Brick Top
New Member
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