[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by Sam_Skunkman

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...26669013000526
Industrial Crops and Products
Volume 46, April 2013, Pages 269–273

Ethephon application stimulats cannabinoids and plastidic terpenoids production in Cannabis sativa at flowering stage
Hakimeh Mansouri, , Fatemeh Salari, Zahra Asrar
Received 27 November 2012, Accepted 4 January 2013, Available online 1 March 2013

...

Dear Sam,
Is it really necessary to double-post this too? The DNA project, I understand, but literature? I wouldn't say anything were you to critically review them or explain it to the 'normal' people (>90% of the population won't understand what's written in there, let alone see a realistic use for it).
Besides, the above publication is utter BS. For one, they don't mention which C. sativa they used nor from where it came and for another, they determined CBD and THC in it (both always present at equal % with minimal SD, weird). Now to the stupid part: Did you notice that they increased for example THC content in leaves from 0.01% untreated to 0.1% with the highest ethephon dose (100 uM is a lot and will affect growth, senescence, sex determination and a lot more)? IMHO, this is ridiculous and completely useless. I'm not even starting to rant about the materials&methods section...

[Sam_Skunkman]

OO,
I double post because more people read and comment in this "Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science" > RECENT interesting findings thread, even though I am a moderator in the "Marijuana Strains and Breeding" > new interesting findings thread, and I can keep that thread moderated, I hope you understand. As for explaining and critically review them, I want to leave that to people that want to do it, maybe you want to volunteer? Lots of people can have a say, often the discussion is as interesting as a paper. If I have anything I think is important to say I will, I hope you or anyone will do the same. To be honest I am not trying to judge the quality of the info in most cases, I am trying to get recent papers more read and discussed, in your case it seemed to have worked pretty good? Keep it up, but please review all the papers with more depth and feelings, I can place a different colored leaf next to the best, green, and worst, red, just joking, please do review any paper I post... both great and the not so great....
-SamS

[Arthritis_sucks]

Thanks for the good reads Sam. Subbed

[Only Ornamental]

Yes Sam, with me it works because for one, I'm geek/nerd (dunno which one, maybe both?) enough to think it's great to read scientific literature and for another, I haven't seen some of the ones you posted.
I'm still of the mind that the one who posts literature (papers, books, internet articles, whatever) should have read them before and hence only post those he/she thinks are really good literature . In this world of publish or perish (and often publish and still perish), we are overwhelmed with forced junk publications and an increasing amount of low budget literature borderline to pseudo-science often out of Africa and Asia. There's no point in motivating people to read scientific stuff if it isn't good but a pure waste of time and effort.

I did not read the first link of yours, I read others about terpene synthesis though, because I don't see any imminent application or use for me. It's interesting but really geek/nerd... there's better stuff out there to start with.
The second article is unfortunately not free (I no longer have an university access) but promises to be VERY interesting and I'd love to read it!
I've read the next one partially. I preferred to read the original publications and they're worth reading (hint at those who believe that Durban Poison is so electric because of THCV).
The fourth is already an oldie but goodie . Very informative!
Next is that shady ethephon story....
The last one in post #1 is interesting (for me, cause I did stuff like that) but practical-wise... the new cannabinoids were present in the low ppm range. One would have to consume about a dozen kg weed to maybe feel any activity of those (don't forget that THC was present 'at high %' in their plant material).

And now passing the ball to someone else (got sore fingers and other excuses)...

[oldchuck]

Thanks for the links, Sam, but it would be nice to understand what they say in human-speak.

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by oldchuck

...it would be nice to understand what they say in human-speak.

That's what I tried to tell him .

[Sam_Skunkman]

Actually I agree, I say anyone that wants to rate them, or explain the harder to understand papers to the reading masses, I say more power to them! I can add anything well written by anyone to the original posts and links by me. I really don't have the time or the will to do it but it would be great, I agree. I have enough to keep me busy but when I run across these kind of papers I think others may enjoy them. As for the fact that some cost $, get an academic friend to help you, or write the authors for a offprint pdf? If any paper is really important then the $10-$50 maybe worth it, collecting info for its own sake is to expensive with papers that need to be purchased. I can't help except for urging people that do know of free copies of any that are not free to let everyone know where so I can add the link to my posts.
-SamS

[Betterhaff]

Hi OO, if you go to the Springer site you can access a little more of that article. 2 pages…even more of a tease, lol. Just click on the “look inside” link. Still haven’t found a work around to get the full article other than buying it or as Sam mentions maybe get access from an academic friend who has privileges.

https://link.springer.com/article/10....722-015-0253-3

[HUGE]

Tag

[oldchuck]

"Expansion of female sex organs in response to prolonged virginity in Cannabis sativa (marijuana)"

My god, that's almost pornographic. Science! I wonder if that happens to humans?