darkness to increase resin

[Dr.Snow]

What about location of nutrients in plants at night? It is known that there exists less nutrients in the leaves of the plants during dark cycle and I thought this was the (somewhat) the point of a 48hr or 72hr or whatever dark cycle before chop- to ensure that as little 'plant juice' as possible was in the buds. I've never put a plant in the dark BEFORE it was mature already but I did notice that in doing this (48hr) the plants in the dark appeared to cure sooner (that thick pungency came earlier) than the plants chopped without a dark period. It was a totally subjective experiment so no bold statements can be made... just wanted to chime in with my thoughts. Peace, dr

BTW this is a debate that will NEVER end

 

[Chamba]

21 posts and only one with a correct side by side comparison (OG bud!)

do this yourself... compare same clones and make sure you blind taste smoke test eg a clone that flowers for eg 60 days with the lights on then harvest it with the same clone grown under 57 days of lights on and 3 days off .

compare apples with apples!

no wonder some growers say lights off is better/stronger as they compare, for example, a 60 day bud with a 63 day bud.........when they should be comparing eg 63 with 63 or 60 with 60

that extra 3 days can make a differnce to the high, esp if eg 60 is a little early

and of course, keep the ventilation on 24 hours per day to prevent mold!

and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the the scientific studies mentioned about refer to the length of the photoperiod during the entire flowering duration, not the last 3 days..so it's silly to mention that in this context

will some mod please move this thread to the "silly rumor" forum

regarding root boiling and other nonsense. The reason that plant that had been root boiled, frozen etc smoked "strong" is because of the way it was handled, the outer resin heads were smudged and degraded giving a heavier stone, as opposed to a high..but then again to prove what I just said you would have to compare same clones (not seedlings) or it's just guesswork

do this...at harvest separate two similar sized branches from the same tree...carefully handle one branch, slow dry and cure...with the other branch, squash, maul, bash it around, then dry and cure it...blind smoke test both buds and you will find the roughly handled bud will have a heavier, sleepier stone and the carefully handled bud with have a more cerebral, uppy high

I was talking to a guy who used to live in Africa for 20 years the other day...he got talking about Sth Africa and how just about everyone smokes dagga there....I suggested why not get some seeds sent over here and grow your own..." hmm that would be difficult because the first 3 generations won't get you high, so it would take to long".....I coughed out a laugh....

old wives tales, unsubstantiated rumors, ignorance are still around

 

[InsanityRules]

AMEN Chamba....

Finally a post with some sense. I totaly agree. To come to scientific conclusions you need an absolutely controled enviroment and an average of said subjects?????

It's absolutly astounding how yall think youre so much better than mother nature. God has made a perfect plan yet your not satisfied??????

Wish I were AN nutes.....There's suckers born every post!!!!! Man do I love Lambos....

Please send me only $59.99 and I'll give you the most latest secret advances that will gaurantee you to get 10 ounces per plant with no water period!!!!!!!

No offence intended to anyone. I just feel all this funky do it better shit is crazy. Grow the damn plant, get to know what she needs, meet those needs and she should reward you well.....They can only produce to their capability. If this plant species doesn't meet your yield needs move on. Come on folks COMMON sense!!!!!

:>(

 

[l33t]

I ve personally flowered plants from seed (mainly sativas/sat dominant hybrids) , 10/14 or 9/15 all the way from sprout, and I didnt notice ANY difference in potency or high with the same stain when it was vegged and flowered with 12/12..

I have tried to finish plants with 8 hrs of light (last 3 weeks ) again noticed NO difference in potency from my personal exprerience. Less yield yes , faster maturity yes , but difference in Potency or High NO.

So allow me to strongly disagree with ANYONE that claims that plants that are flowered with 10/14 have HALF the THC content in the finished product compared to those that were flowered with 12 hrs of light per day.

my 2 cents


PS

I remember Shantibaba the Breeder of White Widow had posted few years back on CW that most plants generally don't really show any increase in resin when you let em 2 days in total darkness at the end of the flowering cycle.

..BUT he said that Strains of the White Family, Such as White Widow and Great White Shark (now aka Shark Shock) seem to benefit from 2 days darkness , he did notice a difference.

 

[mriko]

We don't know exactly why the Cannabis plant produces resin, but it is thought to be – at least partially – a protection against heat, drought and harmful radiation (UV-B),

IF memory serves me it is not the resin which protects against UV radiation but the THC which is inside the plant tissues.

Irie !

 

[CDM]

I would think that reducing the light would cause the plant to mature faster, but lack some of the potency that the plant could have acheaved by the lack of light.

 

[l33t]

I m sure that after a certain 'point' you will see reduced potency but I m saying that I disagree that plants that are flowered with 10/14 alltheway have HALF the resin compared to those under 12/12. I m not saying there is no actual reduction in THC(there might be, I dont know), I m saying that from MY experience I 've noticed No difference in potency whatsoever.

If you drop the hrs of light to say 3hrs of light per day ..then I m sure this will affect the potency..no doubt about that.

 

[snookster]

Just throwin' in my $0.02 worth here, but on the Nirvana site, on the WW, there was a short story about the WW, and on the very end of it, it did suggest turning off the lights for the last TWO WEEKS. I always did wonder if that worked or not, but I think after reading this thread, I will leave the lights on. (Still nobody home here) hehe

Snookster

 

[Bigtimer7]

WOW had to give rep to Rosy CHeeks that is great info man! WOW!!

Thanks for all this info really makes sense of things.... MAD REP +++

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

I ve personally flowered plants from seed (mainly sativas/sat dominant hybrids) , 10/14 or 9/15 all the way from sprout, and I didnt notice ANY difference in potency or high with the same stain when it was vegged and flowered with 12/12..

I have tried to finish plants with 8 hrs of light (last 3 weeks ) again noticed NO difference in potency from my personal exprerience. Less yield yes , faster maturity yes , but difference in Potency or High NO.

So allow me to strongly disagree with ANYONE that claims that plants that are flowered with 10/14 have HALF the THC content in the finished product compared to those that were flowered with 12 hrs of light per day.

I m sure that after a certain 'point' you will see reduced potency but I m saying that I disagree that plants that are flowered with 14/10 alltheway have HALF the resin compared to those under 12/12. I m not saying there is no actual reduction in THC(there might be, I dont know), I m saying that from MY experience I 've noticed No difference whatsoever.

If you drop the hrs of light to say 3hrs of light per day ..then I m sure this will affect the potency..no doubt about that.

Well, nobody said that plants flowered under 10/14 produce 50% less resin than plants flowered under 12/12, only that THC production is substantially higher with 12/12 than 10/14, double according to J.R. Valle.
You can download this research in PDF file, although it's not for free. Here's the abstract:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1978-01-01_1_page008.html

I personally set scientific research above personal observations, if conducted in a credible way. Although, it is possible and likely that different types of strains - such as for instance temperate vs tropical strains - react differently to different light cycles, in terms of resin production and THC production. Although, once we've agreed on that the plant needs light and nutrients in order to produce resin and Cannabinoids, a logical assumption would be that reducing light or nutrients CANNOT lead to increased resin production or potency.

just my 2 cents

 

[l33t]

Hi Rosy

Hope all is well.

I m sorry *my mistake*!!! I m sorry , I wanted to write HALF THC.

You posted :

Equally, J.R. Valle has shown that shorter photoperiods considerably diminish the THC production in the plant (in “Influence on photoperiodism on cannabinoid content in Cannabis Sativa” he concludes that a 12h photoperiod produces twice as much THC as a 10h photoperiod).

I still disagree that a10hr period will result in 50% less THC production .And allow me to strongly disagree on that.

I m not claiming its not truth but from my limited experience I found/noticed no difference in Potency what so ever. I may be well wrong , but thats what I ve experienced.

I personally set scientific research above personal observations, if conducted in a credible way.

Me too! The scientific way is the way to go. But like you , only if conducted in a credible way.
But science has still lots to learn and I can never accept that during this test all the possible variables that may be responsible for drawing inaccurate conclusions were eliminated. And everyday we see published papers that say opposite things over the same subject.. Its just almost impossible to account for all the variables that are responsible for error since 'we' haven't done much scientific research on THC/Cannabinoids etc so far..

Like you say it may be a strain specific case..so thats why I think its not an accurate conclusion. I mean yes it may be the case with the strain they worked with but many not be with other sativas. I would like to see this experiment being run again with many different hybrids and pure inds & most importantly with different pure sat strains cause I strongly believe that the experiment was not conducted properly for accurate conclusions .
It refers to Cannabis Sativa..but which sativa exactly is that? It only says HEMP seeds...

Although, once we've agreed on that the plant needs light and nutrients in order to produce resin and Cannabinoids, a logical assumption would be that reducing light or nutrients CANNOT lead to increased resin production or potency.

Well in ''a logical assumption'' yes.

But there are always things we cant comprehend with the current knowledge/experience .. there are always exceptions to the rule and there are always cases of paradox . I mean generally we know that plants need light and nutrients during the flower production period for Resin and THC but things may change at the end of the flowering cycle ,when it is about to terminate..just a though.

 

[l33t]

PS

What this paper's abstract basically says is that 10hr vs 12hr results in 50% reduction in THC.

I wonder why they didnt publish the results about the 8hr period. It would prove many things...

''Logically'' the 8hr period would results in even greater loss..around ~75% total THC % reduction...compared to the 12hr batch..if things happen in a 'linear way'.They imply that when they say:

From our data we may conclude that an increased length of natural light of only 2 hours a day at least doubled the average content of THC

-------

By reading the abstract I dont see this experiment being conducted in the most 'scientific' way if I may say so(They had many changing variables that can cause high error imho.),..

Things to consider:
What tells us that the 10hr period plants cannot produce the same THC % as the 12hr ones , if they had added extra nutes on those for instance?

Also I wonder what would be the results if the plants in the 10hr batch had received 8.3% more intense light to compensate with the less hrs of light received..(so the plants received same solar energy but over a different period of time)..

Last but not least

I dont doubt the results they got but they were playing with low values of THC to begin with. 1-3% THC strain/hemp.

What tells us that if they worked with ~20% THC levels(high potency sativa strain and not Hemp strain) the increase wouldn't be again ~1% extra/more THC and and not 50% ? I mean they saw an increase of 1% *extra/more* THC which in their case was an increase of 50%.

But if they did the same experiment with a 20%THC strain the increase might again be just 1% extra/more THC..
In that case the increase would be only 5%. Thats more reasonable to my eyes.

I m sure many growers have also experimented flowering plants 11/13 or 10/14 all the way ..It would be nice to hear their opinion from their experience.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

Hey l33t

Yes, you're right that we should leave the door open for different interpretations of how the plant works. We don't even know exactly why there is resin, or THC, even if some hypotheses seem more likely than others.

By scrutinizing the research itself (not the abstract), I personally feel that it stands up well. My only issue with it would be temperatures, which I feel could possibly influence THC production, which is noted but not taken into account.

But if temps do not affect THC production, then it doesn't matter.

I strongly believe that the experiment was not conducted properly for accurate conclusions .
It refers to Cannabis Sativa..but which sativa exactly is that? It only says HEMP seeds...

The study doesn't refer to Cannabis Sativa as in "sativa', but to Cannabis Sativa L, which is the proper taxonomy of the species, in which Sativa and Indica (and possibly Ruderalis) are subspecies. It therefore refers to the species as a whole, drug type as well as fiber type Cannabis. They do use the word 'hemp' in the text, but it should not be taken literally. Hemp - or industrial fiber type Cannabis - is by definition strains that contain less than 1% THC in the US, and less than 0.3% in Europe and Canada. Since the strain used in the test contain levels of THC superior to 1%, it is by definition drug type Cannabis, and not 'hemp'.

PS

What this paper's abstract basically says is that 10hr vs 12hr results in 50% reduction in THC.

I wonder why they didnt publish the results about the 8hr period. It would prove many things...

''Logically'' the 8hr period would results in even greater loss..around ~75% total THC % reduction...compared to the 12hr batch..if things happen in a 'linear way'.

IMO, one should not expect linear results, in which percentual increase or decrease of different factors results in corresponding percentual increase/decrease of THC.
If a 12h uninterrupted light period results in a more than double increase in THC production (compared to a 10h light period) - and I concider it well established in the research - then there's got to be a 'reason' for why those extra two hours (or more) results in such a drastic increase.
It connects with the debate on why THC is produced. If THC is a sort of protection (which seems like a logical conclusion based on what we know) against radiation and light, then the end of a long light period should be critical, and the plants need to produce extra THC in order to withstand the prolonged tear and wear (kind of like putting on extra sunblock the longer you stay in the sun, and more towards the end when you tend to be burned). Since most temperate zone strains starts to flower at 10h of darkness or more, you could theoretcally run your plants on 14h of light, or thereabout. But continuous use of 14h uninterrupted light periods results in light stress in many strains, so there is possibly a 'limit' to how long light periods those strains can take.

What you want - of course - is the boosted THC production, withouth the light stress.

 

[l33t]

Hi again Rosy

Thanx for the reply.

My only issue with it would be temperatures, which I feel could possibly influence THC production, which is noted but not taken into account.

Personally I believe temps play a role imo. And I think they can be an important error producing factor.

Here is some info from other studies regarding temps:

Temperature
Temperature may play a role in determining cannabinoid content, but perhaps only through its association with moisture availability. Boucher et al. (1974) reported an increase in cannabinoid content with temperature (32o C. vs. 22o C.), however, some variables such as increased water loss due to accelerated evaporation and plant transpiration at high temperatures were left unaccounted. In contrast, Bazzaz et al. (1975), using 4 Cannabis ecotypes of both tropical and temperate character, demonstrated a definite decrease in cannabinoid production with increased temperature (32o C. vs. 23o C.). Later studies by Braut-Boucher (1980) on clones of 2 strains from South Africa revealed a more complex pattern of biosynthesis according to strain, gender and chemical homologue produced. Clearly, further study of this parameter is needed.

Temps aside,
as far as 'Hemp' goes. When I said Hemp I meant that these very low THC strains they used (~ 1-3%) , 'should' be considered as Hemp..and not Drug strains contrary to what the law says.Its only the last few years that we have made this classification with a definite THC% content, according to the law. Such/most, if not all low THC varieties were been selected over hundreds/thousands of years by humans and were always considered hemp stains and not drug cultivars imo. Now if the law says the are not Hemp..that doest mean they weren't evolved/bred over the years as Hemp strains..hope you get what I mean.

So when the conclusion of this research/paper says that they found that C. Sativa L reacts to a 2hr light decrease by producing 50% less THC ..what they say sounds to be the case for all Cannabis Sativa L , which like you said includes high THC/drug producing stains. They 'make it sound' , if I can say so, as if that this would be the case in most Cannabis strains with high THC content..And thats why this research doesn't sound too 'credible' for me.... , simply cause they worked only with very low THC strains only, strains that every drug(cannabis) user would consider as Hemp.

Unfortunately I only have the abstract to draw conclusions.Like I said before, what this paper doesn't prove is that the 1% less THC they found n the 10hr batch would be still a 50% decrease in high THC content strains. I don't really doubt that the 2 extra hrs of light result in a 1% more THC in their tested strains but would the increase be 1% more THC, or 50% more , in a strain that produces 20% THC in optimum conditions?

And I find this a very very important question , and the answer would determine what really happens..
Also it seems somewhat incomplete to my eyes as I think they should also include in the results what happens when the hrs of light drop to 8hrs per day. I don't believe it would be a linear relationship , like you say yourself , so further testing and research is needed.

then there's got to be a 'reason' for why those extra two hours (or more) results in such a drastic increase.
It connects with the debate on why THC is produced. If THC is a sort of protection (which seems like a logical conclusion based on what we know) against radiation and light, then the end of a long light period should be critical, and the plants need to produce extra THC in order to withstand the prolonged tear and wear (kind of like putting on extra sunblock the longer you stay in the sun, and more towards the end when you tend to be burned).

I find what you say very logical and makes absolute sense to me.But like I said is the ''dramatic'' decrease ,really that dramatic? 1% less THC is a 2%THC strain is a dramatic difference , no doubt , but in a 20%THC strain , 1% less THC is almost unnoticeable when you smoke the end product.

Well I know what I gonna say is not 'scientific' but personal observations have their place even in science..like I said I have tried 10/14 vs 12/12 all the way , numerous times and I noticed no difference in potency (which more or less means THC content). I've tried it with pure sats and hybrids as well. Don't you think if there was a 50% THC decrease I would somehow notice?..I mean a 50 % THC decrease is a lot and wouldn't go easily unnoticed imo.But I haven't real measurement tests so I can't say for sure if there is a big decrease or not or if any within noticeable levels. What we all seem agree on is that it must be somewhat strain related and the variation in the results may differ a lot from strain to strain. Thats why I would love to see the same experiment with different high THC strains both sats , inds and hybrids.

 

[N. Accumbens]

Accumbens' 2 cents.

I thought it was well established that placing lights in darkness is unlikely to yield more THC, instead I thought this method was performed to produce a more smooth smoke, Since the lack of light triggers a degradation of chlorophyll. Typically any mj plant that spends two days in darkness will exhibit a yellowing of biomass. This can be beneficial to the curing process???, adequate ventilation is a must though, or buds will not taste that good. I don't use this method, though...I am sure ther is some reason for that

 

[l33t]

Typically any mj plant that spends two days in darkness will exhibit a yellowing of biomass.

Thats not true from my experience. I ve had plants hidden in the loft/attic for 1-2 weeks in total darkness (as I had a landlord inspection and I had to take the room down temporarily).

Surprisingly the plants were just fine (that happend at week 5-7 of flowering) and they didn't show any yellowing at all or other visible signs of stress.

 

[king of thorns]

if you need more resin increase the heat a little bit, lower the humidity as possible and don't water your plants for 5 last days


kot

 

[Three Berries]

A little narco posting.

I did 48 hour of darkness before the cut. Stickiest weed I've ever cleaned. Even the trunk and stems were sticky.

Going for three days next time.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Maximum (meh) trichome production can only occur under about µ1500 mols and a DLI of 55 (or more) of light. The higher the better. The downside, and that's where growing expertise comes in, the higher the light, the more difficult it becomes to water accurately, and ensure, nutrients, and CO2 are in perfect balance with the temperature and humidity. Pushing the plant that hard will make it transpire a huge amount of water, so venting is an absolute must, but you still want CO2, which is a damned if you do - damned if you don't situation. Which points to expertise once again. If you grow in your basement and your furnace has a pilot light, you'll have about 4-600ppm so that's enough CO2 in your grow space to feed your plant even if you vent humid air out. But more CO2 is better (to about 1000ppm). You can do it at home, but it'll cost you.

So turning the lights out will only stall production. If you were impressed with your bud, imagine how much better it would have been if you really pushed the plant harder.

This comment may be overkill, but it is what it is.

 

[Three Berries]

Well you don't turn the lights off and keep them in the dark until the end so it only adds a few days, not like you are cutting it short. But I was quite impressed how sticky the plant got. Not the first time growing with the same strain in the same way I usually did. But the first time with the total darkness for two days before the chop. I'm doing three days next time.