LED and BUD QUALITY

[Ca++]

A UV-B guaranty your tomato's will taste better, can't be transferred to cannabis.
Certainly some plants like UV-B. Basil loves UV an Blue, but tomato's are not a lover of blue, and cannabis likes neither. As a very loose generalisation, leafy greens like blue more than red. Maize actually likes blue, yet canna and tom's don't. Which are plants we used to look at for clues what our plant likes. Now our plant can receive the testing, UV isn't looking useful as a light source for growing. It does bring about a change, as seen between glass house and ploy-tunnel products. It's just a mild change though. Hard to say it's it's for better or worse, but certainly costs.

The article was in the daily hail, so can't be taken seriously. They say things like

The outdoor tomatoes received a 6.61, the controlled group was given a 5.67, but the tomatoes in growing with artificial UV light received a 5.67

So the figures presented, say no change at all. 12 years on, they still can't manage maths or English.

 

[Ca++]

I doubt this highly. Is there an article or study that shows them “exploding”?

No, he is just having a laugh. Another poster (who's credibility I won't knock with a mention) used that term. No papers were given. If we step back a bit, I think the idea is more about rapid expansion leading to collapse. Cell walls splitting and stuff being lost. As yet, I have never been splattered by exploding heads in my room. Though it may become an interesting dream, following the suggestion.

 

[goingrey]

The article was in the daily hail, so can't be taken seriously. They say things like
So the figures presented, say no change at all. 12 years on, they still can't manage maths or English.

They got it wrong in the summary box but in the actual article did note a difference.

Outdoor 6.61
UV-A supplemented 6.49
UV-A&B supplemented 5.87
Control 5.67

 

[Ca++]

Cheers goinggrey
I had a look. It's a pretty rough study. The likes of which many of us here could relate to, but perhaps shouldn't rely on too much. They saw uv-b was bad, but couldn't really say uv-a was good. It could of been an issue of white balance. The greenhouse crop being out of season, and the outdoor being in summer. It's hard to say if ethylene was at play, but studies have shown blue light to be significant in it's production. Light lacking out of season, when their is also less in the air.
The significance of blue in ethylene production is seen in citrous fruits. Not a great analogue for toms or cannabis. Much of the testing centered in ethylene actually uses 730nm. Which is probably more significant when weighing LED against HID buds. Though that might be another thread.

There is just a few too many differences between our crops, for me to bridge between canna specific testing, and this contrary testing of tom's, that's not particularly scientific. I think it would lead me astray if I tried.

 

[Ca++]

I think it needed a better flush

 

[Dr.Dutch]

IMO UV is more helpful in helping plants fight off molds. There was a test done that too much UV would be detrimental to all plant life not just cannabis. I do think UV plays a role in plant health. I don't belive UV adds resin or improves terps in any way.

If we listen to GPT, we can save ourselves the collection of anecdotal experiences. UV and blue light can have an impact, but it seems to always depend on the genetics and the specific setup. This also explains why some people observe positive effects while others don't.
The information that GPT is providing aligns with my knowledge on the subject as well. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the topic is being so controversially discussed here

Ultraviolet (UV) light exposure can potentially influence the production of terpenes in cannabis plants. Terpenes are organic compounds responsible for the aroma and flavor profiles found in various plants, including cannabis. UV light exposure is known to be one of the environmental factors that can stimulate the production of terpenes in some plant species, including cannabis.

In cannabis cultivation, UV light can be used as a supplemental light source during specific stages of plant growth, such as the flowering stage. The UV spectrum, particularly UV-B (280-315 nm), has been shown to trigger the production of certain terpenes in cannabis plants. These terpenes are believed to be part of the plant's defense mechanism against UV radiation.

When cannabis plants are exposed to UV light, they may respond by producing increased levels of certain terpenes. This can potentially lead to enhanced aroma and flavor profiles in the harvested flowers. However, it's important to note that the specific effects of UV light on terpene production can vary depending on various factors, such as the genetics of the cannabis strain, the intensity and duration of UV exposure, and the overall environmental conditions.

It's worth mentioning that UV light can also be harmful to plants if used excessively or inappropriately. Therefore, it's crucial to consider the specific needs of the cannabis strain being cultivated and to implement UV light exposure in a controlled manner, taking into account the strain's tolerance and optimal growing conditions.

The blue spectrum of light can also influence terpene production in cannabis plants. Blue light, which falls within the range of approximately 400-500 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum, plays a significant role in plant growth and development.

Blue light is essential for promoting healthy leaf and stem growth, as well as regulating various physiological processes in plants. Studies have shown that blue light can influence the biosynthesis of certain secondary metabolites, including terpenes, in cannabis plants.

By providing an appropriate amount of blue light during the vegetative stage, cannabis growers can potentially enhance the production of terpenes. However, it's important to maintain a balanced light spectrum, including other wavelengths like red and far-red, to ensure overall plant development and growth.

It's worth noting that the specific effects of blue light on terpene production can vary depending on factors such as the genetics of the cannabis strain, the intensity and duration of blue light exposure, and the overall environmental conditions. Therefore, it's important to carefully design and implement lighting strategies, considering the specific needs of the cannabis strain being cultivated, to optimize terpene production and overall plant health.

The phosphors used in lighting, are a bit like a filter. Looking at the flo is a good start. It originally used mercury as a gas discharge lamp. Which is a predominantly UV light. The white coat we see looking at a flo, is the phosphor. The UV wasn't meant to make it through. The UV photon carries a lot of energy, which excited the phosphors. They in turn glow.


With the LED is makes sense to start with blue, as it's the highest power photon in white light. As it does work, it's loosing energy, or having it's energy divided up, which in either case is shifting blue towards red. If instead we started with red, than making blue would be challenging. Though two reds do make a blue in energy terms, I'm not sure that a phosphor getting a pair of reds would get excited enough to make blue, without loosing energy before then. Such as green.
There are some basic phosphors used, and some rare one's. The pinnacle of office lighting was the tri-phosphor lamp for good colour rendering. Three? that's not particularly impressive. Not when lighting companies are now making proprietary blends to try and work specific bands only.

By using phosphor coating, one can transform monochromatic blue diodes into ones that emit light across the entire visible spectrum. However, this process results in energy loss. From an energy perspective, red diodes are the most efficient, as they have the highest photon-to-watt yield. Phosphor-coated diodes are cost-effective because they are mass-produced. Ideally, if energy efficiency is a priority, predominantly using red diodes would be more favorable.

Bugbee has also some good videos about LED lights.
.

Spoiler: OT Silica

For what?

A source for your statement that additional silica supplementation would only lead to deposition and that cannabis can synthesize the semi-essential element silicon in such large quantities itself, rendering additional supplementation ineffective.

 

[chilliwilli]

I'm not convinced with the use of uv.
2 harvest with the migro uv were not strong smelling. It did change the smell but not to a good imo. I noticed this most with the austrian sensi star cut on my first try but also with other genetics on the second run u got some weird sellerie like note in the herb. First i thought it's enhanced smell because i know that sellerie note from sensistar only way less strong. Dunno maybe some kind of terp polymerisation is happening because the sweet taste also came up only after some weeks cure.
My last try will be to use uv every other day like bb mentioned in his video.

 

[Cerathule]

No, he is just having a laugh. Another poster (who's credibility I won't knock with a mention) used that term. No papers were given. If we step back a bit, I think the idea is more about rapid expansion leading to collapse. Cell walls splitting and stuff being lost. As yet, I have never been splattered by exploding heads in my room. Though it may become an interesting dream, following the suggestion.

Many laughs actually. Although it is also sad how a serious discussion about photobiology can be rent apart by self-styled experts that are obviously as clueless as it can gets.

So now the heads do collapse? Well just take a few photos of your plants at x100 - x200 and see if you can find these. Amongst 1000 trichomes they should be there, sometimes. You would see the fluid resin drip down the stalk. Like it happens when an insect, or your finger, touches them. See? So it should be easy to verify your own words, and with a little bit experience you could've actually known that this is not the case right before you posted that theory.
Nothing here adheres to strict scientific standards it's just smoked up people living in a fantasy world. So UV does nothing ohohoho it's proven. Let me guess by Magagnini a young girl with just a few years of experience. Let's just use a LED spec that already contains sufficient blue and then use a 280nm diode, which releases half of its flux in the UVC range, then burn the plants to crap, but let it light starve at 400 PPFD at the tops, so it never has the power to actually repair the photodamage, not to speak of building up cannabinoids which is quite costly for the plant, and then call that proof. Because her Prof told her at 400PPFD the plant has a better situation to retranslocate nutrients hahaha. That's what you get when even the Prof supervising these studies is dumb as fuck. Cannot even think of how a plant would dwell under +2000 PPFD outdoors....
And let's just deny the mass of studies that found that outdoor plants have higher levels of THC, or Lydon who did the most thorough study yet, or the HPS vs LED where LED has higher cannabinoids. Don't mention how cryptochromes/phototropins share a broad absorb spec of blue and UVA and that UVB isn't working on the same.... don't mention the specific 100% proven UVB responses (proven for 99% of plant species, there's 100++ studies) and how this gene response can also be called in by other stress, pests, drought, fertilizer etc.

Yeah, let's not - never ever - talk about plant physiology it's pointless to begin with. Because Cannabis is so special it's not really a plant it's weed. It needs special fertilizer and special soil, and special light, and special water everything needs to be special and it also needs its own sun because the normal sun up in the sky releases so much green which will kill Cannabis so the plant actually sleeps during the day and uses that other sun there during the night.

That's wisdom from ICMag, yeah I read this here.

 

[Ca++]

The UV debate continues, because practically speaking, there is no profit. For many of us interested in growing plants, that is the end of the subject. Others stick to the fact that it does work, in inefficient laboratory conditions. Both opinions are correct. Where yes it has an effect, but no, it's not worth doing.

A look at the equipment involved is telling. They are using fluorescent lights. The covid problem saw a switch from white light to UV light development by most big names. This has done a lot for LED efficiency in this area. However, it is still terrible. A lot of energy usage, to do very little. Energy that could of yielded more if used more conventionally.

There is no specific thing we want from our green, that makes UV viable. It does work, and it doesn't

 

[Cerathule]

If we listen to GPT, we can save ourselves the collection of anecdotal experiences. UV and blue light can have an impact, but it seems to always depend on the genetics and the specific setup. This also explains why some people observe positive effects while others don't.
The information that GPT is providing aligns with my knowledge on the subject as well. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the topic is being so controversially discussed here

Ultraviolet (UV) light exposure can potentially influence the production of terpenes in cannabis plants. Terpenes are organic compounds responsible for the aroma and flavor profiles found in various plants, including cannabis. UV light exposure is known to be one of the environmental factors that can stimulate the production of terpenes in some plant species, including cannabis.

In cannabis cultivation, UV light can be used as a supplemental light source during specific stages of plant growth, such as the flowering stage. The UV spectrum, particularly UV-B (280-315 nm), has been shown to trigger the production of certain terpenes in cannabis plants. These terpenes are believed to be part of the plant's defense mechanism against UV radiation.

When cannabis plants are exposed to UV light, they may respond by producing increased levels of certain terpenes. This can potentially lead to enhanced aroma and flavor profiles in the harvested flowers. However, it's important to note that the specific effects of UV light on terpene production can vary depending on various factors, such as the genetics of the cannabis strain, the intensity and duration of UV exposure, and the overall environmental conditions.

It's worth mentioning that UV light can also be harmful to plants if used excessively or inappropriately. Therefore, it's crucial to consider the specific needs of the cannabis strain being cultivated and to implement UV light exposure in a controlled manner, taking into account the strain's tolerance and optimal growing conditions.

The blue spectrum of light can also influence terpene production in cannabis plants. Blue light, which falls within the range of approximately 400-500 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum, plays a significant role in plant growth and development.

Blue light is essential for promoting healthy leaf and stem growth, as well as regulating various physiological processes in plants. Studies have shown that blue light can influence the biosynthesis of certain secondary metabolites, including terpenes, in cannabis plants.

By providing an appropriate amount of blue light during the vegetative stage, cannabis growers can potentially enhance the production of terpenes. However, it's important to maintain a balanced light spectrum, including other wavelengths like red and far-red, to ensure overall plant development and growth.

It's worth noting that the specific effects of blue light on terpene production can vary depending on factors such as the genetics of the cannabis strain, the intensity and duration of blue light exposure, and the overall environmental conditions. Therefore, it's important to carefully design and implement lighting strategies, considering the specific needs of the cannabis strain being cultivated, to optimize terpene production and overall plant health.


By using phosphor coating, one can transform monochromatic blue diodes into ones that emit light across the entire visible spectrum. However, this process results in energy loss. From an energy perspective, red diodes are the most efficient, as they have the highest photon-to-watt yield. Phosphor-coated diodes are cost-effective because they are mass-produced. Ideally, if energy efficiency is a priority, predominantly using red diodes would be more favorable.

Bugbee has also some good videos about LED lights.
.

Spoiler: OT Silica

A source for your statement that additional silica supplementation would only lead to deposition and that cannabis can synthesize the semi-essential element silicon in such large quantities itself, rendering additional supplementation ineffective.

Did Bugbee really call PSII "Photosystem I" (at 16:19) although it's written correctly already there and then later ventures on to say "this is a trick question for our students"...

And then only 8 photons should be used for a step of photosynthesis? That's not correct.
And PSII uses these photons to make ATP? Also incorrect. PSII splits water to gather electrons, it's PSI that builds ATP by cyclical electron flow.
Bugbee is good for beginners, but does alot of errors and is no real expert, a science Jack of all YT trades.

@Ca++
There at 18:59 he explains some underlying physical aspect of why your idea of a 2 red pumps making blue light cannot work.

 

[Ca++]

Many laughs actually. Although it is also sad how a serious discussion about photobiology can be rent apart by self-styled experts that are obviously as clueless as it can gets.

So now the heads do collapse? Well just take a few photos of your plants at x100 - x200 and see if you can find these. Amongst 1000 trichomes they should be there, sometimes. You would see the fluid resin drip down the stalk. Like it happens when an insect, or your finger, touches them. See? So it should be easy to verify your own words, and with a little bit experience you could've actually known that this is not the case right before you posted that theory.
Nothing here adheres to strict scientific standards it's just smoked up people living in a fantasy world. So UV does nothing ohohoho it's proven. Let me guess by Magagnini a young girl with just a few years of experience. Let's just use a LED spec that already contains sufficient blue and then use a 280nm diode, which releases half of its flux in the UVC range, then burn the plants to crap, but let it light starve at 400 PPFD at the tops, so it never has the power to actually repair the photodamage, not to speak of building up cannabinoids which is quite costly for the plant, and then call that proof. Because her Prof told her at 400PPFD the plant has a better situation to retranslocate nutrients hahaha. That's what you get when even the Prof supervising these studies is dumb as fuck. Cannot even think of how a plant would dwell under +2000 PPFD outdoors....
And let's just deny the mass of studies that found that outdoor plants have higher levels of THC, or Lydon who did the most thorough study yet, or the HPS vs LED where LED has higher cannabinoids. Don't mention how cryptochromes/phototropins share a broad absorb spec of blue and UVA and that UVB isn't working on the same.... don't mention the specific 100% proven UVB responses (proven for 99% of plant species, there's 100++ studies) and how this gene response can also be called in by other stress, pests, drought, fertilizer etc.

Yeah, let's not - never ever - talk about plant physiology it's pointless to begin with. Because Cannabis is so special it's not really a plant it's weed. It needs special fertilizer and special soil, and special light, and special water everything needs to be special and it also needs its own sun because the normal sun up in the sky releases so much green which will kill Cannabis so the plant actually sleeps during the day and uses that other sun there during the night.

That's wisdom from ICMag, yeah I read this here.

Interesting outburst.
Did you notice I said I read it after being asked to do a search. Then I said it's not my opinion. Then that I used their wording, not my own. How a few times I have mocked it. Making it quite clear a read it, where my source is, and that they gave no source. Well.. I thought I had made it quite clear anyway. Have you noticed how many times we have this same discussion though. Is it weekly?

I see no problem with someone seeing something, putting up pics, and people trying to figure out what's going on. I actually like that. It's called peer review, and it often makes observations into fast or fiction quite quickly.


Did your post add anything to the discussion. Or just moan about posts that add nothing to the discussion.

Please don't answer, as I'm sick of talking with you

 

[Cerathule]

There is no specific thing we want from our green, that makes UV viable. It does work, and it doesn't

Green is best to acquire biomass at high flux strength when red/blue chlorophylls are already lightsaturated and only heat/damage the adaxial chloroplasts.

 

[Cerathule]

Interesting outburst.
Did you notice I said I read it after being asked to do a search. Then I said it's not my opinion. Then that I used their wording, not my own. How a few times I have mocked it. Making it quite clear a read it, where my source is, and that they gave no source. Well.. I thought I had made it quite clear anyway. Have you noticed how many times we have this same discussion though. Is it weekly?

I see no problem with someone seeing something, putting up pics, and people trying to figure out what's going on. I actually like that. It's called peer review, and it often makes observations into fast or fiction quite quickly.


Did your post add anything to the discussion. Or just moan about posts that add nothing to the discussion.

Please don't answer, as I'm sick of talking with you

If you can't stand critic, maybe this is not for you?

 

[MadMac]

looks like some living still in the past... ignore science ... and the proof ...

here are some example grown under LED + UV + FAR RED ...

have grown 10 years + HPS + MH ...
haved mixed those with LED... but finally swiched to LED because power heat and better results...
it all depend on setup... feeding and room temp... indica & sativa...
i'll grow only sativa ... most time pure landrace and haze .... LED was the best move for those...
made my own grow computer that controls the enviroment...
fades the light in and out ... switches the UV on midday... in beginning just 30 min @ end 2 - 3 hours depend on strain... Far Red if you need stretch... but i'll use it to simulate the blue hour before sunset... it help's to put them into sleep & relax mode and speeds up little the flower time because of that...
well to me it's always ... the proof is in the pudding... science is good but proof is always @ your home...
the led's made huge step's forward last 5 years ...

my wife asked me why i'm so nice brown in my face... from the sun?
no i'll replied ... was 3 hour busy in my grow room ;-)
if possible... use P + K separate from each other.. gives better results...
first stage P ... later flower stage K only.. in between use booth and lower or raise accordantly
with LED you need to give little Cal/Mag in later flower for long flowering...
M.

 

[Dr.Dutch]

@Cerathule You can save your seemingly scientific statements if you are not familiar with the basic principles of scientific work. This includes, for example, providing sources for your claims and engaging in a factual discussion. I'm still waiting for your source regarding your statement about silicon, and I can see from your posts here that you lack proper discussion etiquette. Ca++ demonstrates how to engage in a respectful discussion. You, on the other hand, do not. Your reaction with the smileys doesn't improve the situation either.
And calling Bugbee a YouTuber really tops it all off. If you're so advanced, you can go through his papers on Google Scholar. The number of citations does say a lot about the quality of work by certain scientists, and nearly 10,000 is indeed quite high. Well, he has been publishing for several decades as well.

Bruce Bugbee

Utah State University - Cited by 11,124 - photobiology - soil plant atmosphere continuum - measurements and models

scholar.google.com

 

[Corpselover Fat]

And then only 8 photons should be used for a step of photosynthesis? That's not correct.

Eight photons needed to fix a co2.

 

[Ca++]

If you can't stand critic, maybe this is not for you?

A critic talks about things that exist. You just talk. Always because you read stuff that isn't there. I just spoke about our green's need for UV, and you are off talking about green light. In this case it's understandable that you don't know green is another name for cannabis. However, it's a few minutes since you last misunderstood. AI trawls the internet with better results.

I'm very close to blocking the first person, in my 30+ years of forum usage. I'm fed up with these pointless conversations. To hear you knocking Bruce and talking of self styled experts is just sickening. Who do you think you are. The conversations you have rarely suggest any growing experience. So why not stop this charade, and let the thread run it's course.

 

[Hammerhead]

If we listen to GPT, we can save ourselves the collection of anecdotal experiences. UV and blue light can have an impact, but it seems to always depend on the genetics and the specific setup. This also explains why some people observe positive effects while others don't.
The information that GPT is providing aligns with my knowledge on the subject as well. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the topic is being so controversially discussed here

Ultraviolet (UV) light exposure can potentially influence the production of terpenes in cannabis plants. Terpenes are organic compounds responsible for the aroma and flavor profiles found in various plants, including cannabis. UV light exposure is known to be one of the environmental factors that can stimulate the production of terpenes in some plant species, including cannabis.

In cannabis cultivation, UV light can be used as a supplemental light source during specific stages of plant growth, such as the flowering stage. The UV spectrum, particularly UV-B (280-315 nm), has been shown to trigger the production of certain terpenes in cannabis plants. These terpenes are believed to be part of the plant's defense mechanism against UV radiation.

When cannabis plants are exposed to UV light, they may respond by producing increased levels of certain terpenes. This can potentially lead to enhanced aroma and flavor profiles in the harvested flowers. However, it's important to note that the specific effects of UV light on terpene production can vary depending on various factors, such as the genetics of the cannabis strain, the intensity and duration of UV exposure, and the overall environmental conditions.

It's worth mentioning that UV light can also be harmful to plants if used excessively or inappropriately. Therefore, it's crucial to consider the specific needs of the cannabis strain being cultivated and to implement UV light exposure in a controlled manner, taking into account the strain's tolerance and optimal growing conditions.

The blue spectrum of light can also influence terpene production in cannabis plants. Blue light, which falls within the range of approximately 400-500 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum, plays a significant role in plant growth and development.

Blue light is essential for promoting healthy leaf and stem growth, as well as regulating various physiological processes in plants. Studies have shown that blue light can influence the biosynthesis of certain secondary metabolites, including terpenes, in cannabis plants.

By providing an appropriate amount of blue light during the vegetative stage, cannabis growers can potentially enhance the production of terpenes. However, it's important to maintain a balanced light spectrum, including other wavelengths like red and far-red, to ensure overall plant development and growth.

It's worth noting that the specific effects of blue light on terpene production can vary depending on factors such as the genetics of the cannabis strain, the intensity and duration of blue light exposure, and the overall environmental conditions. Therefore, it's important to carefully design and implement lighting strategies, considering the specific needs of the cannabis strain being cultivated, to optimize terpene production and overall plant health.


By using phosphor coating, one can transform monochromatic blue diodes into ones that emit light across the entire visible spectrum. However, this process results in energy loss. From an energy perspective, red diodes are the most efficient, as they have the highest photon-to-watt yield. Phosphor-coated diodes are cost-effective because they are mass-produced. Ideally, if energy efficiency is a priority, predominantly using red diodes would be more favorable.

Bugbee has also some good videos about LED lights.
.

Spoiler: OT Silica

A source for your statement that additional silica supplementation would only lead to deposition and that cannabis can synthesize the semi-essential element silicon in such large quantities itself, rendering additional supplementation ineffective.

It's really not that difficult to test.. Grow a plant with UV and do thane same without and see if the UV plant is better. Ive already done this. I never got any plants with UV to smell better or be more potent.

 

[Crooked8]

Many laughs actually. Although it is also sad how a serious discussion about photobiology can be rent apart by self-styled experts that are obviously as clueless as it can gets.

So now the heads do collapse? Well just take a few photos of your plants at x100 - x200 and see if you can find these. Amongst 1000 trichomes they should be there, sometimes. You would see the fluid resin drip down the stalk. Like it happens when an insect, or your finger, touches them. See? So it should be easy to verify your own words, and with a little bit experience you could've actually known that this is not the case right before you posted that theory.
Nothing here adheres to strict scientific standards it's just smoked up people living in a fantasy world. So UV does nothing ohohoho it's proven. Let me guess by Magagnini a young girl with just a few years of experience. Let's just use a LED spec that already contains sufficient blue and then use a 280nm diode, which releases half of its flux in the UVC range, then burn the plants to crap, but let it light starve at 400 PPFD at the tops, so it never has the power to actually repair the photodamage, not to speak of building up cannabinoids which is quite costly for the plant, and then call that proof. Because her Prof told her at 400PPFD the plant has a better situation to retranslocate nutrients hahaha. That's what you get when even the Prof supervising these studies is dumb as fuck. Cannot even think of how a plant would dwell under +2000 PPFD outdoors....
And let's just deny the mass of studies that found that outdoor plants have higher levels of THC, or Lydon who did the most thorough study yet, or the HPS vs LED where LED has higher cannabinoids. Don't mention how cryptochromes/phototropins share a broad absorb spec of blue and UVA and that UVB isn't working on the same.... don't mention the specific 100% proven UVB responses (proven for 99% of plant species, there's 100++ studies) and how this gene response can also be called in by other stress, pests, drought, fertilizer etc.

Yeah, let's not - never ever - talk about plant physiology it's pointless to begin with. Because Cannabis is so special it's not really a plant it's weed. It needs special fertilizer and special soil, and special light, and special water everything needs to be special and it also needs its own sun because the normal sun up in the sky releases so much green which will kill Cannabis so the plant actually sleeps during the day and uses that other sun there during the night.

That's wisdom from ICMag, yeah I read this here.

I find it odd that you laugh at my asking for a study or any evidence that trichomes “explode”. Can you show proof or just laugh when people ask? If you cant show proof of anything, maybe science and horticulture arent for you?

 

[Ca++]

Odd isn't it. The pic was good quality, for it's era. I don't think I have any left now.

I have perhaps been holding out, through lack of substantial explanation. I must say though, that I have seen headless trichs, and that I don't really follow their production. Do the heads form later on? as the crop was frazzled. Like it didn't get past 4 or 5 weeks. It's so long ago, it may of been seed from outdoor weed, that was never on a trajectory to finish anyway. It wasn't me that noticed, but it was shown to me.
I think the heads form first, then the stalks? I just don't know. I watch a few things to judge development, but the trichs are unreliable. You could wait forever with some strains. I was guided to watch long ago, but it just didn't hold up.