Let's discuss this, Please
I don't want to muck up the other threads.
But this is Ground breaking news for me.
shag
I don't want to muck up the other threads.
But this is Ground breaking news for me.
shag
-
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"!
Cannabis, the effect from increasing photo-period by only 15 or 30 min.
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
Riddleme
Member
up or down there is a lot of info out there, most notably articles/books by DJ Short where he explains that you can bring out indica features using a 13/11 schedule and sativa features with an 11/13. He also says to go plus or minus in 15 min increments to find sweet spots for various genetic traits.
For the last year I have run 11:20/12:40 to get sat traits to show and it works great. I just recently switched to a 6.5 hours on, .5 off, 4 on, 13 off schedule to see if I can lesson the effects of midday depression.
and don't forget the gaslight 12/1 veg lighting
For the last year I have run 11:20/12:40 to get sat traits to show and it works great. I just recently switched to a 6.5 hours on, .5 off, 4 on, 13 off schedule to see if I can lesson the effects of midday depression.
and don't forget the gaslight 12/1 veg lighting
Beta Test Team
Member
That claim by DJ about making NLDB into WLDB (and vice versa) by changing photoperiod is total horse pucky. As are lots of things he claims. In terms of growing plants I would suggest taking what he claims with a grain of salt. He's good at breeding, but he makes crazy claims about growing.
Riddleme
Member
not sure what you mean by NLDB into WLDB? but I have played with the timings for over 2 years and have seen results similar to what he talks about. I also breed and make crazy claims about growing lol most folks think I'm nuts but I have pictures that show it happened. I pretty much experiment non stop
have you used his information within the proper context, say testing hybrid progeny of indica/sativa lineage with those techniques?
im sure you haven't
when you do take some pictures and show us hes wrong
narrow and wide leaf drug type
a newly adopted acronym cause the weed nerds are trying to be cool like computer geeks
trust me it gets real old real quick
og geek
S
sourpuss
Not sure if thats what dj meant... I think he saying it will bring out those sativa traits more with the 11 13 cycle vs a 12 12 cycle. Not make a indica grow like a sativa.... just the way I read it.....
Beta Test Team
Member
It's my understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, that DJ was referring to making for example, WLDB into NLDB, that is, the leaves would change, too. Like poof! Now it's a new genotype due to a photoperiod change.
If that's not the case then I stand corrected about that specific claim of his, though I'm not sure that's not the case. I will wait to be proven wrong by someone who can post his words in full context. It would help to remove the ambiguity of his claims.
Regardless, I provided science to show what happens in some cases, and from my reading it's not what DJ is claiming...
If that's not the case then I stand corrected about that specific claim of his, though I'm not sure that's not the case. I will wait to be proven wrong by someone who can post his words in full context. It would help to remove the ambiguity of his claims.
Regardless, I provided science to show what happens in some cases, and from my reading it's not what DJ is claiming...
Beta Test Team
Member
WLDB is "wide leaflet drug biotype," which is a much more correct term for the "indica" genotype than the term "indica." NLDB is "narrow leaflet drug bioptype," for "sativa," for the same reason as before.
This relates to preference for accuracy in terminology as it relates to the species debate for the genus Cannabis.
Currently the seeming generalized consensus among researchers is the genus Cannabis has but one species: sativa. And all the distinctions made are of different genotypes from the same species. Now, this could prove to be untrue, but right now that doesn't seem to be the case. Either way, using NLDB and WLDB is fitting, even if there is more than one species in the genus Cannabis.
And I'm not claiming photoperiod and flowering duration (days) don't affect the quality (and quantity) of the final flowers, they sure do. Just not to the degree DJ seems to claim in certain cases.
Riddleme
Member
No problem as I have pics to show exactly what you said and DJ is referring to Sativa/Indica hybrids I doubt it would change a pure indica to a sativa lol
ist pic is my CTF in veg, you can see the wide hybrid leaves
second pic is 2 weeks after being fipped to flower, you can see the wide leaves on the bottom and new growth comin out thinner
3rd pic is right before harvest, all leaves very Sat looking
ist pic is my CTF in veg, you can see the wide hybrid leaves
second pic is 2 weeks after being fipped to flower, you can see the wide leaves on the bottom and new growth comin out thinner
3rd pic is right before harvest, all leaves very Sat looking
Attachments
Beta Test Team
Member
I don't see such changes in those leaves (from wide to narrow in the sense of typical 'indica' and 'sativa' leaves). At least nothing short of normal growth changes that I've seen many times from various hybridized cultivars at 12 hour photoperiod (I very rarely grow varieties).
Posting DJ's exact words on this matter would resolve the ambiguity of his stated claim. In my reading of his claims I think we're referring to, he seems to suggest genotype change from changing the photoperiod by one or two hours during flowering - which is total horse pucky if that's what he means.
Posting DJ's exact words on this matter would resolve the ambiguity of his stated claim. In my reading of his claims I think we're referring to, he seems to suggest genotype change from changing the photoperiod by one or two hours during flowering - which is total horse pucky if that's what he means.
Riddleme
Member
here is an article he wrote
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2600.html
scroll down to inducing sativa
Miraculous Meds
Well-known member
why don't u post what "certain cases" here to support ur point.
Beta Test Team
Member
Because we have not context about the specific claims of his we're discussing. I could be writing about a different claim than Riddleme is referring to. But, now Riddleme we nice enough to post the link we have context.
And just to be clear, this thread Shaggy started from a post of mine, where I wrote about how I never use 12 hour photoperiod. So I know a about this topic from the angle of science and personal experience, as well.
Last edited:
Miraculous Meds
Well-known member
I have experience with adjusting photo periods as well. I can say what I believe ive seen differently but I didn't document with pics so I didn't mention them.
I was just wondering what certain cases u were referring too?
I was just wondering what certain cases u were referring too?
Beta Test Team
Member
A few come from the link Riddleme posted, including his (DJ's) "angle of light" hypothesis (sunlight is sky diffuse and direct radiation), and that he claims photoperiod and angle of light are the major triggers for genotype based phenotypic changes (which I also think he has suggested in the past to be about spectrum). He uses far too much ambiguity so it's not clear (to me anyway) exactly what he means, and I don't see any data to back up his claims.
So from reading his article again (it's been years), it still seems to me like he's suggesting photoperiod will affect genotype (as relating to phenotype from parental stock to progeny), and I still disagree. It seems like he's conflating simple breeding by phenotype with changing genotype and therefore phenotype by photoperiod over generations. Maybe I'm reading his words wrong, but that's how I take them. Or maybe I'm reading his words correctly and I'm just wrong.
It does not read (to me) like he's claiming changing the photoperiod to use 13/11 instead of 12/12 will change the phenotype in that specific plant, but rather, over time, in successive progeny when selecting for that phenotype expression.
S
sourpuss
Dont all cannabis plants start out with broad leaves??? Never seen a narrow leaf as first few nodes..
Yeah I dont see where hes saying the leaves will change hes saying the expression of their traits appear more. Cant say I doubt the man in the least. First understanf what hes saying before bashing a legend.
Yeah I dont see where hes saying the leaves will change hes saying the expression of their traits appear more. Cant say I doubt the man in the least. First understanf what hes saying before bashing a legend.
Beta Test Team
Member
Well you and I read it differently, then. Check out the webpage for his pictures of leaves: "Indica and Sativa characteristics." To me it's pretty clear he's referring to leaves, as well.
Also, my point is that he's still wrong in that he's claiming (to my reading) photoperiod affects genotype in the way he describes. That's a bold claim, having some data to back his claims would be useful. I don't see anything close to a controlled experiment from him, references, or even a valid hypothesis...
The very fact you think he's correct because he's a legend does not bode well for your position. The facts and data are better indicators of truth than someone's reputation.
Also, my point is that he's still wrong in that he's claiming (to my reading) photoperiod affects genotype in the way he describes. That's a bold claim, having some data to back his claims would be useful. I don't see anything close to a controlled experiment from him, references, or even a valid hypothesis...
The very fact you think he's correct because he's a legend does not bode well for your position. The facts and data are better indicators of truth than someone's reputation.
