Increased dark period for better yields?

[Governmentchz]

Yes, a 30% increase in potency would be ~4-5% overall relative to what your actual percentages are. Still noteworthy though. I've done 24 hr dark periods with no noticeable difference, but it certainly wasn't worse, so why not give it a shot?

 

[Brick Top]

Yes, a 30% increase in potency would be ~4-5% overall relative to what your actual percentages are. Still noteworthy though. I've done 24 hr dark periods with no noticeable difference, but it certainly wasn't worse, so why not give it a shot?

The theory behind it is sort of a way to fool the plant in a way that is sort of how Mother Nature affects plant growth and THCA/THC production when grown outdoors.

During daylight hours plants have maximum photosynthesis to rely on but they also 'multitask' and allocate what 'energy' they have to many different functions. During the daylight hours some THCA/THC is degraded by damaging sun rays, it protects the delicate inner glands of the THCA/THC producing trichome heads. During hours of darkness plants operate on 'battery backup' anc cutback on most functions and allocate most of their 'energy' to growth and to replacing lost THCA/THC. More is produced each night than is lost during the day so there is a slow but ever increasing level until it reaches it's genetic limit and end of it's life cycle.

Outdoors as the growing season ends in most locations around the world the hours of daylight shorten, the sun angle changes, it gets lower causing the light rays to travel through a greater distance of atmosphere and the more atmosphere the light rays travel through the more of the damaging rays are filtered out. Combine that with the longer periods of darkness and the production of THCA/THC increases and builds up at a more rapid rate.

So the idea behind the 72 hours is to try to fool or force the plant into doing more or less the same thing in a reduced or condensed period of time, which is 72 hours and about all the longer a plant will continue to perform it's functions without light and without light it is only performing it's hours of darkness functions, part of which is resin/THCA/THC production but without light there is no degradation, no hours of daylight loss occurring so there is only a gain, there is only an increase.

Not all strains respond as well as others but it does occur to some degree or another. Many people have tried differing lengths of time for hours of darkness, most shorter periods of time than 72 hours, like 24 or 36 hours, and while there could very well have been some increase it would not be enough for someone to tell just toking so they assume a period of darkness does not do as it is claimed to do, but the levels of increase they might have had would be so small it would take laboratory testing to show it, and a control group not put in darkness that would also need to be tested to compare to for any increase to be verified.

But with so many people having tried shorter periods of darkness and or tried some length of time of period of darkness with strains that do not respond much to it many have come to believe the period of darkness as a waste of time, as something that does not work rather than accept they did not do it for a long enough period of time or were just growing a strain or strains that do not respond as well to the period of darkness and did not seem to their physical senses as having improved at all, even when they lacked a control group to compare it to even if only relying on their physical senses and nothing more to determine if there was any increase.

 

[Governmentchz]

What a well thought out post and explanation. Thanks for that. I will try a 3 day dark period next grow.

 

[Brick Top]

What a well thought out post and explanation. Thanks for that. I will try a 3 day dark period next grow.

Thank you. Even though I did start toking way back in 1968 I still manage to have occasional moments of clarity, or at least partial clarity.

 

[Governmentchz]

I was 6 in '68...lol. I didn't toke then, but I knew what it smelled like though I didn't know what it was

 

[Srilania]

I don't know about 3 days, but there's some info I've read that says you should harvest under darkness or under green light only conditions, to harvest while the plant's asleep.

 

[Brick Top]

I don't know about 3 days, but there's some info I've read that says you should harvest under darkness or under green light only conditions, to harvest while the plant's asleep.

It has been scientifically proven that a 72-hour period of darkness will increase levels of THCA/THC by up to 30% in some strains and that has the same basis in fact as harvesting while dark or if growing outdoors to harvest at first light or to turn off grow lights, manually so they do not come on, after the last period of light before you harvest and.

In the case of harvesting you are doing it before there can be any THCA/THC loss to the damaging rays of the light of the sun or from indoor lighting, though it is far, far less indoors because of the lack of UVB rays the sun puts out that grow lights hardly if all put out.

It's a way to maintain the highest THCA/THC levels possible which is partially what the 72-hour of darkness thing is about other than it lets the plants continue to produce THCA/THC for another 72-hours, or as long as the chemical energy the plant ha stored lasts and doing it without any loss to any light source that would degrade some portion of what is made. It gives you 72-hours worth of 'night THCA/THC' gains, which is when the most THCA/THC is created, without any of the daytime losses.

 

[Srilania]

Hmm, In the same thread, you have 2 long timers stating that something is scientific fact, but it's diametrically opposite. sounds like a 100% chance of SCIENCE! Though for that, I'll have to find a way to afford the testing. but, I should be able to find long term storage methods for biological samples,, and I can report back on the subjective experience.

 

[Brick Top]

Green bag I like your thinking, it's outside the box. I mean how do you think we got to this point. I'm sure whoever first mentioned turning the light off for the last 2-3 days was bombarded with all kinds of people saying it won't work or giving reasons as to why it shouldn't. Now look at us, half the growers I know use a dark period before harvest. You can't get anywhere by flooding your thoughts as to why it should or should not work because a plant does not think like us. You must use trial and error and record your findings to help further understand the plant.

KeepitSimple light only degrades THC ONCE the plant is harvested. If it was true that light degrades THC while the plant is growing then we wouldn't have such resinous buds Lol

People are still trying to find ways to manipulate plants, although I agree that you can't beat growing under the sun, there are still ways to manipulate the plant while still reaping the benefits. The GLR light cycle for instance, 12 hrs on- 12hrs off for vegetative growth. How is that possible, because you break up the darkness period with an hour of lights on. For instance 12 on,5.5 off,1 on,5.5 off We are manipulating the plant by greatly reducing the light period for vegetative state to save electricity and it has been proven that growth does NOT suffer, in fact it benefits with even faster growth.

My point is that the plant is a crazy thing and their are always ways to improve. Turning your lights off or on 24/7 the last few days isn't gonna magically make your plants better, it's going to let you reach your plants pre-determined genetic potential by growing under the ideal conditions that the PLANT prefers, not it's owner/grower. We've discovered plenty of helpful things already by trial and error, trying to apply human Logic to a plant is like applying it to an animal. Yes we can study it and predict what will happen, and the reactions that are cause by changing variables, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to be able to tell for sure the results without testing it first. So as a reminder don't throw options out the window because it doesn't sounds logical to YOU, because the plants reaction might surprise you. I've even seen cases of people purposely stressing their plants with temps, insect infestations, etc to see the results. Yeah that might sound stupid but THC has been thought to be the plants natural defense mechanism against the suns powerful UV rays and insects so it may not seem so stupid after all

What was said that is bold, underlined and red is inaccurate, it is an assumption, an opinion and nothing more. It has long been known that THCA/THC acts within a trichome head in a similar way to sunscreen and human skin, it blocks the damaging UV rays of the sun, and the minimal UV rays of grow lights, to protect the delicate inner glands of trichome heads. During each period of light a percentage of THCA/THC is degraded by the light and becomes CBN.

This is where you get into the more intricate workings of a cannabis plant. During hours of full light when photosynthesis is capable of producing it's maximum amount of chemical energy the plants multitask, they perform many functions, all requiring chemical energy. Even at maximum levels there is a limit and plants allocate energy to the functions most important during the hours of light.

At night when running on stored energy, on 'battery backup,' most plant functions cease or have their energy allocation cut way back but the creation of cannabinoids, of THCA/THC and also growth are allocated a greater amount of energy than during the day. So if you want to look at it in it's most simple of ways to explain imagine THCA/THC as particles in the trichome head and say when a day begins there are 10 particles. During the day say 4 particles are lost to the damaging rays of the sun and only one is replaced dud to the lesser amount of chemical energy being allocated for THCA/THC production, so there is a net loss of 3 particles leaving 7 particles by day's end. But at night when a greater allocation of chemical energy produced greater amounts of THCA/THC there are 5 more new particles added meaning then there are 12 particles at the start of the next day. The following day 4 particles are lost, one is replaced and the net total is then 9 particles, but then add 5 more that night and you are up to 14 particles. Subtract 4 again the next day but add one back and you're at 11 particles and then add the 5 more nighttime created particles and so on and so on and so on until harvest.

What you have is a constant day/night loss and gain, loss and gain but always with a slow but steady always increasing, until genetic limits or poor setup intervene, increase of THCA/THC until harvest. The level is constantly rising and falling, a roller coaster ride up and down level of THCA/THC and not a slow but steady constant increase without any loss during the flowering stage of growth until harvest.

When given 72-hours of darkness prior to harvest the plants operate for about as long as they have stored chemical energy to continue to perform their function and they are only performing their period of dark functions, their night functions, and that is when most THCA/THC is produced and it is happening without the daily loss caused by damaging light rays the THCA/THC is produced for in the first place, to protect the delicate inner glands, the cannabinoid and terpenoid and phenol factories, in the head of trichomes.

Cannabis plants do not produce THC so we can smoke the plants. It is part of the natural plant survival system. The glands produce insecticides and odors and flavors that keep plant eating animals from eating them. That is why seedlings are so often eaten but not larger plants, the seedlings are not yet capable of producing the protective agents, but the larger and adult plants are. And they can be produced because the glands in the trichome heads survive the sun rays that would otherwise destroy them, kill them, stop them from functioning and it's the natual 'sunscreen,' the THCA/THC that performs that function. That is why it is produced.

The plants singular reason to exist is to produce seeds and perpetuate the plant species and to do that it has to be able to survive until it can make and drop seeds and we are just lucky enough that some if the functions involved in it's self defense system get us high or stoned when we smoke them. It is a lucky secondary usage for us but it is not the plants reason to create the chemical elements we call cannabinoids and terpenoids and phenols. It does it to survive.

In a very simplistic way to compare it maple trees do not create their sap for Mrs. Butterworth or Old Log Cabin maple syrup but that doesn't stop us from tapping the trees and use it to make something yummy to pour over pancakes and waffles and french toast. We found a secondary use for something, something the trees use for a totally different reason and do not have any intentions to create just for us to put on pancakes and waffles and french toast. It's in a way similar to cannabis plants and how they create elements to server specific purposes for them to live and do all they do and us finding a secondary usage for the same elements and make good usage of them.

But in the end lacking a knowledge of how cannabis plants actually function is why there are so many inaccurate guesses made that become opinions than then lead to many becoming believed to be facts. Like there is no loss of THCA/THC while the plant is loving and only after it is harvested would or could such a loss occur.

OK, do you want maximum potency? Add UVB lighting to your lighting setup. Do people think it is just coincidental that the most potent strains that Mother Nature ever created came from areas with the highest levels of UVB light rays? Equatorial, tropical and high altitude natural pure strains are where the most potent Mother Nature created strains all came from and what do those areas have that other areas have much less of? UVB light rays.

It ties in with the simple explanation of the daily/nightly loss and gain of THCA/THC 'particles' used above. The more lost during the day the greater the amount not only replaced but added during the night equating to a greater/larger net gain. Equatorial, tropical and high altitude regions have less atmosphere for light rays to travel through so less UV light rays are filtered out and more strike plants and will make their way to plants in other areas of lower UV light ray regions.

"The Earth's atmosphere filters UVB light. There is more UVB light at high altitudes than at sea level. Also, sunlight at the equator takes the shortest route through the atmosphere. As the latitude increases, sunlight reaches Earth after going through more atmosphere because of its slanted path. Therefore UVB at the equator is much more intense than in temperate zones. That's one reason people tan or burn so fast in the tropics, and why skin cancer rates are higher in southern than northern states.

A researcher conducted a controlled experiment in a greenhouse. He lit a group of high potency plants similarly except with the addition of UVB light to some groups. He found that the percentage of THC increased in a direct ratio with the increase in UVB light. This research confirms the adage that high altitude plants are more potent than those grown at low altitudes.

If you look at old-world land races of cannabis, plants that have become adapted to the climate and latitude, the ratio of THC to CBD starts at 100 : 1 at the equator. At the 30th parallel (The Hindu-Kush Valley) the plants have a ratio of 50 : 50. At the 45th parallel the ratio is near 1 : 100. This corresponds roughly with the amount of UVB light received at these latitudes. There is much more UVB at the equator than the 45th parallel.

How can you get more UVB light to your plants? Certainly it's true that MH lamps emit more UVB light than HPS lamps. Still the amount that MH lamps emit is small. In fact, many manufacturers use UVB shielding glass to filter out most of the UVB that's produced. The UVB light the plant receives from an MH lamp does increase the plant's potency slightly at the cost of yield, but there are better ways to introduce UVB light into the grow room. They include reptile lights, which emit about 10% UVB, and tanning lamps.

The problem with using these lamps is that they are associated with increased number of cancers and many other problems. They should not be on when you are in the grow room. Not much research has been conducted on using them to produce higher THC values. I will do a full report in a future issue."

Ed Rosenthal

Find high quality reptile lights and add them to your lighting setup and you will grow much more potent cannabis. With the low UVB lighting most growers give their plants they do not give their plants any chance to reach their genetic limits in THCA/THC production.

 

[Srilania]

except I keep digging, and noone seems to agree on if it works or not. With all this anecdotal evidence, and so far not many serious researching has happened yet, due to lack of funding. the closest I've seen to a serious research into this was a paper from David W Pate, at the International Hemp Association over in the Netherlands. He Cites a lot of other papers, but I've not been able to look at the other papers yet. He points out that it's survival reactions to stresses, usually from damage. A lot of the rest of it seems to be anecdotal otherwise, and might even be species specific as to effectiveness. I'll have to test this, and hold some samples for lab testing. though how to preserve for long term till funds can be arranged for testing.

 

[Brick Top]

except I keep digging, and noone seems to agree on if it works or not. With all this anecdotal evidence, and so far not many serious researching has happened yet, due to lack of funding. the closest I've seen to a serious research into this was a paper from David W Pate, at the International Hemp Association over in the Netherlands. He Cites a lot of other papers, but I've not been able to look at the other papers yet. He points out that it's survival reactions to stresses, usually from damage. A lot of the rest of it seems to be anecdotal otherwise, and might even be species specific as to effectiveness. I'll have to test this, and hold some samples for lab testing. though how to preserve for long term till funds can be arranged for testing.

The thing about relying on Pate's work is for example his book The Phytochemical Ecology of Cannabis, it was published in 1979. It was information he researched in the 70's and he cited information from the 60's and 50's and 40's. More has been learned in the last five to ten years than in the twenty0 or thirty-five or fifty years prior to that. When Pate was publishing most of his works they didn't even know how many cannabinoids existed. The chain of chemical elements that eventually worked it's way to things like THCA and CBDA and CBNA and then to THC and CBD and CBN was different. Back then it was believed they came from different elements and in a different order. At one time it was written that THC came from CBD.

Just because something has been written doesn't mean it turned out to be accurate. Often times decades later more advanced research was performed and what was believed to be true turned out to be incorrect and those old incorrect bits of information keep popping up and being used today as evidence or proof of something or another and it confuses things.

I know Pate write a paper in 1994, Chemical ecology of Cannabis, but that's still twenty years old information.

Just think about it a moment. What is the singular reason a cannabis plant exists, male or female? To perpetuate the plant species. If a female is damaged or stressed and there is a hormone release it would be to put it's energy into finishing it's production of seeds. That would be it's priority goal, not produce more cannabinoids, terpenoids, phenols etc. In a female plant that was not pollinated it might induce increased calyx production because it's within the calyx seeds are formed. Each individual calyx is the actual flower of a female plant and as you know they grow in bunches that ford buds or flower tops or whatever someone wants to call them that most consider to be the plant's flower, the group, the whole and not each individual calyx. So it would make sense for a female to produce more of those to try to produce more seeds even if it wasn't pollinated.

Survival of the plant species is deeply coded into a plant's genetics, much more than most people think, and there are more types of stresses that will cause a plant that hasn't been pollinated to turn than most people think.

I read a very interesting study where a pure strain on a geographically isolated island somewhere in the Pacific was studied. A group of plants on a high hill, a location where no other plants were found anywhere close, had all the males removed. Roughly one third of the group of all female plants turned and the interesting part is the wind that hit the island and in particular that hill, predominantly came from one direction and the roughly third of the group that turned were the plants hit first by the wind. Those farthest from the wind didn't turn but were pollinated by the ones closest to the wind, those the wind would hit first or soonest, that did turn.

The exact cause was not fully conclusive but in simple language the plants hit a stage where if not pollinated soon they would not love long enough to produce seeds and the plants that if they turned would have their pollen blow through the rest of the females rather than the females who would have pollen blown out to sea, were the ones that for some reason turned and pollinated the larger number of plants that did not turn.

The point of that is the 'survival instinct' in plants is to produce seeds, not cannabinoids, terpenoids or phenols or anything else. That is in part why there is such a large increase in bud size late in an all female crop, to produce more calyxs for seeds, to increase the odds of pollination and a chance to perform the plants singular function to exist, to perpetuate the plant species by producing seeds. If there is not something to trigger a hormonal release causing a plant or plants to turn than the calyx increase, to a plant, would be in vain, a, fruitless effort.

In the case of the plants on the island it was believed that the nearly incessant winds were enough to trigger the hormone release to cause plants to change once the non-pollinated plants reached a stage where their genetics told them no seeds were being made and we need some 'trigger pulled' to cause a hormonal release so some turn, and that came from how the plants that did turn were the ones that were among those first to be hit by the wind, to be hit the hardest and that would then send their pollen through the plants downwind and why the plants downwind did not also turn and instead became pollinated.

Stresses should not cause a plant to increase it's cannabinoid or terpenoid or phenol production since they would not be as high of a priority as producing seeds would be to a stressed plant.

Some will argue that a damaged plant would increase the production of cannabinoids, terpenes and phenols since they are all part of it's defenses and if it 'wanted or hoped' to survive long enough to produce seeds those would be needed so the production of them would be increased. But a damaged plant would be short of resources or abilities or capabilities, would not be able to fully function, not to be able to 'run at full capacity' so again consider it's priority, it's one and only reason to exist, and that priority would be increased and more plant functions would go to achieving that, or at least attempting to achieve that, than to do anything else.

This may seem like a lot of extraneous information but roughly twelve years ago I got a new neighbor. He was an M.I.T. graduate and did DNA research at M.I.T. He left there to head a DNA research department at Duke University. He then left here, and Duke, to head a research facility somewhere in Florida. He was Kool and the Gang, he got high and after I let him know what we were smoking was what I grew he gave me passwords to a number of online scientific research databases.

On this or any grow site we will see from time to time abstracts, short summaries of research posted. I had access to the entire studies. If not for a hard drive crash I could flood this or any grow site with LONG entire research studies, the ones we see abstracts for and many more. Thanks to the loss of a drive, and the stored passwords, I lost the downloaded studies and since I cannot locate my ex-neighbor I cannot get the passwords again.

But the amount of research that is going on that is never mentioned on sites like this is stunning. Everything from basic plant functions fo the most intricate chemical analysis of everything cannabis plants produce, what receptors in the brain they work with and do not work with and how different proportions or one or some with or without others will not work or will work totally different or connect and work with different receptors. There are researchers who do nothing but research one single function of a plastid or a vacuole or stipe cells or the the disc cell or the secretory cavity and the membrane between and how when the different chemical elements pass through it what changes they undergo and in each case how and why.

There are researchers of almost every possible field of scientific research researching cannabis. Not just botanists and horticulturalists but taxonomy and toxicology and every type of chemical analysis that exists and many will incorporate into what they do the findings of or do the same things as others in other fields of research to see if and how that alters what they are researching and if so to what degree and if in a positive or negative manner.

When you get a chance to see how much true research has and is taking place and to what extents and degrees and how broad of a range or spectrum it is it's mind boggling.

The amount of research that has occurred and is currently occurring is staggering but almost none of it ever hits these sites because no one either pays or has the credentials needed to be able to access the databases where the studies are posted. The most they can find are a few short abstracts, and those are limited.

One, the study about the 72-hours of darkness before harvesting was literally removed from from all such databases not long after it hit them and it was done by a court order, by decree of a judge and it was all over a lawsuit about non-payment for some portion of the research. So it was decreed that since the research was not paid for the findings could not be published and they were in fact wiped clean and that is why all that can be found of the study is the short mention of The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana and TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden and the 72 hours of darkness study. One or more of those involved was not paid and sued and the result was as I mentioned, a court order to keep the study from being published. That is why it has never leaked out in it's entire form or at least in some form longer than what we see now and then.

So for a lack of real factual information many rely on what they consider research by tinkering and trying various things or rely on old outdated information that has made it to the open Internet.

And being a long in the tooth grower I will admit there was I time I was the same. But after a few decades I realized that when it comes to home experimentation, excluding new higher tech things that did not exist in the past like LED lighting, there is nothing new under the sun and most everything I see or hear that someone 'just came up with the idea for' is something I have seen or heard many times over the decades with at most a new higher tech twist to it, but the basic premise remains the same as does the same goal that was not achieved in the past and won't be now just because someone has something newer and higher tech to use to do the same basic thing. They are trying to reinvent the wheel and don't know that like those before their wheel will turn out square instead of round and it won't roll.

Example of there being nothing new under the sun. Hardly anyone who isn't brand new to growing has heard of Hempy Buckets. Hempy likes to brag how he created them, but he has also said how he started growing in, if I remember what he told me correctly, it was either 1988 or 1989. In the late 60's and in the 70's I knew people that used the same growing method but the Internet didn't exist so word of the growing method couldn't spread worldwide and instead was known only by a few who might then share the knowledge with someone else and then someone else but in total there was still only a small number of people who knew about it.

Later once the word about things could spread around the world it was as if all those things were new and the first one or ones to mention them and who said they had used the system for a while now, or claimed to have invented it, got credit for it.

But the same things were done a decade or two decades and maybe another decade or two or more earlier by someone. And in some cases I still see someone who 'just had a great idea and is going to give it a try' and people say 'wow, great idea' ..... just like the friends of the grower who first tried it in 1961 said or in 1968 said or in 1973 said, etc.

Every generation thinks they invented sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, well now I'll just make rock-n-roll music. And each generation of new growers think they are the first to come up with some new great idea. But in realty in both cases they are wrong. That is why I scoff so much at home experimentation. When you have seen or heard of the same 'great new idea' or a 'thought or claimed to be new but only modernized version of some failed old idea' or another 'retread failed old idea' drug back out as many times as I have it's like the little boy that cried wolf. Especially once you have had a chance to peek behind the curtain and see the real research that has taken place and up until I lost my access was taking place and can only imagine how much farther it has gone since. And without it what goes on is all "just like déjà vu all over again" to me. (Thank you Yogi Berra for the funny quote.)

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Governmentchz]

Good thread. No doubt as the next 12-24 months progress, the rate of discovery regarding the cannabis plant will continue to increase exponentially if for no other reason than the ability, finally, to be able to do legitimate research with the aid of modern technology.

The modern world, it would seem, is more inclined to base belief in truth and science; however, where the cannabis plant is concerned we still are just gaining the ability expand the research that has been done heretofore primarily by Israel and a few other rogue scientists willing to assume the risk of such research.

I have a UVB reptile light I dabbled with only a bit. Nothing that I would remotely say was definitive nor scientific in it's application. I've also done 24 hr dark periods for my last 2 grows, and since there were no negative indicators, I will do a 48 dark period for my next grow once it gets to that point (unless research brings resolution to this debate beforehand...lol), but in a scientific experiment, the parameters would have to be more consistent than I've provided. I make slight adjustments and changes to every grow and make my own conclusions, then try to modify one or two aspects for the next round and so on. Too many to accurately say exactly what might have contributed to whatever characteristics I'm observing, but enough to make some qualitative observations. When things have historically been described as "harsh", "hashy", "spacy", etc, it's important to start to change some of that nomenclature to apply quantitative terms with common denominators.

ffs, I'm "buzzed" and rambling...lol

 

[Brick Top]

Good thread. No doubt as the next 12-24 months progress, the rate of discovery regarding the cannabis plant will continue to increase exponentially if for no other reason than the ability, finally, to be able to do legitimate research with the aid of modern technology.

The modern world, it would seem, is more inclined to base belief in truth and science; however, where the cannabis plant is concerned we still are just gaining the ability expand the research that has been done heretofore primarily by Israel and a few other rogue scientists willing to assume the risk of such research.

I have a UVB reptile light I dabbled with only a bit. Nothing that I would remotely say was definitive nor scientific in it's application. I've also done 24 hr dark periods for my last 2 grows, and since there were no negative indicators, I will do a 48 dark period for my next grow once it gets to that point (unless research brings resolution to this debate beforehand...lol), but in a scientific experiment, the parameters would have to be more consistent than I've provided. I make slight adjustments and changes to every grow and make my own conclusions, then try to modify one or two aspects for the next round and so on. Too many to accurately say exactly what might have contributed to whatever characteristics I'm observing, but enough to make some qualitative observations. When things have historically been described as "harsh", "hashy", "spacy", etc, it's important to start to change some of that nomenclature to apply quantitative terms with common denominators.

ffs, I'm "buzzed" and rambling...lol

When you said "I've also done 24 hr dark periods for my last 2 grows, and since there were no negative indicators, I will do a 48 dark period for my next grow once it gets to that point (unless research brings resolution to this debate beforehand...lol), but in a scientific experiment, the parameters would have to be more consistent than I've provided." ... that was a key point to my problem with home experimentation and the claimed accuracy of what the believed results are and then the claims that follow of some method or process or whatever working or not working.


Example: Three growers by chance have as close to equal environmental growing conditions as could possibly exist in three different home grows. All three grow plants from clones all taken from the same mother, one shared clones with the other two so genetics are exactly the same. They all use the same nutrients and use them the same way in the same ratio mixtures, but one believes in the 'keep it green until harvest' growing method and one believes in flushing and the other believes in removing fan leaves so they are not 'wasting energy buds could otherwise use and not blocking light keeping buds from growing larger.'

All three then put their plants into 72-hours of darkness and again by chance the environmental conditions are almost as exactly the same as could be created lacking a high tech climate controlled area. The same goes for the drying process and environment, all three like the closest to exact same triplets there have ever been.

All three have their buds tested by the same lab, and it's one that is well known for extreme accuracy and consistency of results if something is tested multiple times.

The results will be three differing results. Three different degrees of success, that is as long as in this scenario the strain used is one that responds well to the 72-hours of darkness process before harvesting.

Why? The plants of the one that grows 'keep it green until harvest' will have 'full bellies.' Their storage vacuoles will be full of nutrients, enzymes, sugars, proteins, etc. The plants will have as much of everything they need to keep performing their 'period of darkness duties.' They won't 'run out of gas' before the 72-hours is up and just sit there. Their test results will show the greatest increase.

The one that flushes will have some empty vacuoles and some partially empty vacuoles. The plants won't have as much of what is needed to continue doing what the the reason for giving them 72-hours of darkness is intended to do. There will likely be some increase, but definitely less than the the 'keep it green' grower's results.

The grower who removed the fan leaves will see the least, if any, increase since the majority of it's storage vacuoles were removed so 'more light could get to buds so they would grow larger and growth energy wouldn't be wasted on leaves.' The plants will have next to nothing to tap into to try to keep producing cannabinoids.

So what will each grower then say about if the 72-hour period of darkness process works and if it works well enough to be worth doing it? One will likely say it's fantastic, it's the only way to go. Another will likely say it did a little but I'm not sure it's worth the time. The third will likely say it did nothing or next to nothing and not at all worth doing.

There is an example of how and why we can see messages from people who claim the 72-hours of darkness is the greatest thing since sliced bread and others say it's so-so and others say it doesn't do squat.

Example two: Two growers who again have the same genetics from the same mother, as close to the same growing conditions, nutrients, etc., etc. etc. and lets say neither are a 'keep it green' grower but neither are 'flushe's' or 'fan leaf cutters.' They grow the very same. The conditions in the area for 72-hours of darkness are again as close to being the same as possible in two different homes.

But one waters the plants just before or shortly before the 72-hour of darkness period begins and the other thinks ..... gee .. 72-hours of darkness, lots of moisture, ...... I don't want to risk mold .... so they let their soil dry out before beginning the 72-hours of darkness.

Again we will see two different results when equally high quality to the first example testing is performed.

Why? In one set of plants, those allowed to dry out before the 72-hours of darkness begins, the endosomes, the primary intracellular sorting organelles that regulate the trafficking of proteins and lipids among other subcellular compartments of the secretory and endocytic pathway can't function fully due to lack of moisture and also pressure imbalances and or low pressure. There is an inadequate, out of balance lack pf pressure that moves the various elements up and down through the plants (depending on if they're elements that can move both up and down or just upward, as in mobile or immobile elements) via the xylem and the phloem, the translocation process of needed elements stored in vacuoles cannot occur or is greatly reduced. Cell walls of storage vacuoles are collapsing and pathways are shrinking. Large substances such as proteins, some amino acids, and poly saccharides are transported into and out of plant cells by vesicle-mediated transport the same as are glucose, glycogen, and some amino acids. But it can't happen or can't happen efficiently and fully due to the various types of pressure regulated systems in the plants being low and not in balance.

The other set of plants doesn't have the same problems to deal with.

Which of the two sets of plants will be best able to translocate the various elements that are needed for the trichomes to get the elements they need to either continue to produce what they produce or at least to be able to do it to their maximum potential?

OK, so now we again have one grower telling their results and another grower telling their results and once again they are conflicting results. How will people on sites like this know what to believe?

So we have another case of home experimentation creating confusion and uncertainty rather than actually proving anything whatsoever.

There are so many different ways and methods of growing used and so many varying 'practices' that what might work spectacularly when plants are grown using one certain method but not work nearly as well or not at all when grown using another method, and the same with different 'practices' performed that can alter final results.

Even if the most famous most knowledgeable most experienced most respected researchers in the world using the highest tech, latest and greatest research facility proved, using the growing method and growing practices they used, that something or another worked wonders to increase potency someone using a very different method of growing or possibly a strain/cross the method/process will not work on and who has different 'practices' would try their best to duplicate the key part of whatever was done that was proven to work and it wouldn't work for them or wouldn't work nearly as well and they would write on sites like this ...... I tried it and it hardly made a difference or ... I tried it and it is a waste of time, it doesn't work.

On sites like this, meaning grow sites in general and not as a comment about this site in particular that could be misconstrued as being a negative one, even on some of the most basic most simple part of growing you can seldom get a strong consensus so how will there ever be one when it is about something high tech, something very involved that takes advanced knowledge and expertise and conditions and setups and systems and equipment and exactness and preciseness of how and when things are done and multiple control groups to compare to that the home grower is incapable of matching and therefore duplicating the results ends up nearly a virtual impossibility?

Take for example the UVB light thing. The most potent highest THCA/THC strains Mother Nature ever produced, the very best that thousands and thousands of years of evolution could produce grew/grow in areas with the highest levels of UVB light rays. Scientific research has been performed where different groups of plants, all of the same genetics, received differing amounts of UVB light. The greater the amount of UVB light a group would get the higher the percentage of THCA/THC was. The increased amount of UVB light directly corresponded to the amount/percentage of THCA/THC the plants produced. More UVB, more THCA/THC and in proportion to the amount of UVB light each group of plants were given.

But on grow sites people say they tried is and it doesn't work or that the difference was minimal and not worth the expense or that it did wonders. Did any who failed to be able to say it did wonders stop to think that n there case the reason it did not do wonders was because of how they did it? Some go cheap and buy low quality UVB lights or ones that do not penetrate enough or not enough of them, to low of wattage or maybe they did something else that was not light related that effected the outcome?

On one hand you have PhD's performing advanced research in highly controlled environments and on the other you have people in their homes growing in computer cases or cabinets or grow tents or closets or unused bathrooms or bedrooms or store rooms or attics or basements or sheds who may have gone to eBay or Amazon to find the best deal on UVB lighting and ended up with junk or not enough lighting to work but don't know it or won't accept or admit it and instead say adding UVB lighting doesn't work or doesn't work well enough to be worth the time and expense.

Which of the two should we believe, the PhD's or the home grower?

We can see the same sort of differing beliefs about LED growing. One grower goes cheap and under buys or buys some cheap Chinese made garbage off Amazon or eBay not worth the cost of the shipping let alone the price of the lighting and do you think they will get equal results to someone who buys the same LED lights that NASA uses? Will they say how wonderful they are or that they were a waste of time, money and seeds/a next to worthless crop, that they are not all they are talked up to being?

There are to many difference, to many variables, to many things that factor in to just accept any home growers assessment of any experimentation they perform, even if it's a positive one. They may attribute some fantastic result to something they did when instead they just got lucky and got a pack of beans or were given clones that were an extraordinarily good phenotype and that is what they 'performed their experiment on' and 'the results of their experiment' WOWED them when the reality is the WOW results were totally due to genetics and they were just lucky their 'bright idea experiment' didn't result in lessening the quality of what they got.

No matter how well we do at assembling a home growing setup the truth is they are all to primitive and to limited to use to compare results with true scientific research and use the home results as evidence or proof of anything and certainly not as proof that true research results are untrue.

 

[Srilania]

Actually? Both the home grower and the PhD have their good and bad points.

PhD Rsearcher has-
Access to extensive knowledge banks that the home grower lacks
Access to much more expensive and accurate tools than a home grower
able to keep extremely rigid and specific set of test parameters.
more theoretical knowledge vs the home grower

The experienced hobbyist/home grower has-
more flexibility than the research scientist
able to try avenues of research the PhD would not consider looking at
more practical knowledge vs the PhD.

In truth, both sides of the coin are needed. There is no reason to dismiss research done by some joe blow, nor is there reason to totally dismiss the PhD either. However, as I stated before, a lot of the research I HAVE been able to at least look at abstracts and conclusions, is sliding down to specialized research avenues, a lot of which is sliding into hard to use practically to impossible for the small grower to utilize efficiently.. Obviously, a large part of these tests the home growers pull aren't controlled well enough to make out the data from noise artifacts in your data.

This is why research by hobbyists and home growers is still needed, as these are broad, less specific shotgun type approaches to research, and might open new avenues of detailed research that can help the PhD to find a new line of detailed research too help. And I do not dismiss the PhD. But, what I've seen makes me a little sad, as there isn't nearly enough research being done on some levels of research we growers really do need.

 

[Brick Top]

Actually? Both the home grower and the PhD have their good and bad points.

PhD Rsearcher has-
Access to extensive knowledge banks that the home grower lacks
Access to much more expensive and accurate tools than a home grower
able to keep extremely rigid and specific set of test parameters.
more theoretical knowledge vs the home grower

The experienced hobbyist/home grower has-
more flexibility than the research scientist
able to try avenues of research the PhD would not consider looking at
more practical knowledge vs the PhD.

In truth, both sides of the coin are needed. There is no reason to dismiss research done by some joe blow, nor is there reason to totally dismiss the PhD either. However, as I stated before, a lot of the research I HAVE been able to at least look at abstracts and conclusions, is sliding down to specialized research avenues, a lot of which is sliding into hard to use practically to impossible for the small grower to utilize efficiently.. Obviously, a large part of these tests the home growers pull aren't controlled well enough to make out the data from noise artifacts in your data.

This is why research by hobbyists and home growers is still needed, as these are broad, less specific shotgun type approaches to research, and might open new avenues of detailed research that can help the PhD to find a new line of detailed research too help. And I do not dismiss the PhD. But, what I've seen makes me a little sad, as there isn't nearly enough research being done on some levels of research we growers really do need.

After more than four decades of growing I don't share your opinion about home growing experimentation having any true value whatsoever but everyone has an equal right to their own beliefs and opinions.

I've just heard to many little boy that cried wolf claims over the decades to put any stock in any of them and seen/read to many people attempt to discredit things that have been proven to be as factual as time and tides, gravity and death and taxes to pay heed to their claims.

But that's just me.

I've hear or read them all and by far my all time favorite is a guy that was absolutely insistent that if your plants were droopy or lacked vigor if you placed a bar of red soap among them they would perk right up and begin to grow well. He posted pictures of him using a bar of red soap for that purpose and swore it worked.

It was amusing but what made it even more amusing was that he was growing seven plants in a pink and white picnic basket that was on top of a pile of books that was on top of a pile of stacked chairs that were on top of a table so he could get his plants up to his lighting, a chandelier with CFL's in it that was surrounded by different pattern colored sheets for reflective material.

By the end of his grow journal one plant had survived. A Charlie Brown Christmas tree looked better than the plant. It looked like a pool cue with a tiny bud and a few leaves on the very top. He insisted that his growing method and the red bar of soap were the reason he has such amazing success.

That was no joke, that was not made up, that is an actual true event. Now it is possible the guy was insane but nevertheless he absolutely insisted what he said was correct, what he was doing was the best way to do it and it gave him results he was proud of.

So everyone, stock up on bars of red soap and your plants will flourish.
I sometimes have the feeling that he is not the only grower out there with 'issues' and who make wild claims.

 

[Srilania]

Well, it is obvious that you have a personal bias against home experimentation, from this and other threads. And granted, a fair number of the home experiments I've seen were very roughshod, with too many variables that could add too much noise to the data. And further, I will also grant you that some of the experiments have been literally so out there that it makes me laugh.

However, that does not negate the home grower's ability to draw up a set of research protocols, and while setting it up, start testing to remove as many variables as possible. SOME of the researches done by home growers looks VERY interesting, but with the lack of sufficient protocols, they just remain such for now.

And yes, I aim to make you eat your words, Brick, that home growers cannot do decent science.

 

[Brick Top]

Well, it is obvious that you have a personal bias against home experimentation, from this and other threads. And granted, a fair number of the home experiments I've seen were very roughshod, with too many variables that could add too much noise to the data. And further, I will also grant you that some of the experiments have been literally so out there that it makes me laugh.

However, that does not negate the home grower's ability to draw up a set of research protocols, and while setting it up, start testing to remove as many variables as possible. SOME of the researches done by home growers looks VERY interesting, but with the lack of sufficient protocols, they just remain such for now.

And yes, I aim to make you eat your words, Brick, that home growers cannot do decent science.

You are more than welcome to attempt to make me eat my words. But to do so you will need to prove it is actual science and that the results are factually verifiable and or verified by a source that is known to be credible.

As I've said over more than four decades of growing I've seen/read/heard about every claim there has ever been made. Many of them I would very much like to believe. But then I would also like to believe in the Easter Bunny, the missile shield and strippers with a heart of gold. But unfortunately for me I am cursed with a mind that forces me to live within the realm of reality and bars of red soap creating plant vigor and damaging plants increases THCA/THC production etc. are beliefs that are true facts only in some miniature clandestine world that exists under the floorboards of someone's bathroom.

 

[Srilania]

And that's why I started a thread on drawing UP protocols, knowing that people FAR more experienced at cultivating cannabis might have some ideas they've always thought trying, but never had the time to really do it. I have one main research line that if it takes off, will literally take me by myself at least a couple of years to slog through the experiment.

 

[Brick Top]

And that's why I started a thread on drawing UP protocols, knowing that people FAR more experienced at cultivating cannabis might have some ideas they've always thought trying, but never had the time to really do it. I have one main research line that if it takes off, will literally take me by myself at least a couple of years to slog through the experiment.

You much have a very advanced research facility. To be able to know what and why things happen within a plant you would have to have a great deal of knowledge, if not a degree, in horticulture. You would need to be able to take fluid samples from various locations of plants on regular schedules, analyze, take tissue samples and analyze those, also analyze cross sections of samples and a great deal more if you were going to actually be able to prove whatever it is you have in mind works and if it works that it was just not an anomaly. Scientific research is not just trying something and if it works it's a success. It involves a complete and entire understanding and explanation as to how and why it worked, why a hormone release was triggered and whatever it triggered made to continue longer or to continue for the normal period of time but do more in the same period of time or why a hormone release was kept from occurring or from occurring for as long or for doing less while continuing for the same or normal length of time. Lacking those sorts of things, and vastly more, it is not true research, it is not true science. It is trial and error with guesswork used to explain either success or failure and that means, regardless of results, nothing has been proven. All there is, is something inexplicable occurred when something or another was attempted.

This is home experimentation. This is how it works.

There is a big hollow in the middle that the common person, the average grower is incapable of accurately and without doubt or question filling in. They can say what they did but they cannot give proof of why what occurred occurred and lacking that there is no true proof something actually worked and that the cause, the reason for the results are not in fact something else, something unknown, something not thought of, something not considered, something far beyond the person's capability to discover or understand or even where to start looking for clues as to the actual function or functions that produced the final results. The home grower can tinker but they can only give you the 'A' and 'Z' of what they did that tells what they did and how it turned out but they cannot fill in the rest of the alphabet and that part is what consists of actual proof. That is the part that makes their conclusions facts and not total guesswork combined with assumption. That part is the irrefutable hows and whys of what occurred. It is the detailed data of each and every step of the way, each action taken and each and every reaction that then occurred as it occurred and as it progressed at what speed and to what degree and how and why it occurred all compiled together.

Lacking that it's a "then a miracle occurs" explanation and that is not true proof of anything. Results alone are not proof. Anomalies can occur. Things far beyond the knowledge and imagination of the person tinkering around can be the cause. But if you have a full and complete research facility where everything can be done in a highly controlled environment and every single thing documented and tested and the test results not only described but explained and in the end the results are what you were shooting for, then you performed actual scientific research. If not the difference in what is done in a home and what is done by professional researchers is like comparing what a kid does in his basement with a beginner chemistry set and the Manhattan Project.

 

[Srilania]

And this is where you don't get the synergies. PhD's are great. They can get in there and tease out every little detail. They can take a super narrow focus, and like a fine tuned sniper rifle, zap the mystery out of existence, and see just what's going on. But, sometimes you don't need a fine razor focus. It can actually be a hindrance, because while they can tease out the mysteries, over here, they can often miss something 100 times more important just a fraction of an inch away from that focus point.

This is why the hobbyist or home grower CAN help. They aren't looking with that narrow focus. They are not limited by their teacher's biases and dogmas, and can often know of resources that a scientist would NEVER think to look at doing. These are your shotguns. Accuracy is for beans, but you're more likely to hit some kind of data.

My point being, the papers I've read abstracts on? They are so specific and narrow focused. Instead, we should see a cooperation between both the home grower, and the PhD. It's not an off the wall idea. A home grower CAN be taught how to collect samples. It's not that different than collecting human body samples.

and then you get ones like this, who actually go out of their way to say "Ok, I'll do what I can, then hand the finer stuff to a lab with PhD's to look at it, and give me the results, and you get this. UVB UVA Study Test Results Increases Medical Marijuana Potency 3-5%: UVB UVA Lighting Study Results Increases Medical Marijuana Potency 3-5%

Now, He sat there, did meticulous research, sent samples into a lab for testing, gathered the data. Lather rinse repeat. For 2 whole years. then, released his results. across several strains, repeatedly. And found reliably what people assumed. And with actual information.