Terpin production according to nutrients

I have it but they used male Cannabis to make an essential oil of? Interesting. I find that males smell much like the females of the same variety, just a lot less smells as very little terpenes in the little bit of resin found on males. You could transform the male to female to get a better terpene smell of the male.
Do you think the same Nepali plants grown in Calif will have the same essential oil profile? I do think so. No doubt different varieties from around the world have different terpene profiles, but can they all be made to express all of the 140 terpenes identified in Cannabis? Or even just one terpene they have not been found to express? Maybe, but not yet proven at all.
And I do doubt it.
-SamS

Sam_Skunkman said:

...I find that males smell much like the females of the same variety, just a lot less smells as very little terpenes in the little bit of resin found on males. You could transform the male to female to get a better terpene smell of the male.

Click to expand...

So if you turn a male to female and get more resin and thus more terpenes are you not turning something on in the reversal? (Or suppressing it?)

I analyzed the transformed male to female, the terpene and Cannabinoid profile had nothing new I saw, it was a typical Skunk #1, I know it pretty well. I did not change any genes, I did change sex expression temporarily, but if you tested the DNA of the female transformed from male it shows as male sex. Same with a female clone that STS changes to male, it is still genetically a female, it is just expressing male sex temporarily.
-SamS

So when you say transform a male to female to get a better terpene smell of the male the transformation just exaggerates what’s already there.

i have found that not every strain taste bad if it stays green til the end.i think it depends on the strain and what is done to it in flower.every strain reacts dif. to techniques tried during flower

Only Ornamental said:

Not even in humans do we know enough on how it works, by what it's triggered, or what it does nor for how long. Sure, epigenetic and other regulatory mechanisms play an important role in the everyday life of humans and plants.

Click to expand...

That pretty much says it all for the moment. Large sums of time and money with equal research, is the only way it will change. This has been a thought provoking subject but has come full circle.

Sam_Skunkman said:

I do agree that with the best cannabis the N is almost used up by harvest time and the taste and smells are better then high N levels at harvest.
-SamS

Click to expand...

Are you speaking in general about bottled nute grows or do you know a way to reduce N in organic soil? Just curious how to apply your data.

you wanna reduce the nitrogen in your soil just mix in some sawdust towards the end of flower.not much just a layer on top and work into the soil a bit.then water with plain water the last few weeks.in order for wood to rot it needs nitrogen so if you add it to your soil the fungi that eat decaying wood will eat up the existing nitrogen in the soil.do not do this to a plant any earlier in flower or a vegging plant or you will see the worst nitrogen deficiency ever.i havent met a grower yet who has done this.its a way to flush using solids instead of just water.

Sam_Skunkman said:

...So what does that mean? To you?

Click to expand...

Sometimes a plant can produce more than what the plant's genome profile suggests.

Allow me to cut and paste what the study concluded:
"Interestingly, a few plants like the legume crop chickpea (Cicer arietinum) show a contrasting trend, wherein more terpene emissions have been recorded in literature than the predicted genomic potential (Marked in bold font in Table 1). This means that the number of TPS gene models in the plant genome is less than the total number of terpenes released by that plant, reflecting in turn, the unique ability of TPS enzymes to synthesize multiple products from a single substrate. A single predicted TPS gene product can thus generate many terpene compounds rather than only one, and this ability to create complex odor profiles from a minimal gene set can lead to an expansion of the terpene potential of the respective genome."

A gene that normally generates a certain terpene compound can ALSO "generate many terpene compounds rather than only one"....and our science of understanding terpenes has much to learn (nothing is really certain or definitive at this point in time). These are the basic two points I have learned from this discussion--thus far.

About 8-10 years ago I ran Chocolope almost extensively and there was one pheno (from a seedrun that began with 50 seeds) that naturally bifurcated without any assistance. After extending at some of the nodes, a single branch would then split into two or more branches, which repeated itself over and over--but not at every branch or node. Occasionally the branch would bend and send out multiple shoots (12 was the most I counted) from a single node.

Grown normally (60 day flower) the aromas were always melon-like with a distinct sweet syrupy with a hint of "thai". Almost textbook Chocolope. But if she was setup right and flowered for 100 days, all the melon over-riped fruit aromas dissipated and were replaced with that of a sweet chocolate...exactly like a Hershey Kiss.

I could not repeat the 100 day flowering time process with other Chocolope plants...it seemed to be a unique ability of this particular "pheno" and all her offspring.

Similar experiences with veggies, sometimes you get a super duper plant that grows differently (branching) and it's fruit has a deeper aroma/taste than the other plants grown from the same seed pack. Since the plants were grown together, fed the same nutrients, etc., it is almost certain the differences were most likely "genetic" not stress, environment, geographic, seasonal, etc.

Why is this...I say it is the "chickpea complication", particularly the last sentence in the section I cut and pasted above: "A single predicted TPS gene product can thus generate many terpene compounds rather than only one, and this ability to create complex odor profiles from a minimal gene set can lead to an expansion of the terpene potential of the respective genome." Since I ran that Chocolope for another 40 days her "genetic" terpene profile did not change...rather it just "expanded" (emitting a "new" terpene).

Yep, sometimes a plant can produce more than what the plant's genome profile suggests. For me, this helps answer "why" a single plant will occasionally excel/expand over all others, especially if you push all the buttons (100 day flower = 100% Hershey Chocolate.......vs 60 day = 100% sweet over-ripe tropical melon).

With out analysis you are making a big presumption it is a new terpene you are smelling rather then just a difference in profile, if you analyze a plant for terpene profile at 2 weeks flowering and then again at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, and 10 weeks the profile is changing each week, each % of each terpene, but the terpenes are not different just the ratios because mono-terpenes are much more volatile and dissipate much faster then the sisquiterpenes.
What is needed is Cannabis analysis that supports your ideas, not chickpeas, where is the Cannabis? Also a ?mutation? like bifurcated plants may well have other mutated genes, that will express the new genes from then on regardless of environmental conditions.
Were the Chocolope fasciated, I have seen similar growth from fasciated plants I have had for 25 years.
-SamS

Agree...testing to validate EVERYONE'S theories is needed, but I now view terpene emission that "was not here before--and now it is" as not necessarily "new", but rather an "expansion" of something which already existed within the plant's genetic makeup.

I truly believe that "all" the potential/available terpenes were always within the original genetic makeup of that Chocolope pheno (as I added nothing)....rather the terpene production/emission "expanded" because I did something (extended flowering by 40 days).

Put differently: If anything is "new", then it would be "new to me", as it certainly is not "new to the plant".

BTW...IMHO, mutated plants are not exempt to my "expansion" theory....they too have an original genetic makeup that is capable of being "expanded".

The cannabis plant is under extreme environmental control. Studies have shown that "regardless of seed origin, several generations in a new location will produce a plant resembling those native to the area where it is being grown". This suggests that many epigenetic factors are are play - gene silencing, promotion etc. Furthermore it follows that the suite of genes available to a cannabis plant is much larger than one would expect purely from the phenotype alone it expresses. More than likely the cannabis plant has an ability to express a wider range of terpenes if grown under a wide variety of environmental conditions (see Greenhouse seed terpene data Hydro vs Soil). My own personal experience with growing Next Generation's Romulan with concentrated lemon juice as a pH buffer resulted in flower's with an intense lemon aroma and flavor after a long cure. Also I had a friend who grew a bagseed in a pine field that resulted in finished product with a lovely pine aroma. One must also take into account the possibility for non-enzymatic production of terpenes to occur.

Can you tell me if terpenes in the soil can be taken up by roots and delivered to flowers? Or are they broken down before they can be taken up by roots?

Sam_Skunkman said:

I have it but they used male Cannabis to make an essential oil of? Interesting.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't like that either and also the samples were collected in May still in the growing stage.
Either the scientists flawed the research on purpose or they found a Fukushima pheno or both.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, serif]Radiation typically wakes up “dormant” genes; cells sense the extent of DNA damage and alter the expression of UV-induced genes appropriately. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times New Roman, serif]I don't look at them as dormant really, just something plants don't produce often as they will only spend that energy if that is critical for their defense. [/FONT]

SpaceBros. said:

The cannabis plant is under extreme environmental control. Studies have shown that "regardless of seed origin, several generations in a new location will produce a plant resembling those native to the area where it is being grown". This suggests that many epigenetic factors are are play - gene silencing, promotion etc. Furthermore it follows that the suite of genes available to a cannabis plant is much larger than one would expect purely from the phenotype alone it expresses. More than likely the cannabis plant has an ability to express a wider range of terpenes if grown under a wide variety of environmental conditions (see Greenhouse seed terpene data Hydro vs Soil). My own personal experience with growing Next Generation's Romulan with concentrated lemon juice as a pH buffer resulted in flower's with an intense lemon aroma and flavor after a long cure. Also I had a friend who grew a bagseed in a pine field that resulted in finished product with a lovely pine aroma. One must also take into account the possibility for non-enzymatic production of terpenes to occur.

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

EclipseFour20 said:

Agree...testing to validate EVERYONE'S theories is needed, but I now view terpene emission that "was not here before--and now it is" as not necessarily "new", but rather an "expansion" of something which already existed within the plant's genetic makeup.

I truly believe that "all" the potential/available terpenes were always within the original genetic makeup of that Chocolope pheno (as I added nothing)....rather the terpene production/emission "expanded" because I did something (extended flowering by 40 days).

Put differently: If anything is "new", then it would be "new to me", as it certainly is not "new to the plant".

BTW...IMHO, mutated plants are not exempt to my "expansion" theory....they too have an original genetic makeup that is capable of being "expanded".

Click to expand...

Find an Cannabis analysis that supports your ideas, until then it is just an idea. I doubt it is true. Have you ever even done any Cannabis analysis? For a person with no experience with terpenes or Cannabis analysis to presume that they can smell the differences and understand the difference from smelling is maybe ridiculous. I understand that anyone could smell the difference but to think you know what the difference is and that their are new terpenes not found in the same plant before is a big jump.
A mutated plant will express the mutation with every new clone that is flowered, it is not the same at all, mutations happen.
I understand that you think extended flowering for 40 days created new terpenes not found before, that would be easy to prove, would only take an extra 40 days, and a terpene analysis of both the same clone flowered normal and an extra 40 days. Easy. Do it.....
Then talk about your ideas and why the analysis supports or does not support your ideas.
I do agree that validating everyones ideas is important, I always tried to validate any ideas I had like that some terpenes modulated and made THC stronger, when I first mentioned them the ideas 20-25 years ago they were laughed at, even by members of my own staff. Now after scientific human trials there is no doubt, terpenes do what I said. The same with THCV we said it is inactive, it has been shown to be a THC antagonist. Analysis and trials is what will confirm ideas, it is slow but dependable. Try it.
140 terpenes identified so far cause all of the smells found in Cannabis so far, quite literally millions of possibilities when combined in different ratios, I am not saying no more will be found but I don't think you understand the variability that the ratios of terpenes in a given plant can cause, without any new terpenes being added to the mix.
I hope you do the analysis work, I would love to see it, no matter what the results, the truth is the truth.
-SamS

CACTUSFLOWER said:

Can you tell me if terpenes in the soil can be taken up by roots and delivered to flowers? Or are they broken down before they can be taken up by roots?

Click to expand...

Terpenes are not taken up by roots and delivered to the flowers.
People that grew in a pine forest and thought their plants smelled like pine only remember the plants that did smell like pine, if they did not smell like pine they were forgotten, but why? If you only remember the plants that agree with your ideas then the proof is not real it is coincidence.
-SamS

We have no idea what effect new terpenes would have, so how exactly are they relevant at all yet?

Don't we want to influence the production of terpenes with nutrients to get our favourite old school flavour?

x

Bubbleblower said:

We have no idea what effect new terpenes would have, so how exactly are they relevant at all yet?

No idea. It is like the folks that say Cannabis has 400 or even 20,000 terpenes, but they have not been found in Cannabis they are all the terpenes found in nature.

Don't we want to influence the production of terpenes with nutrients to get our favourite old school flavour?

Click to expand...

Yes, for sure bio-dynamic organic raised beds type of growing encourages lots of fine fine roots and that increases the plants ability
to make more terpenes, just like organic tomatoes taste better then commercial tomatoes 99% of the time, and smell better also. The old school flavor and smells found in Cannabis are all in the literature they are the terpenes found with analysis.
-SamS

Sam_Skunkman said:

Terpenes are not taken up by roots and delivered to the flowers.
People that grew in a pine forest and thought their plants smelled like pine only remember the plants that did smell like pine, if they did not smell like pine they were forgotten, but why? If you only remember the plants that agree with your ideas then the proof is not real it is coincidence.
-SamS

Click to expand...

Can confirm, grown the same cuts in orange/mandarin groves and also pine forest, no notable difference.

But certain feeds and Boost do seem to have an effect on the taste.

Sam_Skunkman said:

...Have you ever even done any Cannabis analysis? For a person with no experience with terpenes or Cannabis analysis to presume that they can smell the differences and understand the difference from smelling is maybe ridiculous. I understand that anyone could smell the difference but to think you know what the difference is and that their are new terpenes not found in the same plant before is a big jump.
A mutated plant will express the mutation with every new clone that is flowered, it is not the same at all, mutations happen.
I understand that you think extended flowering for 40 days created new terpenes not found before, that would be easy to prove, would only take an extra 40 days, and a terpene analysis of both the same clone flowered normal and an extra 40 days. Easy. Do it.....
Then talk about your ideas and why the analysis supports or does not support your ideas.
...-SamS

Click to expand...

You sure assume alot, like you, I am NOT a geneticist (neither of us are science experts with a string of alphabet soup behind our names), but I do know this--the more I read about genetics, I realize the less I know (as there is an abundant amount of knowledge, both good and bad).

As to your misstatement: "For a person with no experience with terpenes or Cannabis analysis to presume that they can smell the differences and understand the difference from smelling is maybe ridiculous. I understand that anyone could smell the difference but to think you know what the difference is and that their are new terpenes not found in the same plant before is a big jump."

For a smart guy I am bit surprised/disappointed in your words--you don't know me. I am a 61 year old retired professional that has enjoyed weed since the age of 12, a true wine aficionado and Certified Sommelier http://www.mastersommeliers.org/Default.aspx who, since 1985 have taught wine education seminars...and then---for you to suggest I lack the ability to "smell the differences and understand the differences" is...using your words, is "a big jump". BTW, a tool I used at these seminars was Ann Noble's Wine Aroma Wheel http://winearomawheel.com/, displayed below:



Let's just say--I am not your average dope smoker/cultivator who happens to also have a great nose for detecting nuances in aromas. If you can accurately (6 out of 10 times) identify the varietal and vintage of wine in a "blind tasting"...then you are a better man than I am. It took years of practice/experience for me to achieve this feat. Yep....line up 10 glasses of wine from different bottles (blind tasting) and over half the time I will correctly identify the varietal (zinfandel, cabernet, petite sirah, etc) and vintage (year harvested).

Secondly, your statement "I understand that you think extended flowering for 40 days created new terpenes not found before..." is not an accurate--as I submit (please reread my earlier posts) that nothing "new" is created; rather flowering the extra 40 days "expanded" the existing terpene (so let me repeat--NOTHING NEW WAS CREATED).

Finally if terpene profiles of the same plant were tested at 10 day intervals (starting day 30 of flower and continued to way past normal harvest (say 90 days)...do you think the 7 terpene profiles generated would be "identical"? Of course not. IMHO, terpenes not detected in the earlier tests but show up on the later tests are not "new"...but are "expansions" of existing terpene compounds. Again, NOTHING NEW IS CREATED.

And yes, I use tests to support my theories and validate my suspicions. But the real test is what the collective prefers and they like the tweaks I did about 6 months ago: targeted controlled water deficit (aka abiotic stress). How much do they like it...oh about $300 per unit increase over the "unstressed weed".