Increased dark period for better yields?

[Brick Top]

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.

So the home grower, years after it had already been discovered, reinvented the wheel. In Marijuana Grower's Handbook: Your Complete Guide for Medical and Personal Marijuana Cultivation published in 2010 said virtually the same thing, and he wasn't the first to discover it or know about it, he just included it in his book. But you are attributing the discovery to a home grower in 2013.

It was well enough known far enough back that there have been threads on grow sites about it going back until at least 2008 if not earlier. On another site this is the first post and then following ones explain it and say what it does and how to use it.

05-07-2008, 01:50 PM #1
Puffin Afatty

Puffin Afatty's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: on a clear day I can see canada
Posts: 2,656
Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty Puffin Afatty

Question UV B to increase THC
Howdy Grow Folks!!!

I have been interested in trying UV B to increase the conversion of thc in the resin heads. Have any of you tried this, and if so, what regimens??

From this site in 2008:

08-03-2008, 04:09 PM #1
Harry Red
Harry Red is offline
Plant & Nug of the Month Winner Harry Red's Avatar

Join Date
Jun 2008
Location
Trichsville
Posts
1,253

UVB Light - What's The Real Story?

Greetings!!

I was watching the video posted here

Cultivation Scientific Data

and found it to be educational and fascinating.

I also found this on the web..

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.
Should I be adding UVB light to my grow room to increase potency? Is anyone here doing it and have you confirmed increased potency? Any suggestions on which light would be the best to get?

Thanks everyone!

Harry


From another site, notice the date of the info, info that I also posted here, it's 2009.

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.

botanyofdesire, Feb 3, 2009
#1

And is "Dutchman Enterprises" a home grower? "Dutchman Enterprises" doesn't sound like a member/user name for a grow site unless it's a business posting to get advertising without paying for it.

Did you Google Dutchman Enterprises and see what comes up just using Dutchman Enterprises?


OK, you can say the older bits of information didn't mention specific strains and THC percentages but they clearly did tell of proof being found about the effects of UV light on THCA/THC production. For it to have made sites like this by 2008 and 2009 the researching must have been before that, but you post a finding from 2013 that says the same thing only with the addition of strain names and tests for each and expect that to be taken as proof that a home grower, that actually appears to be a corporation, discovered something all on their own and were the first to do it?

As for the papers you have said you have read that were to narrow focus, so specific, as you put it, that is what is called proof, it is the tiny details of each little bit of what was done that makes the findings irrefutable. It gives others with the same capabilities to do advanced research a very detailed step by step guideline to then try it for themselves and see if what the others found to be true turned out to work the same for them or not and when it does that is just further proof. Lacking the specifics you don't like it goes back to being a "then a miracle occurs" explanation and that is proof of nothing since there can then be any number of things that could factor in but since nothing is mentioned, no detailed specifics, just generalities, than guesses and assumptions and claims can be used and are used to fill in the blanks.

You said in the information found following the link there were details. Those were anything but scientific details. Where did it say what was triggered by the addition of UV lighting and why adding UV lighting does trigger something and where did it explain why and how the increase occurred?

It didn't give scientific reasons, it was like a typical grow journal found on sites like this but in a condensed form, a summary of a grow journal and nothing more.

The information is true, but it's release date is years after others, like myself, already knew it and preached it and practiced it and for that to happen real scientific research had been performed and made it's way online and then was found and made it's way onto grow sites and it did it years before your example was released.

So if what you posted is supposed to be proof a home grower can perform scientific research than tomorrow if I duplicate the creation of penicillin can I lay claim to the credit for having discovered it like you have given to Dutchman Enterprises for releasing information that others released years before but Dutchman Enterprises released the same information just only in a different form and about a handful of specific strains but nothing scientific included or specific factual reasons why or examples of it occurring in nature that would support why attempting to duplicate the same type of growing environment indoors would be beneficial and reap benefits?

Nope, nothing like that was included. It was nothing more than a rehashing of old real true actual scientific research findings in a new form, one like a condensed grow journal about a handful of specific strains and not about how cannabis plants as a whole react to increased UV light rays and how and why.

That is not science.


Was it you who mentioned David Pate? If so check out a portion of something he wrote ages back. He began his research about UV light and THC production in 1983, as is stated in the section below. That's 31-yeara before Dutchman Enterprises results were released. That was before the Internet. I had only been growing 11-years at the time. But what has been years or decades of scientific research takes a backseat to what Dutchman Enterprises released in 2013? Pates initial findings were not all that accurate but he, and others, already say the connection and began researching it and in time the whole truth was found.

Ultraviolet radiation

Another stress to which plants are subject results from their daily exposure to sunlight. While necessary to sustain photosynthesis, natural light contains biologically destructive ultraviolet radiation. This selective pressure has apparently affected the evolution of certain defenses, among them, a chemical screening functionally analogous to the pigmentation of human skin. A preliminary investigation (Pate 1983) indicated that, in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC. They have also demonstrated the chemical lability of CBD upon exposure to UV-B (Lydon and Teramura 1987), in contrast to the stability of THC and CBC. However, studies by Brenneisen (1984) have shown only a minor difference in UV-B absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed. Two other explanations must now be considered. Even if CBD absorbs on par with THC, in areas of high ambient UV-B, the former compound may be more rapidly degraded. This could lower the availability of CBD present or render it the less energetically efficient compound to produce by the plant. Alternatively, the greater UV-B absorbency of CBC compared to THC and the relative stability of CBC compared to CBD might nominate this compound as the protective screening substance. The presence of large amounts of THC would then have to be explained as merely an accumulated storage compound at the end of the enzyme-mediated cannabinoid pathway. However, further work is required to resolve the fact that Lydon's (1985) experiments did not show a commensurate increase in CBC production with increased UV-B exposure.

This CBC pigmentation hypothesis would imply the development of an alternative to the accepted biochemical pathway from CBG to THC via CBD. Until 1973 (Turner and Hadley 1973), separation of CBD and CBC by gas chromatography was difficult to accomplish, so that many peaks identified as CBD in the preceding literature may in fact have been CBC. Indeed, it has been noted (De Faubert Maunder 1970) and corroborated by GC/MS (Turner and Hadley 1973) that some tropical drug strains of Cannabis do not contain any CBD at all, yet have an abundance of THC. This phenomenon has not been observed for northern temperate varieties of Cannabis. Absence of CBD has led some authors (De Faubert Maunder 1970, Turner and Hadley 1973) to speculate that another biogenetic route to THC is involved. Facts scattered through the literature do indeed indicate a possible alternative. Holley et al. (1975) have shown that Mississippi-grown plants contain a considerable content of CBC, often in excess of the CBD present. In some examples, either CBD or CBC was absent, but in no case were plants devoid of both. Their analysis of material grown in Mexico and Costa Rica served to accentuate this trend. Only one example actually grown in their respective countries revealed the presence of any CBD, although appreciable quantities of CBC were found. The reverse seemed true as well. Seed from Mexican material devoid of CBD was planted in Mississippi and produced plants containing CBD.

Could CBC be involved in an alternate biogenetic route to THC? Yagen and Mechoulam (1969) have synthesized THC (albeit in low yield) directly from CBC. The method used was similar to the acid catalyzed cyclization of CBD to THC (Gaoni and Mechoulam 1966). Reaction by-products included cannabicyclol, delta-8-THC and delta-4,8-iso-THC, all products which have been found in analyses of Cannabis (e.g., Novotny et al. 1976). Finally, radioisotope tracer studies (Shoyama et al. 1975) have uncovered the intriguing fact that radiolabeled CBG fed to a very low THC-producing strain of Cannabis is found as CBD, but when fed to high THC-producing plants, appeared only as CBC and THC. Labeled CBD fed to a Mexican example of these latter plants likewise appeared as THC. Unfortunately, radiolabeled CBC was not fed to their plants, apparently in the belief that CBC branched off the biogenetic pathway at CBD and dead ended. Their research indicated that incorporation of labeled CBG into CBD or CBC was age dependent. Vogelman et al. (1988) likewise report that the developmental stage of seedlings, as well as their exposure to light, affects the occurrence of CBG, CBC or THC in Mexican Cannabis. No CBD was reported.

HempNut, Inc. - Fine zero-THC hempseed foods since 1994. "Omega-3, not THC"

The largest hemp food company offers a hemp foods for sale, information, and many links to producers of hemp foods. Hempseed is high in omega-3 and protein.

www.hempfood.com

 

[A87805959]

Hello everyone, I am a novice, would like to ask a few questions! Daylight 24/0 in the first few weeks after germination about how long I need to change 18/6 and coming after flowering should be how to do it? 48-72 hour dark period needed at what stage of implementation?

 

[baron1]

interesting theory. going to give this a shot

 

[Chunky Stool]

I tried 48 hrs of darkness before the chop and it seems to work well. I don't think it actually increases THC, but I do think it gives the cure a head start by using up stored starches.

 

[bignugz420]

It puts her in survival mode so she will produce more resin to try and stay alive by catching pollen and reproduce. But there is a lot of arguments about this..I.was tought to stress her during last 2 weeks to get as much resin as possible.

Sent from my Robin using 420 Magazine Mobile App

 

[LEDBud]

Botanist say the plants excrete THC in its resins to render bugs ineffective if they approach too close to their valuable seeds / Buds.

But
Assuming the seeds pass threw unscathed , the Buds smell combined with THC's pleasing effect may well be a attractant to passing mammals to ingest and spread its seed

I know it happens , used to grow outdoors the deers seriously love weed and Ive heard of people having Bears eat their crop.

its a feasible Premise anyways but probably wrong .. The botanist know their field well pun intended

 

[BEEEEEF]

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.

I sympathize on the outdated info. There is always so much info out there, regarding fungal biology and mycology as well that's outdated.

10 year old info can be a long time when it comes to these projects.

 

[AnimaSola]

Outdated mycology info, do tell?

 

[BEEEEEF]

Outdated mycology info, do tell?

For instance this marajuana horticulture bible is 12 years old and says LED are useless. They have come a far way since then.

Even more so being somewhat of a mycologist you constantly come across 10yr old posts or more in Google. There has been much that Paul statements has said is outdated info in many of his books as well.

I'm by no means a mycological pro and just started herb, however not a day goes by that I'm not troubleshooting, researching for hours, and working on my hobbies.

 

[BEEEEEF]

Was just watching old school Mario today. "Hey there pizannos" is that how ya spell it?

 

[Proletariat79]

I know this is really old, but it's also painfully wrong. Giving plants 24-48h of darkness immediately before harvest shocks the plant and forces it to use the last of its energy reserves to insulate and protect the flowers, it does this by producing more trichomes which just happens to be exactly what we want.

I did the opposite with my last harvest. I kept the lights on 24/0 for the final week. It's difficult to judge whether yield increased because there are so many other variables, but I can say that it did no harm to the potency at all, I'm smoking the stuff now and it's as good as the best weed I've smoked over the last 20 or so years.

I think that when the lights are on the plants have to be making significantly more THC than is degrading. Once you switch the lights off the plant will fall back on energy reserves and metabolism will slow down and so will THC production.

 

[bruno12345]

I know this is really old, but it's also painfully wrong. Giving plants 24-48h of darkness immediately before harvest shocks the plant and forces it to use the last of its energy reserves to insulate and protect the flowers, it does this by producing more trichomes which just happens to be exactly what we want.

And based on what evidence do you propose that a 48h of darkness can increase cannabinoids? What does say to you that you arent painfully wrong?

Lastest research, proposing 5 different stress conditions, and evaluating thc and cbd content found that none of the 5 stress stimulus produced more cannabinoids.

 

[Diatomacious]

Why is this guy Brick Top's profile unavailable... he some sort of Fed or something?

Oops! We ran into some problems.​

This user's profile is not available.

 

[Diatomacious]

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds!

 

[Verbalist]

Does not increase the yields, but does increase the thricomes on the buds/colas.

It is used just because during the night time the plant produces most of the thricomes.

 

[Skunksta]

Yawn

 

[SinSemillaWhisperer420]

Light deprivation, such as turning the lights on 11 hrs and off 13 hrs for the past week. Even 10 and 14 the last few before your 36 hr dark period. You want to fool the plant into thinking winter is coming early so she protects herself with trichome production.