LOL! I think we all want to be happy, but as the Buddhists say: "All life is suffering"
Or something like that.
Anyway, my argument is simply: attack the argument – don't attack the person.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
LED and BUD QUALITY
- Thread starter Tropical Sun
- Start date
Or something like that.
Anyway, my argument is simply: attack the argument – don't attack the person.
Charles Dankens
Well-known member
I nearly forgot about the uvb piece in his talk. I'm not on top of all current research on this topic but I do keep hearing about experiments failing to show positive effects from uv exposure.
Conclusion
Long-term exposure of various intensities of relatively short-wavelength UV radiation had generally negative impacts on cannabis growth, yield, and inflorescence quality. By studying two cultivars with similar cannabinoid profiles, we found some differences in phenotypic plasticity in the temporal dynamics in morphology, physiology, yield, and quality responses to UV exposure level. For the first time this paper described the visible symptoms caused by UVB stress on indoor cannabis plants. Importantly, as it was applied in this study, UV radiation provoked substantially reduced yield in one cultivar, reduced inflorescence quality in both cultivars, and had no commercially relevant benefits to inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. Therefore, potential for UV radiation to enhance cannabinoid concentrations must still be confirmed before UV can be used as a tool in cannabis production.
Frontiers | Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Increased With Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
Before ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used as a horticultural management tool in commercial Cannabis sativa (cannabis) production, the effects of UV on ca...
www.frontiersin.org
phunkeeboodah
Active member
This was gone over in Bugbees course through USU. They showed detailed cannabinoid testing on multiple cultivars tested in chambers. Uva, uvb and uvc exposures showing no benefits to cannabinoids whatsoever. That was the focus of that particular module. I mentioned this a while ago and, if i recall, some folks gave me crap about the sun and UV wavelengths in combination etc etc. But these are actual findings tested in more precise conditions than most can afford to. Those who deny Bugbees figures are sort of denying science, which is a shame. I love his team and his work, its so so helpful. Changed the game for us.I nearly forgot about the uvb piece in his talk. I'm not on top of all current research on this topic but I do keep hearing about experiments failing to show positive effects from uv exposure.
Conclusion
Long-term exposure of various intensities of relatively short-wavelength UV radiation had generally negative impacts on cannabis growth, yield, and inflorescence quality. By studying two cultivars with similar cannabinoid profiles, we found some differences in phenotypic plasticity in the temporal dynamics in morphology, physiology, yield, and quality responses to UV exposure level. For the first time this paper described the visible symptoms caused by UVB stress on indoor cannabis plants. Importantly, as it was applied in this study, UV radiation provoked substantially reduced yield in one cultivar, reduced inflorescence quality in both cultivars, and had no commercially relevant benefits to inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. Therefore, potential for UV radiation to enhance cannabinoid concentrations must still be confirmed before UV can be used as a tool in cannabis production.
Frontiers | Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Increased With Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
Before ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used as a horticultural management tool in commercial Cannabis sativa (cannabis) production, the effects of UV on ca...
Ca++
Well-known member
UV use is wishful thinking. Anyone following the science has realised what it really does, and started to look at blue as a near relative. Where papers are suggesting a linear relationship, where 1% more blue, leads to 2% less crop. We have spoke about this, but while people still want UV, there is little room for us all to progress together. Though the physical model is there to see in our grows. It's not just facts hidden in papers.
Dropping pollen so soon?
Dropping pollen so soon?
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
The only thing ive got against this study is that they are studying uvb, with an incomplete coverage of the standard par range and uva. Between 440 and 290nm there is pretty much zero light. They even mention this themselves, theres a synergistic effect between uva and uvb. You need at least a bit uva in order to build tolerance for uvb.I nearly forgot about the uvb piece in his talk. I'm not on top of all current research on this topic but I do keep hearing about experiments failing to show positive effects from uv exposure.
Conclusion
Long-term exposure of various intensities of relatively short-wavelength UV radiation had generally negative impacts on cannabis growth, yield, and inflorescence quality. By studying two cultivars with similar cannabinoid profiles, we found some differences in phenotypic plasticity in the temporal dynamics in morphology, physiology, yield, and quality responses to UV exposure level. For the first time this paper described the visible symptoms caused by UVB stress on indoor cannabis plants. Importantly, as it was applied in this study, UV radiation provoked substantially reduced yield in one cultivar, reduced inflorescence quality in both cultivars, and had no commercially relevant benefits to inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. Therefore, potential for UV radiation to enhance cannabinoid concentrations must still be confirmed before UV can be used as a tool in cannabis production.
Frontiers | Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Increased With Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
Before ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used as a horticultural management tool in commercial Cannabis sativa (cannabis) production, the effects of UV on ca...
Beyond 660nm missing far reds leads to an uncompensated blue response which of course leads to less growth and yield.
This paper basicly says that adding uvb leds to standard blurple isnt a good idea, which i feel i more or less agree with.
Im not fully familiar with bugbees uv research but most papers ive seen with "no statistic significant uv effect" usually have at least one hole you can poke in it.
Losing yield: yes, it is to be expected if you add blue/violet/uv without compensating the blue response with higher red/far red.
Total thc in plant dont increase: same as above, if you get higher thc but lower yield of course total thc will remain similar, you need to compensate with reds, especially far red. At least add uv abd red/far red in equal proportions, or you will get non optimal results. Basicly youd need to make test comparing a non uv spectrum to a uv rich spectrum where red blue green proportions are similar. Just adding uv is going to change those proportions towards blue response which means less growth in general. The only light i see on the market that does this prawns boards/strips which use 5 red diodes to compensate near uva diode.
And even so higher thc and quality in exchange for yield may be desirable anyway, depends on your market and own desires.
Ive still not seen any studies trying this except for somewhat non formal testing of @Prawn Connery s boards versus various other lights which have been leaning towards positive results.
Im very happy to admit i may be wrong but i guess im just the kinda guy that has to test all the frigging UVs until i get the results i like, lol
To those basing their opinion in this purely on studies; i suggest you do you our own research aswell (even if it sounds very Q-Anon) and just wire up some diodes over a tray try out how you like the results. We had the best luck with combining uva with high red flowering spectrum; 2700k 90cri + 660nm. Added about 10% of total wattage of uva: no yield reduction and nicer quality; both high and smell/taste.
We also tried 4000k +660nm + uva + far red + uvb which didnt get great improvement of quality or yield.
Waving papers saying "nooooo" at people who actually try for themselves what you dont have the guts to try yourself doesnt seem like a good way of progressing together.
CannaT
starin' at the world through my rearview
The only thing ive got against this study is that they are studying uvb, with an incomplete coverage of the standard par range and uva. Between 440 and 290nm there is pretty much zero light. They even mention this themselves, theres a synergistic effect between uva and uvb. You need at least a bit uva in order to build tolerance for uvb.
Beyond 660nm missing far reds leads to an uncompensated blue response which of course leads to less growth and yield.
This paper basicly says that adding uvb leds to standard blurple isnt a good idea, which i feel i more or less agree with.
Im not fully familiar with bugbees uv research but most papers ive seen with "no statistic significant uv effect" usually have at least one hole you can poke in it.
Losing yield: yes, it is to be expected if you add blue/violet/uv without compensating the blue response with higher red/far red.
Total thc in plant dont increase: same as above, if you get higher thc but lower yield of course total thc will remain similar, you need to compensate with reds, especially far red. At least add uv abd red/far red in equal proportions, or you will get non optimal results. Basicly youd need to make test comparing a non uv spectrum to a uv rich spectrum where red blue green proportions are similar. Just adding uv is going to change those proportions towards blue response which means less growth in general. The only light i see on the market that does this prawns boards/strips which use 5 red diodes to compensate near uva diode.
And even so higher thc and quality in exchange for yield may be desirable anyway, depends on your market and own desires.
Ive still not seen any studies trying this except for somewhat non formal testing of @Prawn Connery s boards versus various other lights which have been leaning towards positive results.
Im very happy to admit i may be wrong but i guess im just the kinda guy that has to test all the frigging UVs until i get the results i like, lol
To those basing their opinion in this purely on studies; i suggest you do you our own research aswell (even if it sounds very Q-Anon) and just wire up some diodes over a tray try out how you like the results. We had the best luck with combining uva with high red flowering spectrum; 2700k 90cri + 660nm. Added about 10% of total wattage of uva: no yield reduction and nicer quality; both high and smell/taste.
We also tried 4000k +660nm + uva + far red + uvb which didnt get great improvement of quality or yield.
Waving papers saying "nooooo" at people who actually try for themselves what you dont have the guts to try yourself doesnt seem like a good way of progressing together.
I told that before if you play with science you need to be scientist...not beliver.
Many here look at this Bugbee like he is god...that is far away from science.
Led salemans need some "science" to back up their words and its ok...after all its marketing.
That was the Llewellyn article I referred to. Here is a link to the PDF: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.974018/pdfI nearly forgot about the uvb piece in his talk. I'm not on top of all current research on this topic but I do keep hearing about experiments failing to show positive effects from uv exposure.
Conclusion
Long-term exposure of various intensities of relatively short-wavelength UV radiation had generally negative impacts on cannabis growth, yield, and inflorescence quality. By studying two cultivars with similar cannabinoid profiles, we found some differences in phenotypic plasticity in the temporal dynamics in morphology, physiology, yield, and quality responses to UV exposure level. For the first time this paper described the visible symptoms caused by UVB stress on indoor cannabis plants. Importantly, as it was applied in this study, UV radiation provoked substantially reduced yield in one cultivar, reduced inflorescence quality in both cultivars, and had no commercially relevant benefits to inflorescence secondary metabolite composition. Therefore, potential for UV radiation to enhance cannabinoid concentrations must still be confirmed before UV can be used as a tool in cannabis production.
Frontiers | Cannabis Inflorescence Yield and Cannabinoid Concentration Are Not Increased With Exposure to Short-Wavelength Ultraviolet-B Radiation
Before ultraviolet (UV) radiation can be used as a horticultural management tool in commercial Cannabis sativa (cannabis) production, the effects of UV on ca...
I don't think anyone is denying the science, or indeed Bugbee's credentials. However, they have never tested medicinal cannabis. They have only ever tested hemp or high CBD strains. So when they talk about "cannabinoids" they are leaving out arguably the most important one: D9THC
To his credit, Bugbee points this out in his paper: "Elevated UV photon fluxes minimally affected cannabinoid concentration in a high-CBD cultivar"
Frontiers | Elevated UV photon fluxes minimally affected cannabinoid concentration in a high-CBD cultivar
Ultraviolet photons (UV) can damage critical biochemical processes. Plants synthesize photo-protective pigments that absorb UV to minimize damage. Cannabinoi...
www.frontiersin.org
While I haven't seen the criticisms you refer to, I think it is entirely valid to question the ratios of UVB to UVA in relation to the evolutionary function of cannabinoids, because "UV" covers a broad spectral range and we know that morphological changes don't happen in isolation.
I don't know why you would test UVC, for example, when none of it reaches earth and no-one grows with it.
Likewise, you can't just use one UVB band at a much higher rate than would otherwise be used because it is a double-edged sword: it photo-oxidises at the same time it activates the UVR8 pathway.
The UVR8 pathway, incidentally, goes right into the blue range, so blue, violet and UVA are all absorbed by UVR8 pigments to varying degrees.
But I digress . . . Have a look at the following table from the Bugbee study. Even with a low THC plant, THC levels jumped almost 25% (Figure C - 0.4%>0.5%) with the application of the smallest amount of UV, and even THC total yields increased, despite dry plant yields being marginally lower. Yet Bugbee states there was no statistical effect.
The Llewellyn article I give a bit more credence to because they used high-THC plants as well as UVA for most of the flowering period (unlike Bugbee who only applied it three weeks after the onset of flowering), even though the UVB + UVA light formula was only applied in the last 20 days of flowering.
Here's a photo from the Llewellyn paper BTW. Note the botrytis. These guys may be good scientists, but their horticultural skills leave a bit to be desired!
Visually, at least, the UV treatments appear to have a lot more visible trichomes. And statistically, that was also the case, with the UVB treatment having 10% more THCA and 32% more THC than the control – which is significant.
The same could not be said for the cannabinoid content in the buds. But there was definitely a correlation between PPFD and cannabinoid content, so that might be telling us something:
The most interesting thing about the Llewellyn study is this yield table:
UVA boosted dry yields significantly. Divide all the dry flower weights by the PPFD and you get a fairly consistent ratio of around 0.045-0.046 grams per umol/s/m2 for the non-UVA treatments.
The UVA treatment (600PPFD + 50PPFD of 385nm UVA) produced 0.048 grams, or roughly 4-7% more yield per PPFD, so it had a higher photosynthetic value than the other wavelengths.
I mean, we'll ignore the fact that Llewellyn used a "Blurple" LED with no Far Red – we believe Far Red is needed to quench chloroplasts to get the most efficiency out of UVA, and so it should ALWAYS be included in these trials, but never is.
It is precisely due to the added photosynthetic value of UVA – especially around 400nm – that we add 405nm diodes to our LED panels, because we've seen the results.
I really would like to start a separate thread on UV vs cannabinoids, as this thread is probably not the place, but it does show there are morphogenic responses taking place with UV exposure.
We've also done our own tests on UVA and UVB and I would like to published them here.
Some of the world's greatest inventions have been thought up by laymen because they weren't conditioned by the science or simply wouldn't take "No" for an answer.
But I believe your sentiment: if you're going to be a scientist, you need to be objective. But you also need to have real-word experience before you can apply knowledge correctly or get the best out of it.
In another life, I used to teach aerodynamics to student pilots. Anyone can quote Bernoulli's theory, but no-one – not even scientists – truly know what makes a wing fly. Faster air molecules over a wing create less pressure . . . but less pressure speeds up air molecules – so which is cause and which is effect? Or are we simply seeing the results of compression-based pressure? I was ridiculed by one senior instructor when I posited that the angle of attack created the negative air pressure that caused air molecules to speed up over the top surface of a wing . . . Until I met another, younger (and smarter) flying instructor who agreed with me. Just one example of repetitive teaching principles being superseded by new thinking.
So yes, I do hope to bring a little bit of new thinking to the topic and we have done some scientific tests to support those theories.
I agree with your second statement. Blue and violet are absorbed by the UVR8 pathway (as mentioned above), but "UV" is a small acronym covering a very large spectrum of wavelength, so you can't just say "UV doesn't work" any more than you can say "UV works" until you have tried everything. That includes mixing it with other wavelengths including Far Red and using longer-wavelength UVA which also has photosynthetic value.UV use is wishful thinking. Anyone following the science has realised what it really does, and started to look at blue as a near relative. Where papers are suggesting a linear relationship, where 1% more blue, leads to 2% less crop. We have spoke about this, but while people still want UV, there is little room for us all to progress together. Though the physical model is there to see in our grows. It's not just facts hidden in papers.
Dropping pollen so soon?
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
I need to look into this after doing my taxes. Some of the charts are a bit hard to understand without context/discussion around them, will have to look at the full paper.That was the Llewellyn article I referred to. Here is a link to the PDF: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.974018/pdf
I don't think anyone is denying the science, or indeed Bugbee's credentials. However, they have never tested medicinal cannabis. They have only ever tested hemp or high CBD strains. So when they talk about "cannabinoids" they are leaving out arguably the most important one: D9THC
To his credit, Bugbee points this out in his paper: "Elevated UV photon fluxes minimally affected cannabinoid concentration in a high-CBD cultivar"
Frontiers | Elevated UV photon fluxes minimally affected cannabinoid concentration in a high-CBD cultivar
Ultraviolet photons (UV) can damage critical biochemical processes. Plants synthesize photo-protective pigments that absorb UV to minimize damage. Cannabinoi...
While I haven't seen the criticisms you refer to, I think it is entirely valid to question the ratios of UVB to UVA in relation to the evolutionary function of cannabinoids, because "UV" covers a broad spectral range and we know that morphological changes don't happen in isolation.
I don't know why you would test UVC, for example, when none of it reaches earth and no-one grows with it.
Likewise, you can't just use one UVB band at a much higher rate than would otherwise be used because it is a double-edged sword: it photo-oxidises at the same time it activates the UVR8 pathway.
The UVR8 pathway, incidentally, goes right into the blue range, so blue, violet and UVA are all absorbed by UVR8 pigments to varying degrees.
But I digress . . . Have a look at the following table from the Bugbee study. Even with a low THC plant, THC levels jumped almost 25% (Figure C - 0.4%>0.5%) with the application of the smallest amount of UV, and even THC total yields increased, despite dry plant yields being marginally lower. Yet Bugbee states there was no statistical effect.
View attachment 18944416
The Llewellyn article I give a bit more credence to because they used high-THC plants as well as UVA for most of the flowering period (unlike Bugbee who only applied it three weeks after the onset of flowering), even though the UVB + UVA light formula was only applied in the last 20 days of flowering.
Here's a photo from the Llewellyn paper BTW. Note the botrytis. These guys may be good scientists, but their horticultural skills leave a bit to be desired!
View attachment 18944413
Visually, at least, the UV treatments appear to have a lot more visible trichomes. And statistically, that was also the case, with the UVB treatment having 10% more THCA and 32% more THC than the control – which is significant.
View attachment 18944417
The same could not be said for the cannabinoid content in the buds. But there was definitely a correlation between PPFD and cannabinoid content, so that might be telling us something:
View attachment 18944418
The most interesting thing about the Llewellyn study is this yield table:
View attachment 18944419
UVA boosted dry yields significantly. Divide all the dry flower weights by the PPFD and you get a fairly consistent ratio of around 0.045-0.046 grams per umol/s/m2 for the non-UVA treatments.
The UVA treatment (600PPFD + 50PPFD of 385nm UVA) produced 0.048 grams, or roughly 4-7% more yield per PPFD, so it had a higher photosynthetic value than the other wavelengths.
I mean, we'll ignore the fact that Llewellyn used a "Blurple" LED with no Far Red – we believe Far Red is needed to quench chloroplasts to get the most efficiency out of UVA, and so it should ALWAYS be included in these trials, but never is.
It is precisely due to the added photosynthetic value of UVA – especially around 400nm – that we add 405nm diodes to our LED panels, because we've seen the results.
I really would like to start a separate thread on UV vs cannabinoids, as this thread is probably not the place, but it does show there are morphogenic responses taking place with UV exposure.
We've also done our own tests on UVA and UVB and I would like to published them here.
For example: ppfd /yield chart: it seems to show that there is statistic significance in 2 cases but the chart wont say really which of the conditions is different from which; which one of the conditions had real effect and which had effect but enough "noise" in the numbers in order to not reach significance.
One thing this study is saying very clearly is that uva + uvb gave higher thc: by 32% and at statistic significance so theres that: sorry to nay sayers but this is what following the science look like; look at all studies before coming to a conclusion. Unless yield has gone down with 32% then i see this as a sorta win for the uv camp. The caveat is that this was in sugar leaves and not buds.
Another issue it seems to refute is the adding blue lowers yield; adding around 8% of uv (50ppfd) to the standard 600ppfd did not lead to anything similar to 16% reduction in flower yield, even if you compensate the numbers for increase in total ppfd. In both cases of fresh and dry flower weight the flower yield increased with more than 8% when this blue effect on yield shoulda had it going down rather than up.
I cant look at all these studies and say the science is in any way settled, we have papers who show trends in both directions.
I would say without a doubt. UV hardens plants off. It makes the epidermis thicker and more resistant to disease and pests. UVB also inhibits mould spores, as can be seen in the leaf photo I posted above, and may also deter pests.
According to this study, UV increases DNA repair function (possibly as a counter to UV-induced photo-oxidative DNA damage), defence responses and production of secondary metabolites, including phenolic compounds.
Ultraviolet Radiation From a Plant Perspective: The Plant-Microorganism Context
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation directly affects plants and microorganisms, but also alters the species-specific interactions between them. The distinct bands of UV radiation, UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C have different effects on plants and their associated microorganisms. While UV-A and UV-B mainly affect...
And how many times have you read where someone was having trouble with their "sick" LED plants and put them outside under natural sunlight and – miraculously – their plants recovered?
The Lumigrow spectrum in the Llewellyn study uses 5000K white phosphors, 450nm and 660nm monos on three channels. Each colour has its own driver and adjustment.
While the study said it maintained the same RGB ratios throughout 600, 800 and 1000 PPFD, I wondered if the higher PPFD levels had a different ratio.
What I do know is that as you increase current, the monos gain efficiency in relation to the white phosphors (in other words, the efficiency of the monos does not drop off as fast as the white phosphors), which would mean more red and less blue, as the white phosphors are also a significant source of blue light.
One thing I did notice is that as light intensity increases, total THC content (yield x percentage) per unit of light also increases. That means the increase in THC per plant (total yield) is higher than the percentage increase in light. At least up to 1000 PPFD.
I can think of three reasons:
1. HPS is warmer – hence drier
2. Because it's warmer, growers tend to have more air blowing in a HPS grow
3. LED makes buds more compact – HPS tends to stretch them a little more. That means less airflow through the flowers in LED grows compared to HPS.
You see this a lot in sativa vs indica grows where indicas are prone to mould while sativas are not. Some indicas have good mould resistance because their buds are so tight and compact, air can't get into the flowers but neither can mould spores.
Ca++
Well-known member
You may want to see that, but I don't.THC total yields increased, despite dry plant yields being marginally lower. Yet Bugbee states there was no statistical effect.
View attachment 18944416
Most believers still think nobody has tried what they are about to. The idea nobody has tried uvc for instance, is untrue. The idea that's from a paper and not trying it, is untrue.
Belief defies logic. If people need it to be true, they will not see evidence it's not.
I'm just going to point outside, and remind a couple of folks that a lot of cannabis plants are grown in the conditions in which they evolved. Conditions that cover just about all the desires they speak of. We really don't need to make that light artificially, to know what it does.
I'm not going to aid the perpetuation of this topic. It's dead. Blue is the new UV. Which also died years ago, and now we have papers to show just how dead. Most of these papers we read are documenting the grow knowledge earned from hands on growing. Or, documenting what happened when they studied these old wisdom's.
Perhaps I'm just cynical in the eyes of some. I'm not trying to find the gold at the end of the rainbow though. I have actually seen the end, and it wasn't there. There are now better uses of my time. While this is a bad use of my time.
I find it no surprise the internet is abound with UV believers, but I was banned from a forum for suggesting lights on the floor would work. While half way through their trial. Yes the sun is above, but we have tried the sun for UV, and lights on the ground. One gave very strong results. The other gets more interest.
We all have to give up at some point
Rocket Soul
Well-known member
What does this add to this discussion other than that you dont believe in UV and you believe this is settled issue? Why do you think its a dead issue when papers keep on coming in which contradict your conclusions? Arent you as much a believer that it doesnt work as the believers are that it works? I mean its pretty clear, there is a paper saying that it does bring THC up, with statistical significance and that UVA raises yield rather than lower it, again what looks statistical significance but id have to check the original paper: how can you state that this is settled? The only way to get to your position is byYou may want to see that, but I don't.
Most believers still think nobody has tried what they are about to. The idea nobody has tried uvc for instance, is untrue. The idea that's from a paper and not trying it, is untrue.
Belief defies logic. If people need it to be true, they will not see evidence it's not.
I'm just going to point outside, and remind a couple of folks that a lot of cannabis plants are grown in the conditions in which they evolved. Conditions that cover just about all the desires they speak of. We really don't need to make that light artificially, to know what it does.
I'm not going to aid the perpetuation of this topic. It's dead. Blue is the new UV. Which also died years ago, and now we have papers to show just how dead. Most of these papers we read are documenting the grow knowledge earned from hands on growing. Or, documenting what happened when they studied these old wisdom's.
Perhaps I'm just cynical in the eyes of some. I'm not trying to find the gold at the end of the rainbow though. I have actually seen the end, and it wasn't there. There are now better uses of my time. While this is a bad use of my time.
I find it no surprise the internet is abound with UV believers, but I was banned from a forum for suggesting lights on the floor would work. While half way through their trial. Yes the sun is above, but we have tried the sun for UV, and lights on the ground. One gave very strong results. The other gets more interest.
We all have to give up at some point
1: having already decided what you think (and that without having tried uva afaik). I know you made some tests with uvb tubes and hps way back but i dont think its the same really. Both are hot lights and tend to evaporate terps and cannabinoids.
2: not being able to read the paper. Cause dude, its pretty black and white. And when science are going in two separate ways then its not settled or dead.
3: Valuing other papers higher than this one. If this is your point, that you think that other papers already settled this then you need to argue your point why the science you prefer is better than whats under discussion here. Bring some decent papers and quote, however the stuff ive seen you bring has been kinda middling science and conclusions; this is why we ask you for more than just saying "this is settled long time ago" and some stuff about getting banned for proposing under cannopy light; thats bot even an argument.
Im sorry if I sound shitty and confrontational, you know i appreciate you to the extent that i do believe youre trying to help people generally, but when you try to close down a discussion about science and opposing papers by using arguments from authority without any actual factual argument or quoting nothing relevant then i will call you out a bit. If you want to argue from authority you need to actually show youre an authority, and even then you need to still be able to engage with the actual points of the discussion, not just say this is closed cause i say so. Im sorry but i will continue calling out this kind of expression.
There it is with the UV again. Which UV? That is half the issue – defining "UV" – when it covers such a broad range and works with other wavelengths. But now I am repeating myself.
phunkeeboodah
Active member
the one on the right was male though it turns out. still waiting on the othersDropping pollen so soon?
