It's 2019, What IS the Known OPTIMAL Spectrum for Resin/Terpene Rich Cannabis?

[Weird]

As has been mentioned already there is no "perfect" spectrum (other than the sun lol 2000 PPFD, true full spectrum and free), more so pooling resources and experiences to try and decide on an overall favorable spectrum for indoor growing with what is currently available.

In reference to the N and P fertilization relation to b-myrcene decline. I did a bunch of reading into building an organic soil and spoon feeding soluble fertilizers intermittently to maximize growth and retain the benefits from organic living soil. Ammonium and soluble/available forms or phosphorus fertilizers eradicate the micro life which could hurt cannabinoid/terpene production.

This link is to a post I put together on plant nutrition with info I found useful from jidoka and Harley Smith, it mentions the P and micro life interaction briefly (at the bottom is a link to my post on ammonium/phosphorus interaction with soil microbiology):

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=8495077&postcount=5585

I had a good conversation with Tycho Monolith awhile ago also about whether a landrace strains cannabinoid/terpene profile could change over ~20 years of being grown/bred indoors away from its home environment/pests/normal stresses. Indoors ~10 weeks can mimic a full outdoor season, seems to me it could cause rapid environmental adaptation in bred offspring to the indoor environment as defensive traits are not being used and probably lost (unless original parents can be maintained).

I didn't mean to specifically target any one metabolite or even spectrum studies or the resulting benefit but rather point out expression based on maximums does not ensure maximum "natural" expression but rather pushes cultivar expression into a envelope of environmental cues that limits diversity in expression and maximizes those metabolites the plants all share in common (thus making for alot of pot that seems alike)


not so much in my garden

 

[Ibechillin]

I didn't mean to specifically target any one metabolite or even spectrum studies or the resulting benefit but rather point out expression based on maximums does not ensure maximum "natural" expression but rather pushes cultivar expression into a envelope of environmental cues that limits diversity in expression and maximizes those metabolites the plants all share in common (thus making for alot of pot that seems alike)


not so much in my garden

I understood what you were saying haha, I thought we were talking about the same thing.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

As has been mentioned already there is no "perfect" spectrum (other than the sun lol 2000 PPFD, true full spectrum and free), more so pooling resources and experiences to try and decide on an overall favorable spectrum for indoor growing with what is currently available.

General purpose, is what I said. Something which may not fit every plant or situation nicely, but will do a baseline 'decent' job of it. Perfect will be something people chase for centuries, I'm sure.

I had a good conversation with Tycho Monolith awhile ago also about whether a landrace strains cannabinoid/terpene profile could change over ~20 years of being grown/bred indoors away from its home environment/pests/normal stresses. Indoors ~10 weeks can mimic a full outdoor season, seems to me it could cause rapid environmental adaptation in bred offspring to the indoor environment as defensive traits are not being used and probably lost (unless original parents can be maintained).

You're quite correct. I could see open breeding being able to retain enough of the genetics, if that was the goal. Any hand selection of breeding plants is going to favor genetics for indoor conditions. As far as I'm aware, multiple generations of this will produce something similar to the original strain, but most likely have outdoor environmental and pest genetics reduced.

 

[Weird]

General purpose, is what I said. Something which may not fit every plant or situation nicely, but will do a baseline 'decent' job of it. Perfect will be something people chase for centuries, I'm sure.



You're quite correct. I could see open breeding being able to retain enough of the genetics, if that was the goal. Any hand selection of breeding plants is going to favor genetics for indoor conditions. As far as I'm aware, multiple generations of this will produce something similar to the original strain, but most likely have outdoor environmental and pest genetics reduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity

Activation of latent phenotype expression will not happen, with genetic material which has been culled.

Like I said, man selection in an indoor environment will tend to cull outdoor related genetics. Not all of them, this **is** genetics we're talking about, but enough to make a difference.

 

[Weird]

Activation of latent phenotype expression will not happen, with genetic material which has been culled.

Like I said, man selection in an indoor environment will tend to cull outdoor related genetics. Not all of them, this **is** genetics we're talking about, but enough to make a difference.

you obviously don't understand the implications of placidity

 

[popta]

General purpose, is what I said. Something which may not fit every plant or situation nicely, but will do a baseline 'decent' job of it. Perfect will be something people chase for centuries, I'm sure.

I think that's exactly how to put where we're at in 2019. Honestly I'd be very surprised if using weird spectrums to boost terpene or resin production ended up being a thing. From what little science I've seen so far I get the impression spectrum has a minuscule effect compared to more fundamental things like air temperature and light intensity.

All these experiments usually lead to the same conclusion for me: maximizing the health and vigour of the plant is what maximizes all the other things. Doing deliberately weird things to them usually has more negatives than positives. Like that study above where they drought stressed and nutrient stressed plants to see how it impacted terpenes. They noted that the stressed plants were a third of the size of the healthy ones. Who cares if you increase terps from 2 to 2.25% if your plants are runted, dying junk?

 

[FGB]

https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/489030

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

I think that's exactly how to put where we're at in 2019. Honestly I'd be very surprised if using weird spectrums to boost terpene or resin production ended up being a thing. From what little science I've seen so far I get the impression spectrum has a minuscule effect compared to more fundamental things like air temperature and light intensity.

All these experiments usually lead to the same conclusion for me: maximizing the health and vigour of the plant is what maximizes all the other things. Doing deliberately weird things to them usually has more negatives than positives.

I believe you're correct, for the most part. We're talking about individual parts of the light spectrum, when air temp and RH hasn't been pinpointed solidly yet. lol I find they have a massive impact on terpene and resin production, and grow accordingly.

Still, an optimized spectrum and timing for oil or terpene production is going to perform better than not, regardless of the grower's ability. Any poorly grown plant will still have more terpenes than it would have otherwise. Even if this is .0003% heheheh

Like that study above where they drought stressed and nutrient stressed plants to see how it impacted terpenes. They noted that the stressed plants were a third of the size of the healthy ones. Who cares if you increase terps from 2 to 2.25% if your plants are runted, dying junk?

Indeed. What's .25% more terpenes on 2/3rds less yield again? hehehe I hear you.

FBG, good link I'll have to digest later today. ty

 

[Ibechillin]

FGB linked the spectrum study I shared in the lighting science thread and post #6 of this thread.

post #46 2/17 10:31am:

The study I linked in post #6 shows that the more UVA and blue used the more total cannabinoids and terpenes produced, the bud formation may not be as favorable (leafy) but it will be higher quality. Something else I try to rationalize also is whether the minimal increase in cannabinoids/terps (a few % tops) is worth reduced overall yield (as much of the energy is going towards leaf production).

Genetics are really the main factor to most aspects (calyx to leaf ratio, cannabinoids, terpenes).

 

[CannaRed]

I wonder what this increase in terpenes and cannabinoids means in releation to number of trichomes.
Are there more trichomes with the higer blue ratio?
Or same amount of trichomes, but each one has higher content.

 

[CannaRed]

Originally Posted by Ibechillin View Post
The study I linked in post #6 shows that the more UVA and blue used the more total cannabinoids and terpenes produced, the bud formation may not be as favorable (leafy) but it will be higher quality. Something else I try to rationalize also is whether the minimal increase in cannabinoids/terps (a few % tops) is worth reduced overall yield (as much of the energy is going towards leaf production).

Genetics are really the main factor to most aspects (calyx to leaf ratio, cannabinoids, terpenes
__________
I see us adding different spectrum depending on what we want to do with the end product.
Like...
I have a strain that has super super frosty leaves compared to my other plants.
If I was making concentrate I would want to add more blue right? (If this strain responded like the one in the study)
Not only would it have more cannabinoids and terpenes, but also more leaf to extract from?
And if it made the buds leafier and less compact, I guess that means it would be easier to extract the trichomes from around the plant tissues? if

But I guess I wouldn't do this if I was looking for top shelf flower with bag appeal?

 

[Weird]

Activation of latent phenotype expression will not happen, with genetic material which has been culled.

Like I said, man selection in an indoor environment will tend to cull outdoor related genetics. Not all of them, this **is** genetics we're talking about, but enough to make a difference.

if plants lost traits that easily they could not adapt to cyclical environmental pressures that happen over periods greater than their life cycle


neg rep me all you want because you want to deny reality but that doesn't change it at all or the accuracy of the information you put out on the web

 

[Ibechillin]

I wonder what this increase in terpenes and cannabinoids means in releation to number of trichomes.
Are there more trichomes with the higer blue ratio?
Or same amount of trichomes, but each one has higher content.

The cannabinoids and terpenes are formed in trichomes, both more trichomes and stronger is possible with the right ratio of light not just more blue/only blue. Focusing the spectrum only on the secondary metabolites that produce them diverts the plant from other processes it could be doing, as the light spectrum invokes physiological responses from plants they are constantly adapting (shade avoidance/IR great example).

Many LED grow lights peak at 450nm blue which is mainly only hitting chlorophyll b, the carotenoids and phycoerythrin which are all accessory/secondary pigments. Then peaks again between 660nm to 700nm red to stimulate the main pigment chlorophyll a energy only towards bud production (as the 430nm chlorophll a peak drives veg growth).

This is the spectral charts of the 2 different LED and HPS used in the study:

NS1 (blue line) had the highest total cannabinoids end result of the study. Notice how its spectrum matches near perfectly to the absorption spectrum?

Then the AP573L LED (red line) that peaks only at the typical 450nm blue and 660nm red mentioned above was nearly the same total cannabinoid levels as NS1.

The HPS had around 25-33% less total THC% compared to both LED and is really only stimulating the secondary pigments phycoerythrin and phycocyanin giving only a small amount of 660nm to 700nm for the Emerson effect boost to chlorophyl a towards bud.

Study said in results:

"The drop in the THC concentration under HPS led to a corresponding decrease in CBD, THCV, and especially CBG."

Apparently Chlorophyll a at the 660nm to 700nm red range is the primary factor for flower yield and THC%. It seems the more THC% the more total cannabinoids overall possible. There are a few credible people claiming ~3% THC content increase from UVB/UVA which is considerable when you think about it.

I see us adding different spectrum depending on what we want to do with the end product.
Like...
I have a strain that has super super frosty leaves compared to my other plants.
If I was making concentrate I would want to add more blue right? (If this strain responded like the one in the study)
Not only would it have more cannabinoids and terpenes, but also more leaf to extract from?
And if it made the buds leafier and less compact, I guess that means it would be easier to extract the trichomes from around the plant tissues? if

But I guess I wouldn't do this if I was looking for top shelf flower with bag appeal?

With the right amount of 660nm to 700nm red to retain the benefits and then adding more 430nm leaf producing blue you probably could get slightly better extract return from the additional leaf growth. We need a good side by side.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

Your posts make my head hurt. Thank you. lol

 

[Weird]

directly related to type of spectrum, morphology and secondary metabolite production is that morphology effects the later



proudly enough that I am willing to bet in the future other trials will illicit same results using other cues to achieve the same means

 

[Dropped Cat]

Your posts make my head hurt. Thank you. lol

Many folks look to epigenetic inheritance and phenotype
plasticity to account for the differences we observe
with any given cultivar across various growing environments.

The plants may pass on the acquired phenotypes to its subsequent
generations through non-genetic mechanisms (also termed as epigenetic mechanism).

I, and many others, have seen this in flowering the same plant in their grows over years.

It's often referred to as acclimation.

Accepting that premise as gospel is dicey at best and more studies are
in place to determine the exact mechanisms in play here.

Meanwhile, a lively debate can be had as to what way is best
to flower our beloved plants.

Off topic by the letter of the thread, but relevant perhaps to the concept of best spectrum,
the training/acclimation of their plants over time, to grow under any given spectrum must be considered.

The best results, if you're lucky, will be with the plants that love the spectrum to begin with.

It's just that simple.


lol

 

[mack 10]

If it's leafy, it's not top Shelf