[GreenintheThumb]

While we can all agree that Marijuana Optics is a joke, many seem to believe our favorite plant's terpenoid profile can be augmented with UV light. I'm not sure if they think it will actually change the type of terpenoids produced or simply the amount produced but it's certainly an interesting subject of debate.

I seem to recall Sam conducting some UV light trials and claiming to see no discernible effect.

Didn't Felix try some high altitude gardens as well? Not sure what he noticed. Anyway, this is the place to put your thoughts on the subject. Lets hear from you.

[dank.frank]

I personally believe...the sun has UVB. Our gardens need UVB. It is an element that is in nature that should be in the grow room. It really is that simple.

I use UVB in my room. Does it make a difference...not sure...lol. I honestly don't know...don't care.

Nature has it. I want it too!



dank.Frank

Hi Green...
To agree that mj optics is a joke, first I have to understand that reference...mind explaining that?

I watched Marijuana Man's vid on THC and UV-B about a year ago. It made sense and so finally I decided to give it a try. I installed 4 mercury vapor reptile lights along the length of my bloom room and once my plants are out of veg, I'm going to activate the system and see if the results were worth it. I spent about $200 on the project so all is not lost if it doesn't make any difference.

I installed the lights at such a height that it simulates full sunlight UV-B and installed a door switch so the lights will go off whenever I open the door. (eye protection)

I won't have any results till after Christmas but I'll certainly share them.
ET

PS: Hey Frank...what lights are you using for UVB? Did you know that there are MH UVB lights available now too?

[amoril]

...and here we go

you'll have to give me a few minutes to dig through my links, so that I can actually cite some evidence for some of the claims.

[amoril]

Originally Posted by EvilTwin

Hi Green...
To agree that mj optics is a joke, first I have to understand that reference...mind explaining that?

I watched Marijuana Man's vid on THC and UV-B about a year ago. It made sense and so finally I decided to give it a try. I installed 4 mercury vapor reptile lights along the length of my bloom room and once my plants are out of veg, I'm going to activate the system and see if the results were worth it. I spent about $200 on the project so all is not lost if it doesn't make any difference.

I installed the lights at such a height that it simulates full sunlight UV-B and installed a door switch so the lights will go off whenever I open the door. (eye protection)

I won't have any results till after Christmas but I'll certainly share them.
ET

Marijuana optics by Joe Knuc. google it, read it, laugh at (most of) it.

unfortunately, the fact is hard to discern from the utter fiction.

-----

the MJMan vid is cool, but he also seems to follow some of the poor logic that is used in the MJ optics article....and he misuses the application of his graphics.

The pics are from a Mahlberg study in '97 (I think), either way, the study actually gives indirect support for the use of UVB, by determining what chemicals are actually able to permeate into the trichome from the rest of the plant matter.....ie, what chemicals a plant can send into a trichome.

[indifferent]

Aye, that Joe Knuc article is a joke.

Sam did indeed say that he was unable to find any benefit to UV light, he used UV fluoro tubes in a greenhouse.

Two great points Sam made that folks need to bear in mind:

1. If UV was truly important in the production of resin and potency, then all indoor grown bud would lack resin and potency as fluoros and HIDs don't produce UV.

2. A high altitude cultivar such as a Highland Nepalese will have the same high if grown at sea-level with a lower UV level, the nature of the high and potency being genetically pre-determined.

Apart from the research done by Raphael Mechoulam in Israel where he exposed CBD acids in a petri dish to UV light at 285nm and got a small proportion to convert into THC acids, has anyone ever published any proper scientific work on this subject?

[amoril]

ok, Im going to preface my future posts with a general overview of where Im going, so that I can jump around more freely as I find the links Im looking for.....

working in a backwards-logic, sorta....

cannabinoids are, all, terpenophenolics. terpenophenolic is a combination of a terpenoid and a phenol.

terpenoids are aromatic molecules, and in some of my references will be flavanoids, just a specialized terpenoid.

i think thats all I needed to say up front.

------------

first round - UV light boosts flavanoid production as a defense mechanism, flavanoids absorb UV light and protect more vital cells from degradation.

This waveband exerts various actions: suppression of the over-all growth of plants, reducing cell division or elongation; cell damage such as cell collapse and tissue browning; and reduction of biomass production (Caldwell 1971, Tevini and Teramura 1989). Besides, this waveband causes photomorphogenesis, and induces the synthesis of anthocyanin and other flavonoids alone or in coaction with RL absorbed by phytochrome (Beggs et al. 1986). In intact plants flavonoids are synthesized in the epidermis, and serve as a UV-B cut-off filter to the light entering the tissue (Schmelzer et al. 1988, Tevini et al. 1991, Cen and Bornman 1993).

The flavonoid-inducing effect of this waveband is established by action spectra (Fig. 7). They have peaks at ca. 290 nm, differing from the absorption of DNA or RNA, and suggest the occurrence of a particular UV-B photoreceptor. This UV-B action is manifested or enhanced by phytochrome action (Yatsuhashi and Hashimoto 1985), and further enhanced by BL (Drumm and Mohr 1978, Duell-Pfaff and Wellmann 1982). That the flavonoid induction by UV-B really occurs in the natural growing conditions was shown by the effects of UV-B supplements to artificial WL (Adamse and Britz 1992, Arakawa et al. 1985, Maekawa et al. 1980, Cen and Bornman 990) and supplement to sunlight (Flint et al. 1985). The findings that UV-B elimination from sunlight greatly reduced anthocyanin synthesis in rose flowers and eggplant fruits (Mihara et al. 1973, Tezuka et al. 1993) support the view that the solar UV-B produces flavonoid synthesis under the field conditions. Lignin biosynthesis, whose early steps (phenylpropanoid pathway) are shared with flavonoid synthesis, may be under the influence of UV-B, since UV-B makes plants tougher (Hashimoto and Tajima 1980).

https://ncr101.montana.edu/Light1994C...oto%20text.htm

[amoril]

Originally Posted by indifferent

Aye, that Joe Knuc article is a joke.

Sam did indeed say that he was unable to find any benefit to UV light, he used UV fluoro tubes in a greenhouse.

Two great points Sam made that folks need to bear in mind:

1. If UV was truly important in the production of resin and potency, then all indoor grown bud would lack resin and potency as fluoros and HIDs don't produce UV.

2. A high altitude cultivar such as a Highland Nepalese will have the same high if grown at sea-level with a lower UV level, the nature of the high and potency being genetically pre-determined.

Apart from the research done by Raphael Mechoulam in Israel where he exposed CBD acids in a petri dish to UV light at 285nm and got a small proportion to convert into THC acids, has anyone ever published any proper scientific work on this subject?

there is an obvious answer to both of Sam's claims. it lies with the genetic code. A plant is automatically coded to defend itself against the most common forms of harm, some basic virus protection, some defense from predation, etc.

sunlight has been a constant for the history of cannabis. its going to take more than a generation to breed out of the genetics.

that said, I never claim that UV light is essential for an indoor grower. I would advocate it for everyone, though, and would say that it should be a requirement in some form for any serious breeding project, be it included in the sun outdoors, or supplemented indoors.

[lost in a sea]

i personally agree with the theory, held by experts, that the cannabinoids in cannabis ,evolved through natural selection, as they block uv's from mutating cell dna.

but adding uv's now will not encourage the production, breeders decide how potent the progeny are by their selection.

all your potentially doing by adding uv's is mutating cells, but it would take very high levels.

in short this environmental factor affected this plants evolution, but there is no mechanism of the plant to respond by producing different compounds in response to uv's. uv's are one of the suns most destructive emitants, and for the first 2 billion years of this planets history u.v's scorched the surface and forced life to form at the bottom of the sea (if you believe modern consensus). i would maybe rethink the idea that just becuase its natural, your plants desire it in anyway.

on the other hand it is possible that the more complex molecules can be catalysed into more smaller, more desirable cannabinoids (i observed no difference). as a scientist that examins environmental factors, on a daily basis, all i can add is, i have compared the outcomes, and personally have ruled it out as being necessary for me.

[amoril]

here's another cog in the wheel.... and, also the study the MJ Man vid's pictures come from

there is one incredibly obvious implication to be had, on the last graphic on the page...



shows that the only compound permeable through the stalk of the capitate-stalked glandular trichome (CSGT) is a phenolic compound.

https://www.hempreport.com/issues/17/malbody17.html