Icemud's Far Red LED Journal - Flower Trigger Manipulation - Budmaster LED Lights

Awesome job Icemud. :bravo:

While I'm not a fan of concentrates myself, I realize there is definitely a place in the medical community for them.

We've got our very own weed warrior here on 420 mag. Congrats bud!
 
Awesome job Icemud. :bravo:

While I'm not a fan of concentrates myself, I realize there is definitely a place in the medical community for them.

We've got our very own weed warrior here on 420 mag. Congrats bud!

Hey Dr Cannabi! Thanks :) I'm happy to be fighting for a good cause :) Yea the thing with the extracts is that the federal government, they don't want to see people smoking medicine, so extracts will be key for isolating cannabinoids and terpenes for the ability for other delivery methods and dosed intake. Since its nearly impossible to smoke 50mg of thc, but very easily can be extracted, dosed out and put on a sublingual or a transdermal application extracts do make a lot of sense if taken to a clinical level, using professional equipment. Thats the reason that extracts are important on a medical level.

I work in a cannabis company obviously, and some of us use cannabis, some dont. Its interesting the perspective questions of the non-users, saying things like "well how much should I use, and how do I know how it will effect me" or "if a doctor were to perscribe it to a patient, would he tell the patient take 5 hits of kush each night with food?".

Its sort of funny as I've smoked for decades, but it also makes a lot of sense coming from someone who never has used, and its exactly why extracts are perfect for those types of applications. The current black market state of extracts and back yard producers though, using non proper equipment and not subjecting their products to full lab tests though is what keeps the products sub par in quality and a lot of them straight up trash doesn't really exemplify the potential that extracts really do have.

Regulating will at least help the people who truely know how to make proper extracts, and make sure that they are only stripping what they want from the plants, without residual petrochemicals, fillers, oils or waxes. I'm proud to be a part of this movement, even though most of us think the whole thing is silly and back ass wards, I mean a plant that never has killed anyone is this huge threat to society? yet thousands of products passed by the FDA kill hundreds to thousands of people. Its easier to kill yourself from overdosing on water than with cannabis, yet cannabis is this horrible plants??? I just want to slap these politicians somtimes and knock some sense into them. I saw a great quote the other day which read... "Common sense, isn't really that common anymore" I loved it!
 
I never was a debater per say but
anyone who doesn't like being wrong always has to say something :rofl:
especially if you know your right

I bolded the second line, as that is such my personality :) I kind of thrive and take pride in trying to know as much as I can about any particular subject I care about, and when I know I'm right and someone is wrong, its so hard for me not to speak up.. Usually its out of being helpful in wanting to open the other persons mind, or show another perspective... but sometimes I have to bite my tongue and just know, like that old saying goes " Never argue with a pig, it just frustrates you and will irritate the pig" lol

Reminds me of some old lyrics I wrote in a rap song about a decade ago...
"I can't tell you-you suck, my karma strains from lows,
I gave you the rope to boost up, or dangle from below"

sort of a play on the "you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink"

Hope all is well with you Brother Cronic! Happy Terpsday!
 
I am so happy right now! All my hard work at my job is paying off, and we are working to change california law. Our bill goes before the senate hearing tomorrow!!!!

In California, the use of any chemicals to extract cannabinoids is illegal, and hosts the same penalties as running a meth lab. This has lead to many residential explosions, burn victims and deaths due to an influx of black market butane extraction and open blasting. The current laws in California would not change the legality of extractions until 2018, so as a direct result of my research, my company, our lobbyists and partners, we have actively changed the content of legislation going to the senate committee tomorrow to allow for immediate licensing of regulated and approved extraction facilities. I couldn't be prouder of myself, my team/company (not mine but you know what I mean) and our partners and lobbyists!

I swear, I am smiling ear to ear right now, reading the bill text which is almost copied exactly from the research I did, and the narratives, summaries and outlines with facts I provided to our lobbyist team :) I'm changing the laws for millions of patients to have better meds, and for the producers of extracts to be able to emerge from the shadows and legally do what they love, in support of the community! I'm so proud!


(I reduced the content of the original post as I thought about it and I'm not sure how much information i can actually share about my companies involvement with this just yet... ) under a NDA :)

Hey Dr Cannabi! Thanks :) I'm happy to be fighting for a good cause :) Yea the thing with the extracts is that the federal government, they don't want to see people smoking medicine, so extracts will be key for isolating cannabinoids and terpenes for the ability for other delivery methods and dosed intake. Since its nearly impossible to smoke 50mg of thc, but very easily can be extracted, dosed out and put on a sublingual or a transdermal application extracts do make a lot of sense if taken to a clinical level, using professional equipment. Thats the reason that extracts are important on a medical level.

I work in a cannabis company obviously, and some of us use cannabis, some dont. Its interesting the perspective questions of the non-users, saying things like "well how much should I use, and how do I know how it will effect me" or "if a doctor were to perscribe it to a patient, would he tell the patient take 5 hits of kush each night with food?".

Its sort of funny as I've smoked for decades, but it also makes a lot of sense coming from someone who never has used, and its exactly why extracts are perfect for those types of applications. The current black market state of extracts and back yard producers though, using non proper equipment and not subjecting their products to full lab tests though is what keeps the products sub par in quality and a lot of them straight up trash doesn't really exemplify the potential that extracts really do have.

Regulating will at least help the people who truely know how to make proper extracts, and make sure that they are only stripping what they want from the plants, without residual petrochemicals, fillers, oils or waxes. I'm proud to be a part of this movement, even though most of us think the whole thing is silly and back ass wards, I mean a plant that never has killed anyone is this huge threat to society? yet thousands of products passed by the FDA kill hundreds to thousands of people. Its easier to kill yourself from overdosing on water than with cannabis, yet cannabis is this horrible plants??? I just want to slap these politicians somtimes and knock some sense into them. I saw a great quote the other day which read... "Common sense, isn't really that common anymore" I loved it!
 
Gotta see this man. Subbin in

Phrum the light room.
 
I hear you Icemud and the methods you're speaking of make perfect sense in a medical setting. But I know a couple folks who start their day with dabs and they are pretty much worthless lol.

What you're doing is completely different. Creating a clean extract for sublingual and transdermal purposes in pharmaceutical doses will do more for being rescheduled than anything. Makes perfect sense.

I should have said I'm not a fan of back yard extracts made for the sole purpose of getting as blasted as you can without dying lol. I've seen no good come from them. Most cancer patients I've been fortunate enough to know prefer flowers that stimulate their appetite and relieve pain. The extracts (other than butter for cookies) have only made them feel worse. I had one patient who bought some dabs from a dispensary and said it made him feel like he was dying lol. I told him you are dying but yeah, don't do that anymore.

Anyways I thank you for all your hard work and discipline! You are one of the good guys!
 
Good points, but unfortunately I don't have a "control" group without Far red to see if they also flower in 14/10.

Oh, bummer. Kind of like running an experiment to see if running up and down a flight of stairs for an hour makes a person sweat - without having the poor guy set on the couch for an hour first to see if maybe he's already sweating because it's August and 93°F, lol.

Maybe I can start the plants at 14/10, let them run for 3 weeks and see what happens. Usually at that time they have a good flower set growing, so if I see the flowers set, then I know they flower at 14/10 without Far red.

That would help. But that's the stretch. I'd be wondering what the difference in behaviors were between 12/12, 14/10, and 14/10 with far red supplementation. I guess I would love to see two control groups ;) . But, alas, I cannot finance them for you. Therefore, since you are doing everything on your own dime, I can't complain much either way, ha ha.

If none of them show any flowers after 3 weeks of 14/10, or very weak flowering I can then use the Far red with the 14/10 schedule to then see if they go full flowering or stay in a state of confusion? ??

I would agree that you ought to see some kind of noticeable change @ three weeks if there is going to be any. But there might not be a whole lot of difference (IOW, things may happen s l o w l y under that schedule, but still happen). And I guess it'd work best with fully mature plants that are ready to flower "at the drop of a hat." If you're already seeing a few "preflowers" on the mother, that'd be the one I'd grab cuts from.

I know that I have used 13/11 before for flowering, but then I found a study that was done of 13, 12 and 11 hour flowering daylengths, and it was determined that the 13 hour daylength did not provide enough extra yeild over 12 to to make sense economically for the extra hour of light used per day. The also determined that 11/13 also was not worth saving the extra hour of light, as the yield with 11/13 was dramatically reduced.

I started to wholeheartedly agree with the part that I highlighted. But then I though of "pure" equatorial landrace sativas. IIRC, the "day length" at the equator does not change from season to season. NEAR the equator in the tropics, you'd only see a slight variance. And so on, as one travels north (or south) from there. Plants will not have evolved to "look" for cues which will never appear in the area where they originally grew naturally, methinks. I just did a quick (lazy) search and saw that, in England, the length of daytime in June is around 15h 38m, and in December it's only 7h 51m. In Australia - things are reversed, of course :rolleyes3 - the daytime length in December is 14h 19m, and in June it is 10h 24m. Obviously, cannabis will not be flowering outside in England in December, lol... And IDK if there are any landrace varieties from there - or at least extant there - anyway. But in similar latitudes... Cannabis would have to begin flowering soon enough to actually finish before it got too cold. That could mean that such a hypothetical landrace strain would begin flowering when the day length was higher than we would normally expect. It could also mean a short-flowering indica, of course - but I'd still guess that the number of uninterrupted dark hours required to initiate flowering would be somewhat less.

Err... I forgot where I was going with all this. Unless it was to say that a person could spend several years experimenting with different day/night lengths of different strains... and, as a percentage of the whole, it might be as a drop of water in the ocean.

I wish I was still ten years old. I had all my cognitive ability - and hadn't started killing brain cells wholesale. <SIGH> It is completely irrelevant to the thread, of course, but: I hear they have a/c in schools now. I know that I was... brighter than the average brat as a youngin'. I don't think I ever had the thought, "I don't understand," as a child. And... The first computer I ever saw was a "new" Commodore Pet 2001 that was in the office of my junior high school - that someone had lost the manual to the first week. I taught myself BASIC by, basically, guessing, lol. But today... I have trouble with some things in my OS (linux) even with help, and wish that there was even an average twelve-year old around to deal with it. Kids' brains... It wouldn't work for all of them but, doggone it, a good percentage of them could be educated at such an accelerated rate, year-round, that THEY could be performing experiments and inventing things by, IDK, age 14 or 15, lol. We wouldn't even have to kill their "childhood development" in order to do it, either. We've already scratched things like cursive writing off the list. Uh, rambling pointlessly (apologies).

The same study also took note of the cannabinoids, and found that with a 13/11 schedule, there was a higher content of CBG-V, where as the 11/13 schedule had a higher level of THC-V. So the light length definitely played a role on the precursors of THC and other cannabinoids but I don't believe they tested total THC content either. I will try to dig it up.

Hmm. I did not realize that some cannabinoids were actually higher under a schedule of fewer daylight hours. Interesting. I wonder if that was strain-dependent. Studies often only used one or two strains, so who knows? The only thing I remember about the one I read was that it was (I think) published in 1973 and listed two authors. Yes, please post any studies you can fine (extra points if the links are to NON-governmental websites ;) ). If you merely post a link here to a different thread, so as to keep things on track here, I'll understand. I love reading scientific articles about cannabis (even the 75% that I do not fully understand).

I've seen a lot of "out of the box" light schedules and manipulation claims, but most of them don't have a conclusion, or the grow stops, or the user disappears so I don't really know if they work.

I have seen the same thing happen. It is very frustrating.

Most of these light manipulation claims though are only on forums related to cannabis and I haven't ever found any support in the research community supporting the same claims so its hard to say.

Our government really stifled research. Most of the (few) scientific articles that I've read from years back wouldn't have even happened, but the researchers originally set out to prove something bad about cannabis. However, I've read stuff from other countries now and then that was... I could tell that the researchers' beginning hypotheses were much more varied - like, instead of trying to vilify the plant in order to justify their grant money - and secure more in the future - they were actually trying to learn something. The NIDA has funded a good bit of cannabis stuff, but from its name (National Institute of Drug Abuse) it is clear that only certain topics would have a snowball's chance of getting funded. I have found a lot at UCSD's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research website. But that is health-focused (which is not a bad thing).

I'm wanting to say that I found the study from 1973 at a UN website, but that might be a faulty memory. Universities in locations such as India and various European universities occasionally did interesting studies. If one adds "industrial hemp" related research, Canada has a lot.

Who knows, they may be right... I mean we reprove things with time, I mean just a few years ago nobody thought plants really used green light and now its becomming generally accepted with science that they do.

Something else that surprised me when I read about it. I know there have been green greenhouse/etc. lights for a while for working "after hours." I have also read that, after certain err... spectral minimums were met, that the quantity of light was much more important than the quality (so to speak). That was also mildly surprising - but then I realized that it might go a long way towards explaining the performance of HPS - which does not, on the face of it, seem to be a very good spectrum for growing/flowering cannabis... but the overall amount of illumination is high (and we've all grown lots of bud with HPS, lol). Some research proves that anecdotal evidence is correct, while other research disproves (other) anecdotal "evidence."

If cannabis had been accepted all along in this country - or even if hemp had not been, for all practical purposes, outlawed - we would have much more knowledge. As it is... We know a lot - but it pales in comparison to what we do not know.

there is much more to nature than I think the human brain can even conceive at this point in time

That's another thing; the wholesale(+/-) change from a society that relied on natural things to one which relies on technological ones has really harmed us in regards to such things. Obviously, we know more than we did a millennium (or several) ago - but we are still spending lots and lots of money to rediscover some things that we forgot in antiquity. Oh, if the great library of Alexandria had not burned - several times. And so many others, too, were destroyed (the Library ofal-Hakam II in Córdoba, in 976... all books consisting of "ancient science" were burned, FFS!):
List of destroyed libraries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I am rambling again and I told myself NOT to in this journal, because I really am interested in the scientific aspects of your experimentation!

I'm not sure now that you mentioned about some strains flowering with longer daylight, as I have read that somewhere too. I'm not sure how I can conduct this trial to see if it works... should I run a 14/10 for a couple weeks and see, or just use the far red with a 14/10 to see if it works, and then go from there? hmmmm

Have you got a big cardboard box and a few CFLs, lol? I suppose you would not have to have a massive harvest just to observe flowering(/etc.) behavior in a plant.

I wish I still had access to all the old landrace strains that I once had (for many reasons... lol). If I did, I would try to figure out a way to get you some "pure" examples from different locations around the world. I really do believe that their response to differing night-lengths would vary. I also believe - to some extent - that it would be found that the optimum lighting schedules would differ somewhat across different strains (and, again, I am referring to landraces, rather than mutts I mean hybrids)... in terms of flowering, and even to a degree for vegetative growth. Meat for a different experiment (or several), I guess...

For that matter, I wish I still had the three Nevile's Haze mothers that I painstakingly selected. I would have LOVED to send you cuts from each of them... One took ~15.5 weeks, one about a week or so longer, and one took... a while (lol). That last one... Was worth the wait. But it would have been nice if an experiment like yours could have found a way to lessen that wait - without lessening the weight :lol: . With eight- to eleven-week indica(ish) strains, such things would be less important to me - but for production medicinal grows, it might be highly important. So I very much look forward to reading along and seeing your results - and the conclusions you draw from them. I feel that your experiment has a high potential for value.


I do not see alcohol-related deaths on that chart, lol. That ought to be - at the very least - in between Alzheimer's and Diabetes. If one considers all facets of it, it'll jump several more spots. I'm just sayin'...
 
I do not see alcohol-related deaths on that chart, lol. That ought to be - at the very least - in between Alzheimer's and Diabetes. If one considers all facets of it, it'll jump several more spots. I'm just sayin'...

I assume that's because there are very few deaths from actual alcohol poisoning. Deaths from alcohol are more likely reflected in "Accidents", some "Suicides" and POSSIBLY "Kidney" disease (although, there is conflicting evidence on alcohol's contribution to this!).
 
I assume that's because there are very few deaths from actual alcohol poisoning. Deaths from alcohol are more likely reflected in "Accidents", some "Suicides" and POSSIBLY "Kidney" disease (although, there is conflicting evidence on alcohol's contribution to this!).

<SHRUGS> If smoking cigarettes kills one person by way of lung cancer and another because he fell asleep in bed and burned up in a fire... they are both still dead. Liver disease caused by chronic high alcohol consumption, having a BAC so high that you do not wake up when you vomit, trying to walk home from a bar in East St. Louis and passing out in the wrong neighborhood with an expensive ring or two on your hand and then bleeding to death after someone chops your fingers off to get them, or having the vehicle that you're riding to Church on Sunday become (figuratively) a two-dimensional object because some SoB "thought" it was still Saturday night and was so drunk he couldn't see - yet still managed to get into his vehicle and get it up to speed... all alcohol-related deaths.

Hey Icemud, I hopped over to the Cultivation Scientific Data forum in order to post a thread with links to a couple of articles I found that help explain light-bleaching and saw a thread about using a 13/11 or 14/10 light schedule, lol. I posted a link to this journal. I, ah... hope that was all right. Here is the thread:
Anybody try 13/11? Or 14/10?
 
<SHRUGS> If smoking cigarettes kills one person by way of lung cancer and another because he fell asleep in bed and burned up in a fire... they are both still dead.

EXACTLY! My point was simply that the chart would NOT show those two deaths caused by cigarettes. One would be attributed to cancer and the other to an accident.

In other words, I believe that alcohol related deaths ARE reflected in the chart, they're just not attributed directly to alcohol, although it may have been a leading contributor to the death.
 
Been interesting reading the last few pages Ice !

Where i'm from we don't get much backyard stuff oils etc it is mainly bud & most off the time poor quality, hence any decent person will grow their own :thumb:


I would like to take this moment to point out this sponsor - Buy CBD Oil UK | Buy Cannabis Oil Online

Mainly just CBD oil with the THC removed not sure how they do that ? but makes it legal where i'm from with a little bit of pressure from the people !


But extraction is done through high grade medical Co2, perhaps some boiling down of oil to make CBD %...



Mmm a little extra for research :thumb:
 
Been interesting reading the last few pages Ice !

Where i'm from we don't get much backyard stuff oils etc it is mainly bud & most off the time poor quality, hence any decent person will grow their own :thumb:


I would like to take this moment to point out this sponsor - Buy CBD Oil UK | Buy Cannabis Oil Online

Mainly just CBD oil with the THC removed not sure how they do that ? but makes it legal where i'm from with a little bit of pressure from the people !


But extraction is done through high grade medical Co2, perhaps some boiling down of oil to make CBD %...



Mmm a little extra for research :thumb:

I believe most of the CBD oils on the market are made from Hemp extraction. Not sure though of what method or extraction solvent is used.
 
I believe most of the CBD oils on the market are made from Hemp extraction.

Yes, I have read this on various CBD oil (sales) websites. It makes for a 50-state legal product, AfaIK. I have been thinking about trying to (somehow) get my brother and mother both a tiny bottle of the "spray twice under the tongue, hold for 60-90 seconds, then swallow" types, as both of their daily average pain levels are even higher than mine.

I find it interesting that several years ago - before I hid in my Cave of Paranoia for "a while," so it might have been around 2010 or 2011 - I saw people asking how they could get strains that had an appreciable amount of CBD but little or no THC... and I remember posting something like "grow 'industrial' hemp." Now I look at websites that sell CBD extractions and... yep.

BtW, Icemud, in case I forgot to add mine: Congratulations on being able to help improve the safety of butane extraction methods. I have preferred to use butane, myself, although nothing as advanced or safe as those closed-loop recycling setups. Then again, I also didn't perform the extraction in the kitchen around open flame (pilot lights) or even inside any structure where an electrical spark might happen. And the only heat source I used to encourage final evaporation of the last little bit of butane was hot water (heated in the kitchen, then quickly carried to the extraction location). Undoubtedly not the best way to do this kind of thing, but unlike some I learned at a young age that fireballs inside one's home are only entertaining for a few seconds ;) , so at least I never took a chance on that kind of thing. And I never forgot that I was right beside a rapidly boiling flammable substance and decided to light a cigarette (or even smoke one), either - which I heard has actually happened (IDFK, maybe some idiots have (other) drug habits which they finance through trying to create/sell oil or something?) .

I am generally NOT a fan of government regulation/interference as a method of protecting people from themselves - among other things, I figure that's defeating natural selection, lol, which it seems more obvious every day that we surely still need as a species - but since ill people often buy and use the results of extractions, perhaps this sort of regulation might be a good thing (or at least not nearly as bad as most)... It does bother me that there is still an element of "ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances" in the medicinal cannabis world. So... bravo!

Also, did I happen to send you a PM a week or two ago with some PPFD charts? If so, did they make any sense to you? I'm not real clear on that stuff, so IDK if they show a good thing or a bad one, lol. About all I got from it is "more illumination under the light than way off in the corner" which I kind of guessed to start with :rolleyes3 . I don't want to say any more here in your sponsored journal, out of respect (both for you and your sponsor).
 

Very interesting video, and stats as well. I was surprised that pharmaceutical drugs didn't make the list, but as was mentioned about other substance related deaths, the stats are probably spread between many of those other categories.
 
I hear you Icemud and the methods you're speaking of make perfect sense in a medical setting. But I know a couple folks who start their day with dabs and they are pretty much worthless lol.

What you're doing is completely different. Creating a clean extract for sublingual and transdermal purposes in pharmaceutical doses will do more for being rescheduled than anything. Makes perfect sense.

I should have said I'm not a fan of back yard extracts made for the sole purpose of getting as blasted as you can without dying lol. I've seen no good come from them. Most cancer patients I've been fortunate enough to know prefer flowers that stimulate their appetite and relieve pain. The extracts (other than butter for cookies) have only made them feel worse. I had one patient who bought some dabs from a dispensary and said it made him feel like he was dying lol. I told him you are dying but yeah, don't do that anymore.

Anyways I thank you for all your hard work and discipline! You are one of the good guys!

Same reason I don't like to dab... it hurts my lungs quite a bit, even properly made professional grade bho just makes my lungs feel like they are wrapped in plastic or something, I like nice smooth properly cured organic buds because smoking is enjoyable and doesn't make my lungs feel like fire.. plus I just don't trust anyones method I haven't seen the process and lab testing..

There is a test, on another forum that was run by a member for all the commerically available butanes, many of the common ones use for extraction, and about 99% of the commonly used butanes contained "mystery oil" which I couldn't find anyone knowing what it was, but all of them after the butane evaporated were leaving this mystery oil residue. Some hardly any, and some had quite a significant amount. Therefore they were saying that the butane, even if 99.995% pure was used, it needs to be distilled first to remove this mystery oil and other contaminants before used for extraction. Skunkhillfarms also has a lot of research in this area.

Yeah the law change is mostly about allowing people to do extraction legally. Right now its very very illegal to do it in California using any chemicals or solvents, other than I think water hash or butter and so even if you had a 100,000 operation and clean room setup, it doesn't matter because you still could do hard time as if you were a meth lab... so all we are doing is pushing to have the health and safety code changed where it allows for extraction as long as it is regulated and done properly, so at least those that want to do it legally and responsibly can get a license and operate without fear of persecution. Obviously people will still do it illegally, but with the new MMRSA regulations coming into effect, dispensaries and producers will HAVE to have their products delivered through a licensed distributor, and have each product tested in a lab before it hits a dispensary shelf. (so that is already law going into effect) however nothing was done about allowing for butane extraction because that health and safety code was still there. So hopefully our efforts will open the door to professionals who want to provide for a professional product... as its much easier to use extracted products for medical applications, as well as it will be much higher respected when it comes time to change the laws at the federal level.
 
Oh, bummer. Kind of like running an experiment to see if running up and down a flight of stairs for an hour makes a person sweat - without having the poor guy set on the couch for an hour first to see if maybe he's already sweating because it's August and 93°F, lol.

Yea I wish I had the capibilities of running like 10 different equal tents to have many lighting experiments going. Maybe eventually I will be able to make this happen. Who knows with the career I am in. Right now we are testing in a controlled environment 8 different prototype led panels we built, and a gavita hps to see if we can beat it, as well as testing different white light color temperatures to see which produces best yeild, best terpene, cannabiod profiles and gathering all the data. It wont be public because its internal but who knows, maybe I can run some tests in there after the tests are done.. ?

That would help. But that's the stretch. I'd be wondering what the difference in behaviors were between 12/12, 14/10, and 14/10 with far red supplementation. I guess I would love to see two control groups ;) . But, alas, I cannot finance them for you. Therefore, since you are doing everything on your own dime, I can't complain much either way, ha ha.

Yea, I really wish I had many tents.... I'm curious on quite a few lights I own on certain parameters to test. Plus I would love to be able to just run LED vs LED comparisons to show actually which ones are top notch.. right now I can only give some testing data and just a thumbs up or down if it worked flawlessly and grew bud, or if there were bumps... I wish I could supply everyone with like a lab grade analysis... maybe in the future :)




I would agree that you ought to see some kind of noticeable change @ three weeks if there is going to be any. But there might not be a whole lot of difference (IOW, things may happen s l o w l y under that schedule, but still happen). And I guess it'd work best with fully mature plants that are ready to flower "at the drop of a hat." If you're already seeing a few "preflowers" on the mother, that'd be the one I'd grab cuts from.


I'm still deciding on how to run the test... after speaking with some folks on my youtube channel who have used far red light, they all recommend only running it for 15 minutes after the daylight, so I may do that instead to see. I may just have to run the test without a control group, to show whether it works or not. I mean I have 6 different strains which are all very genetically diverse so even though there is not a control group, I will know if they flower appropriately within the time constraints as normal as all the strains I have run mutiplie times before, so going back to when they show preflowers and full flower set, I can see if under a longer schedule this was delayed, or sped up or remained the same. After I run this test, I can always run the strains again, without the far red light, but with a 14/10 schedule just to be sure, and if they don't flower in the same time frame, then I can shift the schedule back to normal, or use the Far red light.



I started to wholeheartedly agree with the part that I highlighted. But then I though of "pure" equatorial landrace sativas. IIRC, the "day length" at the equator does not change from season to season. NEAR the equator in the tropics, you'd only see a slight variance. And so on, as one travels north (or south) from there. Plants will not have evolved to "look" for cues which will never appear in the area where they originally grew naturally, methinks. I just did a quick (lazy) search and saw that, in England, the length of daytime in June is around 15h 38m, and in December it's only 7h 51m. In Australia - things are reversed, of course :rolleyes3 - the daytime length in December is 14h 19m, and in June it is 10h 24m. Obviously, cannabis will not be flowering outside in England in December, lol... And IDK if there are any landrace varieties from there - or at least extant there - anyway. But in similar latitudes... Cannabis would have to begin flowering soon enough to actually finish before it got too cold. That could mean that such a hypothetical landrace strain would begin flowering when the day length was higher than we would normally expect. It could also mean a short-flowering indica, of course - but I'd still guess that the number of uninterrupted dark hours required to initiate flowering would be somewhat less.

Err... I forgot where I was going with all this. Unless it was to say that a person could spend several years experimenting with different day/night lengths of different strains... and, as a percentage of the whole, it might be as a drop of water in the ocean.

Great points and just as any plant research, especially with lighting there is always going to be variables in which may be true for the majority, but then doesn't work for the miniority. I know that most of us in the cannabis world don't have pure landrace equatorial sativas so for the majority of us, this test will show that its either a positive effect for us and the majority of the hybrids we have now adays, or not in regards to longer day length and flower triggering. The same goes for the strains dubbed "autoflower" which usually stemms from ruderalis varieties of cannabis. From my understanding ruderalis doesn't flower based on lighting but on the gene encoding telling the plant to flower at a certain maturity timeframe, but it also has been known to benefit slightly in a fluxuated lighting schedule with slightly shorter days than nights for flowering too. So there are a lot of maybe's out there... unfortunately I just 1 man, with a couple strains in an apartment with small grow tents so all those "want to do" tests on my list will have to wait.. I wish I could just figure out a way to fund it, however being more of a personal satisfaction of tests vs a profitable business model, I don't think many people would invest.. LOL




I wish I was still ten years old. I had all my cognitive ability - and hadn't started killing brain cells wholesale. <SIGH> It is completely irrelevant to the thread, of course, but: I hear they have a/c in schools now. I know that I was... brighter than the average brat as a youngin'. I don't think I ever had the thought, "I don't understand," as a child. And... The first computer I ever saw was a "new" Commodore Pet 2001 that was in the office of my junior high school - that someone had lost the manual to the first week. I taught myself BASIC by, basically, guessing, lol. But today... I have trouble with some things in my OS (linux) even with help, and wish that there was even an average twelve-year old around to deal with it. Kids' brains... It wouldn't work for all of them but, doggone it, a good percentage of them could be educated at such an accelerated rate, year-round, that THEY could be performing experiments and inventing things by, IDK, age 14 or 15, lol. We wouldn't even have to kill their "childhood development" in order to do it, either. We've already scratched things like cursive writing off the list. Uh, rambling pointlessly (apologies).

Awwww sh!t! You said Commodore! wow... Yea I remember my Grandfather sitting me down on a Sinclair computer, which read computer programs off of audio tapes :) and then I remember sitting down on a Commadore 64 and learning simple coding at a very young age and making myself program a biorhythm. Later on going to write small programs and games on my TI-85 calculator..lol Then I just lost a lot of that interest I guess, or maybe too many real world problems filled my brain as I got older.. I still think pretty critically at things but i've realized my minds "ping" is definitely a few milliseconds slower than it was when I was young.. :) I remember sitting in class on those midwestern humid pre-summer days, awaiting that last day of school, just miserable and sweating trying to pay attention without any AC... I think finally when I went to high school in the late 90s, I had 1 classroom, which was on an internal part of the building, my mechanical drafting class that had AC, how I would love going to that class mid day, plus I love Autocad and drafting anyways, that was when CAD first hit the scene.. on our windows 3.1 486sx computers :) And don't even get me started on how I am happy that dot matrix printers are gone forever :) LOL... I hated the sound of a room of those things printing... remember those old school banners that everyone used to print back in the day for birthdays and such... an hour of listening to """ rrrrrrrr eeeeheh rrrrr eeehhh" LOL thankfully technology has ditched that in the ugly past! hahah




Hmm. I did not realize that some cannabinoids were actually higher under a schedule of fewer daylight hours. Interesting. I wonder if that was strain-dependent. Studies often only used one or two strains, so who knows? The only thing I remember about the one I read was that it was (I think) published in 1973 and listed two authors. Yes, please post any studies you can fine (extra points if the links are to NON-governmental websites ;) ). If you merely post a link here to a different thread, so as to keep things on track here, I'll understand. I love reading scientific articles about cannabis (even the 75% that I do not fully understand).

Here are a few clips of the study I screenshotted a while back. I'm sure if you took one of the lines out, and googled it verbatim you could find the study.
daylight6.JPG
daylight21.JPG
daylight51.JPG


I have seen the same thing happen. It is very frustrating.

Our government really stifled research. Most of the (few) scientific articles that I've read from years back wouldn't have even happened, but the researchers originally set out to prove something bad about cannabis. However, I've read stuff from other countries now and then that was... I could tell that the researchers' beginning hypotheses were much more varied - like, instead of trying to vilify the plant in order to justify their grant money - and secure more in the future - they were actually trying to learn something. The NIDA has funded a good bit of cannabis stuff, but from its name (National Institute of Drug Abuse) it is clear that only certain topics would have a snowball's chance of getting funded. I have found a lot at UCSD's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research website. But that is health-focused (which is not a bad thing).

Knowing how shady our government is, I think they could have found the research they needed to reschedule cannabis or even remove it already... but as the saying goes "if there is a will, there is a way" and I don't think they had the "will" to even find the way. There is overwhelming amounts of research available. I really wish that the whole disgussion and debate about rescheduleing was publicly available and televised... as most of the DEA comments that have been televised in that past were utter BS and lies...

Here is a clip to show these arsehats that regulate our beloved plant..



I'm wanting to say that I found the study from 1973 at a UN website, but that might be a faulty memory. Universities in locations such as India and various European universities occasionally did interesting studies. If one adds "industrial hemp" related research, Canada has a lot.



Something else that surprised me when I read about it. I know there have been green greenhouse/etc. lights for a while for working "after hours." I have also read that, after certain err... spectral minimums were met, that the quantity of light was much more important than the quality (so to speak). That was also mildly surprising - but then I realized that it might go a long way towards explaining the performance of HPS - which does not, on the face of it, seem to be a very good spectrum for growing/flowering cannabis... but the overall amount of illumination is high (and we've all grown lots of bud with HPS, lol). Some research proves that anecdotal evidence is correct, while other research disproves (other) anecdotal "evidence."

From most studies I have read, light quality mostly has to do with plant morphology and manipulation of growth traits, however in terms of plant mass (yield) and other factors like photosynthesis, light quantity is of the upmost importance. :) studies show that variations of red to blue, or red blue green or different color temps do not have much effect in different ratios, however with a spectrum eliminated then much more variation occurs.
.
 
I don't feel up to editing to pull your comments out of my quote plus I only have like five minutes before my ride gets here and I still have to gather up stuff, so:

You must be ten or twelve years younger than me from your mention of high school in the '90s. And you can already feel your brain slowing down, lol? Wait until you hit your 40s when cognitive function starts to decline. Carry around a sheet of paper for a couple of days and every time you get a thought that you plan on spending a minute or two considering, write it down. Then throw it in a drawer until you hit your mid 40s, pull it out, and see how long it takes you to go through them all. Or don't, when I pulled mine out a few years ago I ended up getting stressed out and threw it away :rolleyes3 .

You were glad to see the end of dot matrix printers? Yeah, you must be a little younger than me. I remember the ones that had to spin the thing around inside so it could slam each full character into the ribbon... SLOW and no graphics. And then I finally saved up enough to buy an Okidata 120 dot matrix - zip zip zip you're done it was awesome, lol. The print head had a column of nine(?) individual pins so it could print graphics. I loved it... right up until I tried printing one of those banners you mentioned, where each "dot" of each letter was a full black square - mine was "a little" long and afterwards printed up some regular text and the letters looked all wobbly - turned out those pins got so hot that they melted the plastic part of the printhead that held them in a nice vertical row. Complained to Okidata and they sent me a new one. Figured I better not print any more banners. Then I printed up a simple text document, but it was... I don't remember how long, but the stack of paper was like an inch thick (okay, it wasn't so simple...) and it melted that print head, too. Complained again and was told that it was NOT one of their commercial environment printers and that they'd sell me a new print head for $90. Yeah, okay, I guess I was happy to see inkjets and laser printers too, come to think of it ;) .

I know what you mean as far as wishing you had the time, space, equipment, and money to perform all the experimentation that you wished. HEY... Go start yourself one of those "Go Fund Me" accounts that I've heard about, lol. Maybe in six months or so you'll have gotten ten or fifteen grand and could expand your horizons.

When I saw your reprint of a portion of a study, I remembered another one that I used to have (boy, I wish I hadn't sanitized my computer when my paranoia level went from extreme to world record status)... It was about experimentation to see which vegetative phase light schedule was best overall. It had 24/0, 20/4, 16/8, and a couple others. They covered things like general health of the plants, root growth, and final yield differences. Seems like they determined that 20/4 gave the healthiest, most robust plants AND highest yield. IIRC, 18/6 was something like 88%. I wonder if playing around with far red light could affect those numbers in some significant way? I realize it's beyond the scope of your current experiment, but it might be something to think about in the future.

Something else to think about: I've read that a higher percentage of red light and lower percentage of blue during early vegetative growth (third through sixth weeks or so) encourages a higher percentage of males. I might have read that raising the ratio of far red : red could help cancel out some of the things that red helps with - so I wonder if adding far red supplementation, such as the Budmaster light that you're using, during that period of development would encourage a higher percentage of females in "regular" seeds?

Anyway, I am really glad that you're doing this experiment.
 
Back
Top Bottom