDB hypothesis is that it recognizes the constant physiological tradeoff between growth and differentiation at the cellular and tissue levels relative to the selective pressures of resource availability, including explicitly taking into account plant tolerance of damage by enemies. A clearer understanding of these hypotheses and what we have learned from investigations that use them can facilitate development of well‐designed experiments that address the gaps in our knowledge of plant defense.

we are fucking up the cannabis genome by forcing homogeneous (lol no not genetic homogeneity stsm) expressions that bypass the plants true natural environmental expression

how the fuck can you select based on expression that isn't elicited?

it all boils down to greed

Weird · Feb 18, 2019

Plants fertilized with both Nitrogen and Phosphorus (N, P and N+P) emitted lower amounts of b-myrcene (48%) than control plants (Fig.6). For individual terpenes, the The production of terpenes has been linked to an increased water stress tolerance in some species (Peñuelas and Llusià 2001).

http://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2010/hdl_10803_42003/jsbr1de1.pdf

Weird · Feb 18, 2019

there is this very counter intuitive mind set that treats environmental cues like a gas pedal assuming the harder we press that pedal the better the results

better in what terms? and how does that differ from the natural phenotypical baseline evolved to express? and what is lost in translation?

SuperBadGrower · Feb 18, 2019

There is a podcast from with Jeremy Plumb of Pruf Cultivar who is a serious source of information. What he said in the podcast IIRC is that CMH lights produce the most terpenes. Should be in here, very enlightening, stoner and bro-science free guarantee... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqhnZic8Igo

popta · Feb 18, 2019

Weird said:
Plants fertilized with both Nitrogen and Phosphorus (N, P and N+P) emitted lower amounts of b-myrcene (48%) than control plants (Fig.6). For individual terpenes, the The production of terpenes has been linked to an increased water stress tolerance in some species (Peñuelas and Llusià 2001).

https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tesis/2010/hdl_10803_42003/jsbr1de1.pdf

I couldn't tell what "emitted" would mean in that context. The author uses it to mean "evaporated", "expelled", or "lost" into the air.

So in this test some species of plants retained more of the terpenes they produce if they were well fertilized, compared to their nutrient stressed counterparts who lost more of their terpenes into the air, but the author notes this was only true in species that posses specialized terpene "storing" organs (like pine trees). Is cannabis a "storing species"? I don't know. The non-storing species he tested didn't show this effect.

Weird · Feb 18, 2019

popta said:
I couldn't tell what "emitted" would mean in that context. The author uses it to mean "evaporated", "expelled", or "lost" into the air.

So in this test some species of plants retained more of the terpenes they produce if they were well fertilized, compared to their nutrient stressed counterparts who lost more of their terpenes into the air, but the author notes this was only true in species that posses specialized terpene "storing" organs (like pine trees). Is cannabis a "storing species"? I don't know. The non-storing species he tested didn't show this effect.

can't be emitted without the plant producing it so it becomes moot in this context as I see it

I used this as an example for one terpene but the real point is uvb light is one aspect but not the only one and not necessarily a natural one and doesn't elicit optimal production of all constituents of resin aka the totality of secondary metabolites the plant produces but rather ones that will be produced in conjunction with this cue

some will benefit some won't be effect and some are reliant on other factors so to put too much value in any one maximum cue is counter intuitive to what the full spectrum plant expression will be

it is why my first post was about meeting laws of minimum as a basis of expression

Ibechillin · Feb 18, 2019

As has been mentioned already there is no "perfect" spectrum (other than the sun lol 2000 PPFD, true full spectrum and free), more so pooling resources and experiences to try and decide on an overall favorable spectrum for indoor growing with what is currently available.

In reference to the N and P fertilization relation to b-myrcene decline. I did a bunch of reading into building an organic soil and spoon feeding soluble fertilizers intermittently to maximize growth and retain the benefits from organic living soil. Ammonium and soluble/available forms or phosphorus fertilizers in excess eradicate the micro life which could hurt cannabinoid/terpene production.

This link is to a post I put together on plant nutrition with info I found useful from jidoka and Harley Smith, it mentions the P and micro life interaction briefly (at the bottom is a link to my post on ammonium/phosphorus interaction with soil microbiology):

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=8495077&postcount=5585

I had a good conversation with Tycho Monolith awhile ago also about whether a landrace strains cannabinoid/terpene profile could change over ~20 years of being grown/bred indoors away from its home environment/pests/normal stresses. Indoors ~10 weeks can mimic a full outdoor season, seems to me it could cause rapid environmental adaptation in bred offspring to the indoor environment as defensive traits are not being used and probably lost (unless original parents can be maintained).

Douglas.Curtis · Feb 18, 2019

SuperBadGrower said:
There is a podcast from with Jeremy Plumb of Pruf Cultivar who is a serious source of information. What he said in the podcast IIRC is that CMH lights produce the most terpenes. Should be in here, very enlightening, stoner and bro-science free guarantee... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqhnZic8Igo

Thank you, excellent information.

What he actually says is the PhysioSpec spectrum Fluence has created, which is based on the CMH spectrum, has been the closest he's seen to a one size fits all spectrum. One which works well in all stages of growth. Maybe not optimal for every thing/strain, but decent enough.

Along this same line of thinking, there should also be a general one-size-fits-all spectrum for optimal terpene/resin production. One which will produce at least the minimal results desired in most strains. Just like the base nutrient needs for cannabis, with all the variables different strains/conditions create.

I keep thinking this thread needs to be split. One for resin and one for terpenes. heh

It's 2019, What IS the Known OPTIMAL Spectrum for Resin/Terpene Rich Cannabis?

Masochist Educator

Member

3rd-Eye Jedi

Well-known member

Autistic Diplomat in Training

Well-known member

Masochist Educator

Member

Well-known member

Autistic Diplomat in Training

Masochist Educator

Well-known member

3rd-Eye Jedi

3rd-Eye Jedi

3rd-Eye Jedi

Active member

Member

3rd-Eye Jedi

Masochist Educator

Autistic Diplomat in Training