A pure sativa harvested at 55 days!
That's the holy grail, no?@Graytail posted a link to Caplan's paper here
Exceptionally High FECO Yields
- Thread starter Maritimer
- Start date
That's the holy grail, no?- Thread starter
- #162
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
A pure sativa harvested at 55 days! That's the holy grail, no?
Ahoy Shed,
I have my doubts to the legitimacy of the breeders claim. The fan leaves were huge and fat as any hybrid I have ever grown. I take some pretty detailed notes on stalk diameter and apical topping heights as well as branchial structure and all, but really at the end of the day my harvest is based on trike inspection results.
She is older than her flower days indicate if this matters. I grow slow.
April 1st 2019
Waterboarding 5 Forest dream seeds
April 4th 2019
All 5 have popped and are under 56W full spectrum led in dixies
April 15th 2019
Transplant to coffee cans under 315W full spectrum led.
This ends two weeks of pre-veg and begins hard veg
May 4th 2019
Transplant to 5 gal. Plants under 600WHPS
May 13th 2019
Plants completed 4 weeks hard veg now
May 13th to 19th 2019
Calling it pre-flower I took 7 days to gradually flip the lights to 12 hour duty.
May 20th 2019
Calling this first day of flower
Sorry for the long post but I wanted you to see the sativa is older than I count.
The Sativa was born on April fools day for all purpose.
That's the holy grail, no?Ahoy Shed,
I have my doubts to the legitimacy of the breeders claim. The fan leaves were huge and fat as any hybrid I have ever grown. I take some pretty detailed notes on stalk diameter and apical topping heights as well as branchial structure and all, but really at the end of the day my harvest is based on trike inspection results.
She is older than her flower days indicate if this matters. I grow slow.
April 1st 2019
Waterboarding 5 Forest dream seeds
April 4th 2019
All 5 have popped and are under 56W full spectrum led in dixies
April 15th 2019
Transplant to coffee cans under 315W full spectrum led.
This ends two weeks of pre-veg and begins hard veg
May 4th 2019
Transplant to 5 gal. Plants under 600WHPS
May 13th 2019
Plants completed 4 weeks hard veg now
May 13th to 19th 2019
Calling it pre-flower I took 7 days to gradually flip the lights to 12 hour duty.
May 20th 2019
Calling this first day of flower
Sorry for the long post but I wanted you to see the sativa is older than I count.
The Sativa was born on April fools day for all purpose.
Thanks @InTheShed
Nothing to see here.
Dave Groomer
Well-Known Member
This is my 3rd clone of the c-99 blueberry fast. While it is a decent producer and it is reasonably heavy in trichs, it does not have the fruity flavor I associate with c-99 or the blueberry of, well blueberry. An increase in terpenes should be noticeable in late flower. 
- Thread starter
- #166
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
Ahoy @Dave Groomer ,
Just a word of caution the LWA measurements do not follow a linear decay. The rate of daily wilt measurements picks up speed after 5 or 6 days. Again, the time in drought will be affected by container size and composition as well. Watching LWA is best tool without moisture guages.
Just a word of caution the LWA measurements do not follow a linear decay. The rate of daily wilt measurements picks up speed after 5 or 6 days. Again, the time in drought will be affected by container size and composition as well. Watching LWA is best tool without moisture guages.
Dave Groomer
Well-Known Member
She is in a 7 gal smart pot and gets drenched 1x per week. I will probably give her 10 or 11 days (till I see some decent wilt, then give her a good drink of plain water with the plan of chopping a week or so after.
- Thread starter
- #168
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
If we see some positive indicators (i.e. taste) and what not, or not we can add the strain study to a spreadsheet I will maintain trying to sort what strains perform well being "Capped" and what strains are adversely affected by the process.
My AK-47 from 420 goes limp very quickly when dry and drops its lower leaves within a day of droop, so I don't think it would be a good candidate for this.
- Thread starter
- #170
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
That is noteworthy;
According to my bank
AK47 is a potent strain, original created by Serious Seeds! Now copied by many others. This is an easy to grow, mostly sativa strain that grows relatively fast producing good yields of compact indica-like buds.
I am growing Forest dream, a "pure sativa" that we know is not pure, but for sake of discussion we call it mostly Sativa like your AK47 and 9 full days was all she could handle and was rescued. Got pretty pathetic looking but amazing recovery. Within 24 hours back to beauty. The Northern Lights has withstood the stress the best in my testing so far.
According to my bank
AK47 is a potent strain, original created by Serious Seeds! Now copied by many others. This is an easy to grow, mostly sativa strain that grows relatively fast producing good yields of compact indica-like buds.
I am growing Forest dream, a "pure sativa" that we know is not pure, but for sake of discussion we call it mostly Sativa like your AK47 and 9 full days was all she could handle and was rescued. Got pretty pathetic looking but amazing recovery. Within 24 hours back to beauty. The Northern Lights has withstood the stress the best in my testing so far.
9 days would be a death sentence to my AKs! I'll get some pics of an outside one I'll stress after next watering. Just showing pistils now in mid-July.
- Thread starter
- #172
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
We don't want anyone's harvest even harmed, much less killed.
Nah, I know this plant pretty well. I think this is something like 1.1.1.1.1.1.1. I won't let it go too long, just to demonstrate what not to do 
.
.- Thread starter
- #174
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
This is a note;
We have 9 days before 4 sister clones begin the 7th week of flower.
Please help me think of the best controls and designs to implement in this home grown study.
I will put up a list of some weak spots and maybe we could brainstorm.
Examples:
One of the clones is slower and smaller than the other three clones.
Three of the clones are under LED and 1 is HPS. This was how the flowerbed emptied so I had little choice.
These are little ladies (1 gal containers), my bad.
We have 9 days before 4 sister clones begin the 7th week of flower.
Please help me think of the best controls and designs to implement in this home grown study.
I will put up a list of some weak spots and maybe we could brainstorm.
Examples:
One of the clones is slower and smaller than the other three clones.
Three of the clones are under LED and 1 is HPS. This was how the flowerbed emptied so I had little choice.
These are little ladies (1 gal containers), my bad.
Good morning Maritimer, this is the place for that so if I can yes.
Clones I haven't had much experience with but I do think variances will be found growing them.
Not much ya can do with the light situation.
One gallon containers is something I've seen used but never tried. I'd think timing is everything and with good soil should be fine for the test. Maybe better for shorter veg times.
Clones I haven't had much experience with but I do think variances will be found growing them.
Not much ya can do with the light situation.
One gallon containers is something I've seen used but never tried. I'd think timing is everything and with good soil should be fine for the test. Maybe better for shorter veg times.
- Thread starter
- #176
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
Ahoy Stone,
Good morning to you sir.
I have not been able to put on my scientist hat yet today,LOL.
Stuck in trim manicure duty that amazingly reminds me of peeling potatoes in boot camp. UG
I think using clones will lower the variances we encounter.
With all the past breeding and cross breeding that has occurred I have a hard time getting seed plants that are suited for a fair comparison. A set of clones grows a lot more in step. They all got the same drivers.
With the seed sativas coming out of the garden this week Im not sure they are even kissing cousins. Big and not so big, pretty and not so pretty, fast and not so fast ect. I even think my setup lends to a difference in gardener attention because the back two are hard to get at and properly trim for max potential.
Im thinking to much and not trimming (hah) so I best get back at it.
Good morning to you sir.
I have not been able to put on my scientist hat yet today,LOL.
Stuck in trim manicure duty that amazingly reminds me of peeling potatoes in boot camp. UG
I think using clones will lower the variances we encounter.
With all the past breeding and cross breeding that has occurred I have a hard time getting seed plants that are suited for a fair comparison. A set of clones grows a lot more in step. They all got the same drivers.
With the seed sativas coming out of the garden this week Im not sure they are even kissing cousins. Big and not so big, pretty and not so pretty, fast and not so fast ect. I even think my setup lends to a difference in gardener attention because the back two are hard to get at and properly trim for max potential.
Im thinking to much and not trimming (hah) so I best get back at it.
- Thread starter
- #177
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
Taking a break, reading e-mail from Leaffly
Maybe I should talk with these folks about controls and designs in a study. SMACKS
Go get em project CBD
In their rebuttal of the Forbes article, Project CBD says:
But Project CBD argues that allometric scaling is a rule of thumb at best, and cannabinoids in particular are a very poor fit for the model: “The ridiculously high doses in this study will saturate the body’s metabolic machinery, preventing relevant dose-extrapolations.”
RELATED STORY
6 Common Myths and Controversies About High-CBD Cannabis
False Claims in a Sketchy Journal
In their critique of the study, Project CBD flatly charged the University of Arkansas researchers with producing “A hit piece against CBD, not legitimate scientific work.”
Specifically, the Project CBD article cites instances of cherry-picking previous research on CBD to downplay benefits and hype harms, which obscures how unreliable past studies on mice have been in predicting how humans will react to cannabinoids, and which also presents false or deliberately misleading information.
Project CBD points to the study’s claim that “numerous reports have demonstrated neurological, cardiovascular and reproductive toxicities subsequent to CBD use”—the researchers cited nine sources to back that claim, but the only one to actually involve humans did not show toxicity.
RELATED STORY
The Most Impactful Cannabis Studies of All Time
In fact, when contacted by Project CBD, Saoirse O’Sullivan, that study’s lead author, said, “Our research showing that CBD causes a small reduction in resting and stress-induced blood pressure does not support the authors’ claim that we demonstrated cardiovascular toxicity of CBD. In fact, most of our work is about the potential protective effects of CBD in the cardiovascular system.”
Project CBD also called into question the credibility of Molecules, the journal that published the CBD liver study.
Because it’s 2019, and we still live in a world where one small study, on mice, with highly questionable methodology, published in a marginal journal, with major flaws, can lead to articles like the one in Forbes.
Which get clicks for sounding the alarm—without a legitimate reason to do so—while simultaneously drowning out more reasoned discussions of CBD’s potential dangers, and how they can best be mitigated.
RELATED STORY
Peak THC: The Limits on THC and CBD Levels for Cannabis Strains
A Final Thought Experiment
One thought experiment occurred to me while researching this article.
I came across this Leafly article describing a day of testimony this past May before the FDA. In particular, I was struck by the words of Alice Mead, on hand to represent the interests of GW Pharmaceuticals, which specializes in developing pharmaceutical drugs extracted from cannabis plants—including Epidiolex, the world’s first FDA-approved CBD drug.
Normally, when Big Pharma talks to the FDA about their products, they make every effort to present the rosiest picture possible. But Mead took pains to mention that CBD is “potentially toxic to the liver” and “has powerful drug-drug interactions.”
RELATED STORY
5 Takeaways From the FDA’s Hearing on CBD
But the real tell was when she argued for a “strong regulatory framework.”
Because what that really means is GW Pharmaceuticals wants a regulatory framework for CBD so strong that only they can surmount it. Leafly has been reporting on the company’s attempts to win temporary monopolies for its products in a number of US states since 2017, and there’s certainly no reason to believe GW wouldn’t prefer a blanket monopoly on the entire country.
And so here’s the thought experiment:
You’re GW Pharmaceuticals, and you’ve invested heavily in both time and money to create a patented CBD drug. Now you’re about to go to market, and want to make a huge return on that investment without having to compete with CBD hamburgers and truck stop snake oil.
So what’s the biggest threat to your bottom line—that people think CBD is too dangerous, or that people think CBD is too safe?
David Bienenstock
Veteran cannabis journalist David Bienenstock is the author of "How to Smoke Pot (Properly): A Highbrow Guide to Getting High" (2016 - Penguin/Random House), and the co-host and co-creator of the podcast "Great Moments in Weed History with Abdullah and Bean." Follow him on Twitter @pot_handbook.
Maybe I should talk with these folks about controls and designs in a study. SMACKS
Go get em project CBD
In their rebuttal of the Forbes article, Project CBD says:
Dead mice aside (or rather, dead half-mice), the biggest problem with the study, according to Project CBD, is that just like in the 1974 rhesus monkey study, the dosage administered was astronomically high.
The researchers explain away this mega-dosing by pointing to something called allometric scaling, which is basically a set of guidelines for estimating an equally potent dose of a substance for humans and other animals based on body weight and body-mass index.
But Project CBD argues that allometric scaling is a rule of thumb at best, and cannabinoids in particular are a very poor fit for the model: “The ridiculously high doses in this study will saturate the body’s metabolic machinery, preventing relevant dose-extrapolations.”
RELATED STORY
6 Common Myths and Controversies About High-CBD Cannabis
False Claims in a Sketchy Journal
In their critique of the study, Project CBD flatly charged the University of Arkansas researchers with producing “A hit piece against CBD, not legitimate scientific work.”
Specifically, the Project CBD article cites instances of cherry-picking previous research on CBD to downplay benefits and hype harms, which obscures how unreliable past studies on mice have been in predicting how humans will react to cannabinoids, and which also presents false or deliberately misleading information.
Project CBD points to the study’s claim that “numerous reports have demonstrated neurological, cardiovascular and reproductive toxicities subsequent to CBD use”—the researchers cited nine sources to back that claim, but the only one to actually involve humans did not show toxicity.
RELATED STORY
The Most Impactful Cannabis Studies of All Time
In fact, when contacted by Project CBD, Saoirse O’Sullivan, that study’s lead author, said, “Our research showing that CBD causes a small reduction in resting and stress-induced blood pressure does not support the authors’ claim that we demonstrated cardiovascular toxicity of CBD. In fact, most of our work is about the potential protective effects of CBD in the cardiovascular system.”
Project CBD also called into question the credibility of Molecules, the journal that published the CBD liver study.
And that really gets to the heart of the issue.
Because it’s 2019, and we still live in a world where one small study, on mice, with highly questionable methodology, published in a marginal journal, with major flaws, can lead to articles like the one in Forbes.
Which get clicks for sounding the alarm—without a legitimate reason to do so—while simultaneously drowning out more reasoned discussions of CBD’s potential dangers, and how they can best be mitigated.
RELATED STORY
Peak THC: The Limits on THC and CBD Levels for Cannabis Strains
A Final Thought Experiment
One thought experiment occurred to me while researching this article.
I came across this Leafly article describing a day of testimony this past May before the FDA. In particular, I was struck by the words of Alice Mead, on hand to represent the interests of GW Pharmaceuticals, which specializes in developing pharmaceutical drugs extracted from cannabis plants—including Epidiolex, the world’s first FDA-approved CBD drug.
Normally, when Big Pharma talks to the FDA about their products, they make every effort to present the rosiest picture possible. But Mead took pains to mention that CBD is “potentially toxic to the liver” and “has powerful drug-drug interactions.”
RELATED STORY
5 Takeaways From the FDA’s Hearing on CBD
But the real tell was when she argued for a “strong regulatory framework.”
Because what that really means is GW Pharmaceuticals wants a regulatory framework for CBD so strong that only they can surmount it. Leafly has been reporting on the company’s attempts to win temporary monopolies for its products in a number of US states since 2017, and there’s certainly no reason to believe GW wouldn’t prefer a blanket monopoly on the entire country.
And so here’s the thought experiment:
You’re GW Pharmaceuticals, and you’ve invested heavily in both time and money to create a patented CBD drug. Now you’re about to go to market, and want to make a huge return on that investment without having to compete with CBD hamburgers and truck stop snake oil.
So what’s the biggest threat to your bottom line—that people think CBD is too dangerous, or that people think CBD is too safe?
David Bienenstock
Veteran cannabis journalist David Bienenstock is the author of "How to Smoke Pot (Properly): A Highbrow Guide to Getting High" (2016 - Penguin/Random House), and the co-host and co-creator of the podcast "Great Moments in Weed History with Abdullah and Bean." Follow him on Twitter @pot_handbook.
Yea, clones are the way here. Speaking of variances, my last grow was the most varied yet for me. It's fun but it would be good for the grow to have plants that resemble each other at least. Happy trimming!
- Thread starter
- #179
Maritimer
Well-Known Member
Earlier in the thread I acknowledged little information regarding Forest Dream ancestry, other than a description of being a "pure sativa" the breeder supplied. Not so sure about the pure part, but my friends it is a Sativa. A taste today provided by Fruitilla who was chopped last week, and I can say YEP. She is a jewel.
Sativa = joy !
Similar threads
