Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle?

[cloudd]

Some one suggested to me that I put my plants on 16/16 because they are in a greenhouse.
Thought there could be some gettin at nite so I fixed the canopy and realized what 16 and 16 would require.
Any thoughts guys ....

 

[daTenshi]

Re: Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle???

Perhaps it was a typo or a misunderstanding and that person meant 16/8 16+16 does not = 24 hours

 

[trout]

Re: Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle???

lol 16 hours of dark is noooooo good

 

[Rodrigo]

Re: Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle???

First thing you need to know is, flowering is actually regulated by how many dark hours they get. basically this means that anything over 12 hours of darkness will trigger flowering, so a 16/16 cycle wouldn't work.
You have to keep in mind that and indoor grow light system has to resemble nature as best as possible, meaning that you have to simulate the cycle the sun makes. Plants have also evolved to have a fix day/night cycle (as we have)
In an ideal grow, if you could get the lights to light up and then shut off incrementally, thus simulating sunrise and sunset, your plants will do better.
During flower, if you reduce the hours of light by half an hour each week you'd be simulating the shortening of days when 'winter is coming' and that also helps trick the plant into thinking that it HAS to reproduce fast or face winter (plants do have survival instinct up to a point) and so the plant goes into overdrive to increase bud size in hopes of increasing its chances to capture pollen from the air.

So, in short, the best you can do is 18/6 for veg and 12/12 for flower (reducing 30' each week after week 3, so by the end of week 9 you'll be on 9/15 which better resembles a short winter day.)

Good luck and happy growing!!

 

[David Bowman]

Re: Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle???

I wonder if the decreasing light would also increase the chance of nanners in order to propagate it self before it dies.

 

[manx]

Re: Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle???

doubt it, nanners are probably a stress response, decreased light would register as a negative change to a plant, so it's likely to hermie

 

[labexperiment]

Re: Any one heard of the 16/16 hour grow cycle???

I wonder if the decreasing light would also increase the chance of nanners in order to propagate it self before it dies.

I was talking with KingJohnC last night and he was telling me of a thread he read where they -15 minutes every week till they got to 9 hours of light and all it accomplished was reducing overall time for flowering, yield and potency. At least that is how I understood our conversation.

 

[Rodrigo]

I've been doing the light reduction for several cycles and have not noticed a decrease in yield and definitely not in potency. Never had a hermie either. Not saying it's not true, just that it hasn't been like that for me.
If you don't want to risk it just go 12/12 and you can't go wrong.

 

[BudBorer]

I'd stick to 12/12..

 

[Brick Top]

There is something behind the decreasing hours of light and increasing hours of darkness growing method and it's actually what is behind the idea of giving plants 72 hours of darkness before harvesting to increase resin and THC. Sunlight degrades some percentage of THC each day. THC protects the delicate inner glands of the THC producing trichome heads. During the day when plants have more of what most growers refer to as 'energy' to use due to maximum light/photosynthesis plants multifunction, they allocate their 'energy' to all functions but even with maximum 'energy' there is a limit so some functions do not receive a great deal of 'energy.' THC production is one of them. At night when plants run on 'battery backup' most plant functions 'energy' is cut off or at least greatly decreased. Growth and THC production receive a higher percentage of available 'energy' at night, more than during the day. Part of that can easily be seen by those who often check their plants each day and seen little growth during the daylight hours and lights do not need to be raised but in the morning find the plants have grown enough overnight that lights have to be raised. At the same time the lost THC, that works like sunscreen for the delicate inner glands of the THC, actually at that time mostly still THCA, producing trichome heads is replaced plus an additional amount is produced causing a slow but ever increasing amount. What is lost during the day is replaced plus more. As days shorten the sun angle is lower. Sun rays travel through a greater distance of atmosphere filtering out more of the damaging rays so less THCA is lost but still more is produced at night so the increase in THCA increases even more with shorter days, less lost THCA and longer periods of dark producing more THCA for longer periods of time.


The best light schedule is what Mother Nature provides. It is what plants evolved to use to maximize all the functions of what they do. But then with all the cross breeding of stains from various parts of the world with differing lengths of day and night and lengths of growing season it is impossible to guesstimate what varying light schedule would be the absolute best for any given strain. But a decreasing light/increasing period of dark light schedule in general will result in better final results all around.

Before I had a computer crash and lost a library full of research result articles one I had was about a scientific researcher who used a computerized lighting system and a pure strain and duplicated indoors the hours of light and dark the strain would naturally receive. He also had several test groups of plants using various popular differing light schedules and the plants and crop of the natural lighting schedule group grew and produced more and when tested was higher in THC/THCA than the others.

So to get the most and the best out of plants it is really rather like the very old Chiffon Margarine commercial that said " It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." It's just not easy or practical to do for most altering their light schedule by a minute and some second for each 'morning' and each 'night' so a little fooling of Mother Nature is done every few days or weekly and you will at least get closer to the most and the best that can be achieved growing indoors regardless of popular believed theories and myths or the many different claimed to be the best lighting schedules.

Additional: Keep in mind that other than auto-flowering strains cannabis plants are photoperiod plants and the change from the vegetative growth stage to the flowering stage of growth is not the only thing triggered by the number of hours of light or dark plants receive. Most tend to disagree but to them "Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." Or put another way, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[Perfect Sun LED]

Brick top, I personally go by results. In most all cases, indoor grown weed under 12/12 for flowering is more potent.

Of course, there are many other factors that contribute to that, but so far, I haven't seen diminished light indoors result in higher potent weed.

 

[Brick Top]

Brick top, I personally go by results. In most all cases, indoor grown weed under 12/12 for flowering is more potent.

Of course, there are many other factors that contribute to that, but so far, I haven't seen diminished light indoors result in higher potent weed.

Scientific research has shown otherwise but it also said not all strains respond as much as others will. I don't know if you have grown one crop sticking with 12/12 and another, using a diminishing light schedule or 72 hours of darkness before harvesting, and both crops were the same strain grown from clones from the same mother plant, and then if you had them both tested by a lab or not. If not than likely you have like so many others have relied strictly on your physical senses and based your opinion on the results of one crop without a control crop to compare to, or just compared a diminishing light schedule crop results to what your memory tells you a previous crop or crops were like when it comes to potency.

I don't know how many strains exist in the world today. A site like Seedfinder lists 5,781 of them and anyone who frequents the site and who has grown for a long time, 42 years in my case, knows not all strains that have existed or currently do exist are listed there. I also don't know what percentage of strains will give the greatest increase in potency and what percentage will give the least.

Then to include other things what percentage of growers actually harvest at the optimal time when THCA/THC is at it's peak and not lost a fair percentage degradation allowing it to become CBN? Most newer growers harvest to early. Heavy indica lovers tend to harvest to late because the 'deadhead' feeling increased levels of CBN cause are mistaken for increased potency. So unless harvest takes place at the optimal time it's about a virtual impossibility to know if some altered light cycle actually made any difference at all, either positive or negative.

Factor in humidity. Low humidity results in shorter thicker stronger trichome stalks and high humidity results in longer thinner weaker trichome stalks. That makes a difference during harvesting and trimming and curing since far fewer short thick strong trichome stalks will break losing their precious heads while at the same time long thin weak trichome stalks will easily break off during handling while harvesting, trimming and curing. What might have been gained in THCA/THC in a higher humidity grow could end up on the floor and not in someone's lungs and into their brains so the increase could not only go unnoticed but it could seem to the physical senses that there was a decrease.

Also factor in the quality of lighting. Higher quality bulbs with better light spectrum's and fresh bulbs that not only put out light but a fuller light spectrum. Try a diminishing light schedule using low grade improper light spectrum bulbs or old bulbs and you will not see the same results as with high quality fresh bulbs.

While I have never seen actual research findings on it I know growers who will swear on a stack of Bibles that a diminishing light cycle works the best using CMH bulbs and they base that on the broader light spectrum they produce. I have heard and read similar from growers who use 600 or 1000 watt lights, sometimes more than one, who use dual filament bulbs that put out both MH and HPS lighting at the same time. I would have to guess the reason would be much along the same lines as that of what some CHM users have said, a broader light spectrum throughout the entire grow.

A list of reasons longer than my 'weasel' could easily be come up with to explain why in some cases there will be a significant increase and other times there will not be and everything from inexperience or someone thinking they know more than they actually know to genetics and all that would fall in between those could play a part in the final results.

I'm one who believes in the findings of actual scientific research and actual lab test results while others believe in heir own opinions based on what others have written and is believed or based on what they believe they can tell from their own physical senses. But we all have to believe what rings true to us so in each person's mind they will believe themselves to be correct regardless of if they are right or if they are wrong and a whole lot factors into what scientific research, lab tests or physical senses will end up telling someone.

 

[Perfect Sun LED]

I don't go by what people write. I go by results, personally. Been growing three years and always experimenting. By results, I mean what majority say about the strength of the end result from the dispensary.

I don't put much faith in the testing for THC percent. I put one strain of Afgoo in the dispensary, which tested at 28% THC, but didn't get people nearly as high as a strain of Critical 47 I grew, which tested at 21% THC.

Both had a CBD of .1

After the mandatory testing began this year, almost every strain at the dispensaries are between 21-28% THC with .1 CBD. At least half test 25% or higher. Yet, the quality is clearly not the same based on consumer/patient reports.

I am going to have the exact same crop from the exact same plant tested multiple times just to see if I get different results. I will use different labs. I predict I will get different percent of THC from each test.


My main point here is, we cannot rely on lab results to see if something change in lighting or humidity, curing process, etc made our weed stronger. The best testing to do for that right now, I believe is blind tests. Don't let the people know what they are smoking and have them grade it from 1-10 in how high it gets them.

Be sure to have the same people come back for multiple tests of the same strains just to see how much their answers differ. Based on other blind tests, I am sure the same person will grade the same strain with slightly different numbers. He/she is also not allowed to smell or see the product they are smoking.

Now if I can take a batch in from the same plant and have it tested multiple times by different labs and get pretty much the same results, I will at least be less skeptical. However, even with consistent lab results, it seems different people react differently to different strains.

I know I for one, will get drunk easier on a 40 proof whiskey than a 40 proof vodka. Something else other than the percent of alcohol affects me differently.

So in conclusion, what really matters is how effective the medicine is for the patients. If majority of the patients say this strain is weak, then it doesn't matter what the lab results say, and yes, I have had that happen multiple times. Lab results were great; patients thought it was okay.

 

[Brick Top]

I don't go by what people write. I go by results, personally. Been growing three years and always experimenting. By results, I mean what majority say about the strength of the end result from the dispensary.

I don't put much faith in the testing for THC percent. I put one strain of Afgoo in the dispensary, which tested at 28% THC, but didn't get people nearly as high as a strain of Critical 47 I grew, which tested at 21% THC.

Both had a CBD of .1

After the mandatory testing began this year, almost every strain at the dispensaries are between 21-28% THC with .1 CBD. At least half test 25% or higher. Yet, the quality is clearly not the same based on consumer/patient reports.

I am going to have the exact same crop from the exact same plant tested multiple times just to see if I get different results. I will use different labs. I predict I will get different percent of THC from each test.


My main point here is, we cannot rely on lab results to see if something change in lighting or humidity, curing process, etc made our weed stronger. The best testing to do for that right now, I believe is blind tests. Don't let the people know what they are smoking and have them grade it from 1-10 in how high it gets them.

Be sure to have the same people come back for multiple tests of the same strains just to see how much their answers differ. Based on other blind tests, I am sure the same person will grade the same strain with slightly different numbers. He/she is also not allowed to smell or see the product they are smoking.

Now if I can take a batch in from the same plant and have it tested multiple times by different labs and get pretty much the same results, I will at least be less skeptical. However, even with consistent lab results, it seems different people react differently to different strains.

I know I for one, will get drunk easier on a 40 proof whiskey than a 40 proof vodka. Something else other than the percent of alcohol affects me differently.

So in conclusion, what really matters is how effective the medicine is for the patients. If majority of the patients say this strain is weak, then it doesn't matter what the lab results say, and yes, I have had that happen multiple times. Lab results were great; patients thought it was okay.

You "don't go by what people write" but you expect others to "go by what" you "write?"

What I wrote came from scientific research studies, studies made over years by people that earned PhD's and along with their full research in highly controlled environments using multiple control groups/crops that performed blind tests also. Their findings are opposite of what you wrote.

Who should people believe, scientists with PhD's whose life work is high technology advanced scientific research or what you based only on what you write?

I am actually very astonished that someone who is in some way or another connected to, works for or is affiliated with a medicinal dispensary would place such a tremendous degree of value on high percentages of THC and such a low degree of value on CBD when it has for years been a well known scientifically proven fact that CBD by far has more medicinal properties and values than THC does.

Project CBD > Medicine > Science
Science

Lab notesCannabis has been at the center of one of the most exciting — and underreported — developments in modern science. Research on marijuana's effects led directly to the discovery of a hitherto unknown biochemical communication system in the human body, the Endocannabinoid System, which plays a crucial role in regulating our physiology, mood, and everyday experience.

The discovery of receptors in the brain that respond pharmacologically to cannabis — and the subsequent identification of endogenous cannabinoid compounds in our own bodies that bind to these receptors — has significantly advanced our understanding of human biology, health, and disease.

It is an established scientific fact that cannabinoids and other components of cannabis can modulate many physiological systems in the human brain and body. Cannabinoids are chemical compounds that trigger cannabinoid (and other) receptors. More than 100 cannabinoids have been identified in the marijuana plant. Of these, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) have been studied most extensively. In addition to cannabinoids produced by the plant, there are endogenous cannabinoids (anandamide and 2AG) that occur naturally in the body, as well as synthetic cannabinoids created by pharmaceutical researchers.

Extensive preclinical research — much of it sponsored by the U.S. government — indicates that CBD has potent anti-tumoral, antioxidant, anti-spasmodic, anti-psychotic, anti-convulsive, and neuroprotective properties. CBD directly activates serotonin receptors, causing an anti-depressant effect, as well.

In recent years, scientists associated with the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS) have elucidated a number of molecular pathways whereby CBD exerts a therapeutic impact. A preclinical study by Dr. Sean McAllister and his colleagues at the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reports on how CBD kills breast cancer by down-regulating a gene called ID-1, which is implicated in several types of aggressive cancer. Silencing the ID-1 gene is thus is an excellent strategy for a cancer treatment.

"Cannabidiol offers hope of a non-toxic therapy that could treat aggressive forms of cancer without any of the painful side effects of chemotherapy," says McAllister.

CBD and breast cancer
The images above are from an experiment by McAllister testing how CBD can stop the invasion of cancer cells in human cell lines. Compare the untreated breast cancer cells on the left to the breast cancer cells destroyed by CBD on the right.

Clinical studies conducted outside the United States have shown that CBD is an effective painkiller — particularly for peripheral neuropathy associated with cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, arthritis, and other neurodegenerative conditions.

Sativex, a whole plant cannabis extract with equal levels of CBD and THC, is an under-the-tongue spray produced by GW Pharmaceuticals, a British company. Administered in repeatable, measurable doses, Sativex is clinically effective without causing psychoactivity. It has been officially approved as a medication for neuropathic pain in Great Britain, Canada, and more than 20 other countries. It is currently undergoing phase III clinical trials in the United States.

GW scientists determined that CBD is most effective therapeutically when administered in combination with whole plant THC. Cannabidiol interacts synergistically with THC. CBD enhances THC's painkilling impact, while muting THC's psychoactivity. CBD can also neutralize unfavorable effects that THC may cause, such as anxiety and rapid heartbeat.

High CBD low THC strains have been proven to be effective medications for such medical problems, ailments and injuries as Acne, ADD/ADHD, Addiction, AIDS, ALS, Alzheimer's, Anorexia, Antibiotic resistance, Anxiety, Atherosclerosis, Arthritis, Asthma, Autism, Bipolar, Cancer, Colitis/Crohn's, Depression, Diabetes, Endocrine disorders, Epilepsy/seizure, Fibromyalgia, Glaucoma, Heart disease, Huntington's
Inflammation, Irritable bowel, Kidney disease, Liver disease, Metabolic syndrome, Migraine, Mood disorders, Motion sickness, Multiple sclerosis, Nausea, Neurodegeneration, Neuropathic pain, Obesity, OCD, Osteoporosis, Parkinson's, Prion/Mad Cow disease, PTSD, Rheumatism, Schizophrenia, Sickle cell anemia, Skin conditions, Sleep disorders, Spinal cord injury, Stress, Stroke/TBI and others.

It has also been scientifically proven and well known that compared to CBD THC has little medicinal value.

It has also bee scientifically proven and well known that among illnesses/medical ailments that do respond best to THC that low levels of THC provide all the medicinal value the body can and will use medicinally and the rest only makes the patient high.

Why do some of the very best medicinal strains in the world have 16.3% CBD and only a THC content as low as 0.8% or 12.4% CBD and only a THC content of about 12.7%?

Two broad categories of CBD-rich cannabis strains have emerged since the serendipitous rediscovery of CBD by Northern California growers in late 2009. There are a handful of CBD-dominant strains with little THC (just the opposite of what's readily available on the recreational black market and the medical marijuana grey market). And there are also more balanced strains with roughly equal – or significant – amounts of both CBD and THC. Tested several times by several analytical labs, the initial CBD-rich strains (such as Harlequin, Jamaican Lion, and Omrita Rx) ranged from 8-9% CBD and 5.5-6% THC – about a 3:2 ratio.

Why when after many years of attempting to create 'The Holy Grail' and instead decide to learn about and then create actual medicinal marijuana strains did Howard Marks (Mr. Nice), Jaime of Resin Seeds and Scott Blakey (Shantibaba) form The CBD Crew and work to reverse what breeders, themselves included, had attempted to do for many years and no longer breed out the allele that caused whatever the natural genetic percentage of the precursor element that both THC and CBD come from out of strains to make higher potency/higher THC strains and instead work to create strains that have roughly equal amounts of CBD and THC, and neither being 18%, 22%, 25% 28% or whatever?

A few CBD Crew strains"

CBD Critical mass: THC % (average): 6-8, CBD % (average): 6-8, Ratio THC:CBD 1:1

CBD MediHaze: THC % (average): 4, CBD % (average): 8, Ratio THC:CBD between 1:1 to 1:2

CBD Mango Haze: THC % (average): 6-8, CBD % (average): 8-10, Ratio THC:CBD between 1:1 to 1:2

Cannabis sativa L. has been selectively bred for recreational uses to obtain the maximum "high", so the level of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) have been increased very much (up to 20-25%) and, in upping the potency through selective breeding, CBD has been selectively eliminated from recreational varieties or, eventually, it is rarely found in specific varieties. CBD is often found in hemp — in varieties used to produce fiber and seeds. But the combination of CBD/THC in cannabis seem to be beneficial for medical use.

The isolation of CBD was recorded back on 1940 by two independent investigation groups. The group of Adams and colleges successfully isolated it from marihuana 1. At the same time Jacob and Todd successfully isolated the cannabidiol from indian hemp resin 2. But was not until 1963 that Mechoulam and Shyo discovered the chemical structure of the CBD and enlightening the comprehension of the nature of the cannabinoids 3. At the next year 1964 Gaoni and Mechoulam finally elucidated the chemical structure of the main psychoactive compound of cannabis the THC matching the starting point of the modern pharmacology of cannabis 4.

1 B R. Adams, M. Hunt and J. H. Clark, J. Amer. Gem. Sot. 62,196 (1940).

2 A. Jacob and A. R. Todd, J. Gem. Sot. 649 (1940)

3 Mechoulam R, Shvo Y. Hashish. I. The structure of cannabidiol. Tetrahedron. 19: 2073 (1963).

4 Gaoni Y, Mechoulam R. Isolation, Structure and Partial Synthesis of an Active Constituent of Hashish. Science. 86: 1646 (1964)

Years back Sam the Skunkman said the high THC low CBD strains being pawned off on people in need of medication were anything but medication because for decades breeders worked to reduce CBD percentages so they could increase THC percentages, as mentioned about about how as much of the allele to produce CBD as possible had been bred out of modern cannabis thus stripping it of it's medicinal value.

Scientific references:

Cannabis is more than simply delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Ethan B. Russo · John M. McPartland
Published online: 19 December 2002
Springer-Verlag 2002
Non-psychotropic plant cannabinoids: new therapeutic opportunities from an ancient herb
Angelo A. Izzo, Francesca Borrelli, Raffaele Capasso, Vincenzo Di Marzo and Raphael Mechoulam
Non-psychotropic plant cannabinoids: ne... [Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Org. Biomol. Chem., 2005, 3, 1116 — 1123
Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents.
Nat Rev Cancer. 2003 Oct; 3(10):745-55.
Guzmán Manuel, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology,
Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Enantiomeric cannabidiol derivatives: synthesis and binding to cannabinoid receptors
LumÃr O. Hanu, Susanna Tchilibon, Datta E. Ponde, Aviva Breuer,
Ester Fride and Raphael Mechoulam
Enantiomeric cannabidiol derivatives: synthe... [Org Biomol Chem. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Cannabidiol: from an inactive cannabinoid to a drug with wide spectrum of action
Antonio Waldo Zuardi
Department of Neurology, Psychiatry and Medical Psychology,
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Brazil
https://bit.ly/a3lcSS
MECHOULAM ON CANNABIDIOL
From O'Shaughnessy's // Winter/Spring 2008

You have "been growing for three years." Three whole years. Do you honestly believe you know more than PhD's that have spent that many years, or more, on single research studies? Do you honestly believe that you know more than Howard Marks (Mr. Nice),
Jaime of Resin Seeds and Scott Blakey (Shantibaba) do about breeding? Do you honestly believe you know more about breeding than those who make up Project CBD? Do you honestly believe you know more about breeding than someone, being me, who has grown for forty-two years compared to your "three years?"

You said "almost every strain at the dispensaries are between 21-28% THC with .1 CBD. At least half test 25% or higher." Those are recreational strains being falsely marketed as being actual medicinal strains. Their THC to CBD ratio is about polar opposite to what advanced modern scientific research has proven to be actual real true medical marijuana THC to CBD ratios.

Sorry to be so blunt and if I sound harsh or offensive it is not out of a mean spirit or to be argumentative. It is only s matter of how misconceptions about what are claimed to be true medical marijuana are passed on while the truth is suppressed and in the end those in need, the patients, suffer for lack of proper medication.

It's been years since anyone who knows and followed the development of real true medicinal marijuana has believed that the higher the THC percentage is and the lower the CBD percentage is the greater the medicinal value there is to be found. That is a 'Medical Marijuana Dark Ages' belief. It's the medical marijuana equivalent to treating people by putting leaches on them to suck blood out of them because the belief is the illness is caused by the person having to much blood in them.

If you want to help those who are in dire need of medical help forget what you think is correct and research and learn and then begin to produce real true medical marijuana rather than recreational strains sold under the guise of being medical strains. They do not treat or cure illnesses or injuries. They only mask the symptoms so the patients don't care about their medical problems because they're flying high.

 

[labexperiment]

Some one suggested to me that I put my plants on 16/16 because they are in a greenhouse.
Thought there could be some gettin at nite so I fixed the canopy and realized what 16 and 16 would require.
Any thoughts guys ....

I am sure it was a typo.

 

[Perfect Sun LED]

Brick top, I never said I put a low value on CBD. I only said that at dispensaries, most all strains have low CBDs. .1 usually. A few have 2.2, and a few rare ones have 6-12% like Ak-48, but I wonder how accurate those are.

I think a lot of science is pretty accurate, like physics. When lab results show steady predictable numbers, I will take such studies of diminished light more seriously.

I also never said for people to trust me. They should do their own experiments, as I will continue to do mine. It's not like I have given up on diminished light. I will run tests again.

Once I have grown my new strains enough to be able to predict the weight I will get from them in my grow room, then I will try diminished light again to see if quality or weight increases. But, the ultimate test for me is my patience. If the majority of them don't notice a difference then all I care about is if it increases yield.

Honestly, no lab results or scientific data matters when it comes to quality if the majority of people don't think it helps them more.

It would be like if scientists could prove that raw coco gives you more energy than caffeine, yet the majority of people experience more energy on caffeine. At that point, who cares what science says. Caffeine wins in the eyes of the people.

 

[Brick Top]

Brick top, I never said I put a low value on CBD. I only said that at dispensaries, most all strains have low CBDs. .1 usually. A few have 2.2, and a few rare ones have 6-12% like Ak-48, but I wonder how accurate those are.

I think a lot of science is pretty accurate, like physics. When lab results show steady predictable numbers, I will take such studies of diminished light more seriously.

I also never said for people to trust me. They should do their own experiments, as I will continue to do mine. It's not like I have given up on diminished light. I will run tests again.

Once I have grown my new strains enough to be able to predict the weight I will get from them in my grow room, then I will try diminished light again to see if quality or weight increases. But, the ultimate test for me is my patience. If the majority of them don't notice a difference then all I care about is if it increases yield.

Honestly, no lab results or scientific data matters when it comes to quality if the majority of people don't think it helps them more.

It would be like if scientists could prove that raw coco gives you more energy than caffeine, yet the majority of people experience more energy on caffeine. At that point, who cares what science says. Caffeine wins in the eyes of the people.

You clearly put a great deal of value on high pointing out the high's and averages of the strains you are familiar with. High THC can only come by sacrificing CBD since they both come from the same precursor element. That clearly shows that, to you, high THC percentages are important and also equate to better medications. And since that only comes at the cost of low CBD that also shows the level of importance you put on CBD is as low as the percentage of CBD in the strains you mentioned having on average .1% CBD. You also emphasized your belief that high percentages of THC are important when you mentioned relying on patient feedback and if they stated a strain was weak or not. Even though you did not directly say it you clearly showed that you believe the higher the percentage of THC the better medication it is, even though that means the cannabinoid proven to have the greatest amount of medicinal value, that being CBD, is nearly nonexistent in the strains you believe to be the best medicinal strains.

As for the average percentage of THC and or CBD that strains dispensaries handle, there are now what, 23 stated plus the District of Columbia that have legal medical marijuana? Do you deal with every dispensary in the U.S. and are familiar with their entire inventory? I don't know an exact count but in 2013 there were slightly more than 2,000 medical marijuana dispensaries in the U.S. Do you actually know the THC and CBD averages for the inventories of roughly 2,000 dispensaries in 23 States plus the District of Colombia? You made a blanket statement as if you do know when you said " I only said that at dispensaries, most all strains have low CBDs."

I have followed the research, development and advancement of medicinal marijuana closely for years and I could not make such a statement, or an opposite statement or one somewhere in between and feel confident I was being accurate or even close to being accurate. What can you cite that will support your broad all encompassing statement "that at dispensaries, most all strains have low CBDs?"

When it comes to people "experimenting" that is a typical statement of a true puppy when it comes to knowledge about the complexities of the many different cannabinoids, terpenoids and phenolics, their different individual values and how they interact and in what ways when in different percentages and what all that means when it comes to medications that either currently exist, are currently being worked on and what will be found in the future. It is every bit as complex as pharmaceuticals and would you tell people to buy a home chemistry set and begin making concoctions and "experiment" at finding medications for themselves or others and expect anyone would strictly by chance succeed?

Home experimentation to attempt to create true medicinal marijuana is as unlikely as someone shooting at a bullet that has already been fired and shooting it out of the air while riding a horse. The odds against any true success and advancement are astronomical. The education that is needed and the knowledge that is needed and the equipment that is needed and the large number of not only different strains but also different phenotypes of different strains is as far beyond the average grower as you are away from galactic central point.

This is why after having been a member of almost every grow site that has existed, including several that were by invitation only, and having been a mod three times and an admin once this will only be my 48th post here even though I joined in 2011, three years ago, back about when you said you began growing. I became overwhelmed and fed up with people who just because they reached a point where they could grow plants decent or better believing that bestowed upon them all the knowledge that exists about cannabis, both recreational and medicinal. There is no trick or secrets to being able to grow a plant, cannabis plants or otherwise. There are untold numbers of people who are fantastic houseplant growers that could be equally successful if they grew cannabis plants too. But it doesn't make them botanists or horticulturalists with degrees. It does not make them PhD's. It does not make then scientific researchers. It does not make then experts in DNA. It does not make them experts in chemical analysis or the combining of chemical elements, which cannabinoids, terpenoids and phenolics all are even though they are natural ones that comes from plants.

The dream, the fantasy that someone in their home grow room or closet or grow tent will stumble upon a treatment or a cure for some disease or diseases is just that, a dream, a fantasy and nothing more.

Over the many years of growing and being part of different grow sites I have exchanged many messages and PM's and even telephone calls with several very famous very successful breeders of recreational strains, and some have since moved on to work on medicinal strains. The stories they have told me about beginning with hundred of plants of each strain they were going to use to make a cross and the long drawn out, as in years sometimes, process of crossing every make with every female in every possible combination and then after checking their results slowly weeding out the individual plants that did not pass on what was hoped for or resulted in lack of vigor or whatever failure it would be until they finally narrowed it down to the individual plants that were then used, and in a couple cases created Cup winning strains, takes a large area and vast numbers of plants and a great deal of time and expense and effort and knowledge and experience far beyond that of the typical home grower and having access to test facilities or working with research groups and keeping up on all the latest research findings makes what you advocate, home experimentation, something far beyond the abilities and capabilities of the very people you say should keep experimenting.

Most have no idea of what has been behind the breeding of many of the top recreational strains, what it took to create them, and they are easier to create than true top notch medicinal strains.

You like analogies using things like whiskey and vodka and raw coco and caffeine, and even throw in an "if" to boot but those are red herring arguments used to attempt to diminish and devalue the importance and successes of scientific research.

You said "It would be like if scientists could prove that raw coco gives you more energy than caffeine, yet the majority of people experience more energy on caffeine. At that point, who cares what science says. Caffeine wins in the eyes of the people.

OK, so "in the eyes of the people" caffeine would win. But would that disprove the proven scientific findings about your what if scenario using raw coco? No. The scientific findings would still remain accurate. They would only be rejected by people who chose to reject them and who prefer to believe what they want to be reality rather than accepting reality. What is "in the eyes of the people" does not create or alter reality.

You are one who rejects reality and prefers to put their faith in pure personal opinion and unprovable beliefs. That is the sort of person who holds back the advancement of true medicinal strains and byproducts of true medicinal strains by filling people's heads with fairly tales and myths and fantasies.

For the life of me I do not know why I bothered to get involved in this. This is a perfect example of why several years back I dropped off the radar, that I left every grow site I was a member of or part of it's team and stayed away from them until just recently checking in here. It's like Yogi Berra said, "It's just like déjà vu all over again." The exact same questions are asked and the exact same answers are given and the exact same claims are made. The only difference is they are all written by different people. But what has remained the same is most could not be more incorrect if they tried their very hardest to be.

I had hopes that reality would have finally made it's way to sites like this but clearly it hasn't. So I've said my peace and by all means go on and continue to write whatever you desire and fill others heads with fantasies and myths and misconceptions and broad blanket claims that cannot be supported and complete inaccuracies and half-truths and urban legends and even old hippie folklore if you want.

Years ago I decided I would stop trying to teach those who had no interest whatsoever in learning because their narcissism drove them to believe they know it all, all because they reached a point where they had just enough grows under their belts to be able to do well and suffer from a deep powerful need to believe that equates to them knowing all there is and all they will ever need to know and, in their minds, makes them right when they tell someone else who knows they are wrong that they are not wrong and the one who actually knows the truth and the facts is the one who is wrong.

So from here on out, the stage is all yours. I'm finished. I don't need aggravation that comes from dealing with puppies who desperately need to believe themselves to be big dogs and to hope that they can make them look knowledgeable and experienced and Kool and the Gang to all the other members.

As "Kelly Bundy" from "Married With Children" so intelligently and so eloquently put it ....... "Adidas."

 

[Perfect Sun LED]

No offense, but I don't care about professors that teach botany. I care about practical experience. This is true for most everything in the world. For example, I'm an art instructor. If a professor wanted me to hire him to help teach my courses, yet he couldn't teach well, I wouldn't hire him. His Ph.D is meaningless if he cannot teach art well.

A dispensary doesn't care if the grower holds a Ph.D in botany or anything. They care if the weed they grow is of high quality, either high THC or high CBD.

I personally grow very stony strains that knock patients on their ass. They are who I help. However, a local dispensary wants me to try a high CBD strain as a lot of the older patients are buying the crap out of them, like AK-48. One strain of AK-48 in there had CBD of 12%, but who knows how high or low it really was as the lab test results haven't shown to be reliable.

I can understand why you think I was speaking for all dispensaries, but I wasn't. I am only speaking for several local dispensaries within a 200 mile radius, which is over 20 dispensaries. High CBD strains are way out numbered by high THC strains. However, I am seeing more and more high CBD strains. Also, I am seeing some strains with 25% THC and 2.2 CBD, etc.

I just don't put much faith in lab results right now because I've seen my strains of 25% THC and .1 CBD help patients nausea and or back pain more than the 12% CBD strain. I think everyone reacts differently. I also think the lab results aren't very accurate.

I will let you know the results I get from the same strain when I have it tested at two or three different labs. I predict I will get different readings.