Low Mg, High P for High THC Content?

[spurr]

OK I don't pretend to be a big dog at all scientifically speaking. But is it not true that the reason we use P at all so that the plant can form ATP? And isn't ATP also dependent on a shit load (that is a scientific term btw) of enzymes and aren't those enzymes almost totally dependent on Mg?

Yes and sort of. But it seems you're barking up the wrong tree. You, I and DizzleKush seem to be in agreement. P is used for ATP, but we don't need nor want a lot of P when roots and shoots are growing.

Seems to me getting the ratio right might be the most important thing.

I have tried low Mg...no fuckin bueno and I don't need a scientist to tell me that.

Ditto. That is why I suggest Mg < 80 ppm wrt Ca:Mg ratio of 2 or higher.

I have tried all kinds of levels of K and find somewhere around equal to N to be pretty good...maybe bumping a hair after stretch.

That is what I love about folks like you, Dizzle, SS, etc., we test these things, as well as try to understand the science. Even though you suggest you don't understand the science I think you're being coy and self-depreciating (both good things) .

I have tried all kinds of P levels...although, honestly, I have not tried high P and low K together so I cannot comment on Hammerhead's technique...and I personally don't think it much matters within reason. In fact, I find no real reason to go over 30 ppm ever in a grow, unless you don't have another source of K.

FWIW, Hammhead doesn't use high P and low K AFAIK. He was trying to make a factual statement from that one part of that one study, in an attempt to 'one up me' (he doesn't like me).

 

[Hammerhead]

Yes I do..... dont tell people what I use you have no clue.... Don't bring me up in your conversation's... I left in peace dont start shit again...It will just lead to bad things

 

[spurr]

Thanks for correcting me, re your use of high P and low K.

 

[spurr]

I thought an interesting look at THC and CBD was worth posting here: temp

"Photosynthesis and Cannabinoid Content of Temperate and Tropical Populations of Cannabis sativa"
F.A. BAZZAZ, D. DUSEK, D.S. SEIGLER and A.W. HANEY
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology (1975), Vol. 3, pp. 15-18

• I uploaded the full text, it can be found here

 

[Chimera]

I thought an interesting look at THC and CBD was worth posting here: temp

"Photosynthesis and Cannabinoid Content of Temperate and Tropical Populations of Cannabis sativa"
F.A. BAZZAZ, D. DUSEK, D.S. SEIGLER and A.W. HANEY
Biochemical Systematics and Ecology (1975), Vol. 3, pp. 15-18

• I uploaded the full text, it can be found here

This means next to sweet fuck all... growing different genotypes in different environments can't provide useful comparable data. This figure is essentially useless in terms of drawing valid conclusions.... christ man the paper is from 1975 ... we still thought THC was the result of cyclization fo CBD back then. How about some actually pertinent data?

I'd like to see some pics of grows done with your nute forumula spurr... when are we going to see some of your garden shots?

Respectfully,
-Chimera

 

[spurr]

Yes I know that, of course. That is why I wrote it's an "interesting look", for fucks sake! Did I try to claim that data as useful? NO. Damn man, WFT is your problem?

To your 'loaded' second question, I already answered it. You will have to read my thread to find the answer . I'm never going to help you again.

BTW, because of your totally BS post you just made to me, someone that once counted you as a buddy, you're now on my shit list. I won't join your never-to-be forum, you won't get support from me any longer. You DO NOT treat people you are friends with the way you just treated me. And because you started acting like an asshole I treated you in kind . Besides the FACT your ASSUMPTION about my reasons for posting are totally wrong.


P.S.
The next time you want to claim something I wrote is wrong, and laugh at it, re what I wrote about cannabis taxonomy, PROVE YOUR FUCKING POINT IN PUBLIC. Yes, GreenintheThumb told me how you reacted to my post, you were not even MAN ENOUGH to post why you think I'm wrong IN PUBLIC. Fucking lame, and you know it. If you think I'm wrong, then PROVE me wrong, and if you do so I will thank you for it, just like I have thanked many others that have proved me wrong.

The big difference between you and I is you have god complex and can't accept you're wrong about topics, not so with me. And you only know a lot about genetics, breeding and merely CLAIM to know about tissue culture. In all other topics (including organic horticulture) I OWN your ass wrt knowledge. Now, fuck off please.

Respectfully,
-Chimera

Yea right, just because you like to write "Respectfully" doesn't mean you're respectful. Yet another BS attempt to appear different (i.e., better) than you are. At least I admit and realise I can be an asshole when poked with a stick ... as you just learned


GTFO of this thread if you have nothing of value to contribute. /done with your arrogant, assuming and incorrect ass.

 

[DonkDBZ]

I'd like to see some pics of grows done with your nute forumula spurr...

soon on the new formula

his old formula slightly modified day 40


I bumped P to round 80 the last couple weeks







Back on Topic plz before I Bust out my Ginormous E-Peen

 

[Chimera]

spurr,

Wow, you apparently have some anger management issues buddy.

That would have to be the greatest over-reaction to a post I've seen online in years. Having troubles at home?

My post was about the figure you posted... nothing more nothing less.... I made no assumptions whatsoever.

The question to see some of your garden shots was to see how well your nutrient formula works in something other than theory. A few garden shots shouldn't be a problem for a grower... should they? Certainly it didn't merit the diatribe you posted publicly and privately. Have a puff man, check yourself and come back down to reality.

Love, light and respect brother. There's tranquility to be found in life. I hope you are able to find some peace amongst the obvious chaos you live in.
Best of luck to you,
-Chimera

 

[Microbeman]

This means next to sweet fuck all... growing different genotypes in different environments can't provide useful comparable data. This figure is essentially useless in terms of drawing valid conclusions.... christ man the paper is from 1975 ... we still thought THC was the result of cyclization fo CBD back then. How about some actually pertinent data?I'd like to see some pics of grows done with your nute forumula spurr... when are we going to see some of your garden shots?

My post was about the figure you posted... nothing more nothing less.... I made no assumptions whatsoever.

Does reality ever bite?

 

[VerdantGreen]

yeah, looks like a good old-fashioned chain yanking to me.

at least spurr is/was willing to spend time contributing to this forum. He has provided the majority of the content here - although it's not visible atm.

Happy 18th and 19th post in the Botany forum Chimera - you really made them count!

VG

 

[C21H30O2]

Why are we still stuck on THC when we all know that its all the ancillary cannabinoids that make the high stronger, longer, and more enjoyable. Pure THC is like a bad mushroom trip and I have low THC strains that are stronger and better than high THC strains.

 

[alexie1]

Why are we still stuck on THC when we all know that its all the ancillary cannabinoids that make the high stronger, longer, and more enjoyable. Pure THC is like a bad mushroom trip and I have low THC strains that are stronger and better than high THC strains.

AMEN

 

[dizzlekush]

Why are we still stuck on THC when we all know that its all the ancillary cannabinoids that make the high stronger, longer, and more enjoyable. Pure THC is like a bad mushroom trip and I have low THC strains that are stronger and better than high THC strains.

from my learnings THC is the ONLY cannabinoid that is psychoactive by itself, therefore all other cannabinoids get you high through synergistic effects with THC, so more THC= more synergy/high from the beloved ancillary cannabinoids.

that's why were "stuck on THC".

Thanks for trying to sh*t on my thread. your contribution is noted.

 

[Chimera]

It's actually not the 'ancilliary' cannabinoids that create the difference in psychoactive effects; it's the terpenes.

Research has recently showed that terpenes are also able to bind the cannabinoid receptors, as are various other molecules present in cannabis.

You can have two different buds both with the exact same cannabinoid profile but each has completely different psychological experiences. This is a result of the differences in terpene profiles.

These are known as 'entourage molecules' or the entourage effect.

Hope that helps,
-Chimera

(Verdant, your complaint is noted.. as is your lack of input! We're you going to add something to the thread, or just whine?)

 

[C21H30O2]

from my learnings THC is the ONLY cannabinoid that is psychoactive by itself, therefore all other cannabinoids get you high through synergistic effects with THC, so more THC= more synergy/high from the beloved ancillary cannabinoids.

that's why were "stuck on THC".

Thanks for trying to sh*t on my thread. your contribution is noted.

That's not correct, your logic is flawed... more THC does not mean more synergism. Synergist like ancillary cannabinoids create more synergism. Like I said I have had strains with 20% THC that are not as good as strains with 7% THC.

Why do you need a lot of THC when some cannabinoids enhance THC's effect 4X!

p.s. I mean terpens lol thanks Chimera. The point remains the same...

 

[dizzlekush]

That's not correct, your logic is flawed... more THC does not mean more synergism. Synergist like ancillary cannabinoids create more synergism. Like I said I have had strains with 20% THC that are not as good as strains with 7% THC.

Why do you need a lot of THC when some cannabinoids enhance THC's effect 4X!

p.s. I mean terpens lol thanks Chimera. The point remains the same...

there's already been enough drama in this thread, lets agree to disagree on hgi THC content being good or not, really never thought id have to argue this point. you've expressed your opinion that my thread is pointless, along with high THC levels. i personally find that absurd, but thats where we differ. thanks for your contribution and i would appreciate it if you are going to post in this thread further that you do it with more positivity and information. have a good day.

 

[zymos]

there's already been enough drama in this thread, lets agree to disagree on hgi THC content being good or not, really never thought id have to argue this point.

Welcome to IC mag, where if an argument can be made, it will be made

 

[squarepush3r]

driving off the good posters I see?

You can have a talented NASA engineer build a spaceship, who's never been to space. Do they need to have been to space to know how to build a ship? Should that be an issue?

Not everyone has access to growing locations, equipment, legalities etc, so its possible Spurr isn't growing now, that doesn't mean his information becomes diminished however.

 

[C21H30O2]

there's already been enough drama in this thread, lets agree to disagree on hgi THC content being good or not, really never thought id have to argue this point. you've expressed your opinion that my thread is pointless, along with high THC levels. i personally find that absurd, but thats where we differ. thanks for your contribution and i would appreciate it if you are going to post in this thread further that you do it with more positivity and information. have a good day.

Fair enough, its just info take it or leave it.

 

[VerdantGreen]

(Verdant, your complaint is noted.. as is your lack of input! We're you going to add something to the thread, or just whine?)

hi Chimera, i'm just a humble grower / gardener who wants to learn more - thats why i campaigned for IC to start this subforum. My input here is largely unseen - stuff like PMing OldPink to relocate threads that are irrelevant.
I always knew that the list of members and vendors that could make a meaningful contribution here was a short one, but i still felt we needed a place where science/botany could be shared and discussed without the usual goading and trolling that so often happened elsewhere on the board.
So when this forum's biggest contributor gets banned then of course i'll be upset, i might even whine a bit. Spurr was not perfect by any means but knowledge/research-wise he had a lot to give and was prepared to give it unselfishly. Only a week or so ago we were posting visitor messages to each other enthusing about how well it was going for him here. He'd got himself well established and accepted with a long friends list - that represented real progress for him, and it was good to see.

Im sure i wont be the only member here who's sad to see him go.

sincerely,
VG

p.s. dizzlekush - sorry for prolonging the drama but i felt i had to answer that.