Please can we have a ‘Cannabis Botany and advanced growing science’ forum ?

[mugenbao]

Well what happened to stickying a good thread? see that info will also be tucked away in some other thread somewhere no doubt...

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=36256&highlight=red+light+increases+stretch

Making a thread into a sticky is a wonderful way of bringing attention to the most popular and generally helpful topics, but falls short as a means of grouping together a number of threads which contain/discuss advanced material and which may not all have the broad appeal or general consensus necessary for candidacy as a sticky.

A dedicated sub-forum has some very real benefits that can't be gained in other lesser ways.

.

 

[Silence]

Making a thread into a sticky is a wonderful way of bringing attention to the most popular and generally helpful topics, but falls short as a means of grouping together a number of threads which contain/discuss advanced material and which may not all have the broad appeal or general consensus necessary for candidacy as a sticky.

A dedicated sub-forum has some very real benefits that can't be gained in other lesser ways.

.

I agree but to me the problem is one topic can cover many...

 

[VerdantGreen]

hey silence i invisage the forum in the grower's section, im not generally in favour of more sections as often sections can get somewhat isolated, but i really think that the application of plant botany to growing science would be a good addition. a lot of people dont want that level of detail and thats fine - this would be a place for the people who do want it and the info would usually apply to all methods of growing. this way 'general' advanced info doesnt get hidden in the breeder lab or in a subsection of the growers forums where it wont get seen.
and mainly i want it so the people who have this advanced knowledge and are prepared to impart it dont get driven away by people who dont take kindly to it.

VG

 

[*mistress*]

advanced techniques|experimental methods|tests|plant physiology+manipulation|env eng

started in 2009.....
very little interest........ maybe gardeners will contribute more, now.....

scientific citation to reference material should be included when posting data that is not original. @ the bare minimum, the initials of the authors and some form of the title of the studies.....

thread should follow basic guidelines of peer-review scientific data.... this means that some points will be disagreed upon. that is ok..... but..... it relying on external data - present the source of the external data..... if relying new concepts, or totally original ideas, etc, then state that.......

scientific discussions have disagreements. that is ok..... it should help gardeners get to facts, & make own decisions........

also, to keep the thread flowing, discussions of 'organic' vs. 'synthetic' should not be part of the discussion.... maybe there should be entire forum for 'organic' vs. 'synthetic' fertilizers, for gardeners to rant in..... & maybe find that both work, maybe both can work together.....

 

[sac beh]

Unfortunately you see a lot of good growing threads bogged down by debates between the scientifically-minded and the anecdote-minded. Both are useful contributions, but they don't always understand each other. Thus a separate forum with a moderator who understands the difference is an exciting idea.

Here's an example of a classic thread which I consider to fit into the realm of botany or growing science:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=46474

They are the types of threads that not only give useful data but also teach the systematic concepts that you can then apply to your own grows and research.

 

[VerdantGreen]

hey missy maybe your thread was before it's time or just got lost as many theads can. i sincerely hope you will contribute to a forum. i remember reading that you were in favor in another thread.
as for spurr - like you say no-one is right all the time but i think he could be a significant contributor

tbh i think you are just as guilty about debating the organic vs synthetic as most

thanks for the support

VG

 

[VerdantGreen]

Unfortunately you see a lot of good growing threads bogged down by debates between the scientifically-minded and the anecdote-minded. Both are useful contributions, but they don't always understand each other. Thus a separate forum with a moderator who understands the difference is an exciting idea.

.....

exactly!

 

[opt1c]

i'd toss my vote in; i think we should have a requirement that all claims need to be backed up with photographic evidence

have you ever seen mycos colonize dwc roots?? in a picture?? neither have i.... but i hear they sell myco mixes just for hydro now

 

[zenoonez]

I think a photo requirement makes it hard to try to take studies that apply to non mj crops and to theorize on their effect on mj. I mean most science is not done on mj and wont be for a long time.

 

[opt1c]

i think contributors should do more than rehash shit they've read; they should apply it and share those results.... it's the pissing in the wind i'm right because i have references and your pics of two pound per light plants are bullshit because you don't have references in academic journals type arguments that annoy me... and i'm all about plant sciences; i just actually like to see them applied.... side by sides... shit like that... i did a side by side with 100% perlite and perlite cut with vermiculite because i read that the verm allows better rooting of the medium.... instead of taking that at face value and running 100% cut i did half and half... nowhere to post that thread on icmag though... but i took pics... and i even did it with peppers; i don't think a mj plant is going to have that radically different of a root structure than bell peppers... but i digress... what i'm trying to say is that it can be done

 

[hazydreams]

Yeah.....sounds like a good idea to me..

You have my support.........

Let it be so...

AWESOME!!!!

 

[*mistress*]

examples............

from w!k!ped!a:
"Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, the term is often used to denote a prepublication reviews of academic papers; reviewing an academic paper is often called refereeing."

from v!s!onlearning dot com:
"Peer Review

Peer-review is performed by knowledgeable scientists who are not directly involved with the research being evaluated. In fact, reviewers are often scientific competitors! To remove any bias from the review process, most manuscripts (articles prior to publication) are independently considered by three reviewers. Reviewers consider the validity of the approach, the significance and originality of the finding, its interest and timeliness to the scientific community, and the clarity of the writing. Reviewers then provide feedback on the manuscript they have read. Journal editors rely on peer-review feedback to guide their publication decisions, and authors use reviewers' comments to refine the text of their manuscript and the experiments within. Journal editors must occasionally resolve issues related to conflict of interest among reviewers; reviewers’ identities are generally not revealed to manuscript authors. This later rule is intended to free reviewers from any social pressures, allowing them to consider only the quality of the science before them.

Cases of scientific misconduct are rare but important because of the publicity they receive once they are discovered, eroding the public's trust in the peer-review system and science itself. One cornerstone of science is that scientific findings must be reproducible and well documented. Many instances of scientific misconduct have been exposed when other scientists cannot reproduce reported data. For example, in 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced to the world that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a possible unlimited source of energy. When other scientists were unable to replicate the work, it was discredited. To keep this type of conduct in check, scientific articles include detailed descriptions of experimental protocols that enable others to reproduce experiments.

Article format

Scientific articles are neither mystery stories, intended to surprise the reader with a discovery, nor diaries of every successful and unsuccessful experiment performed. Instead, the major discoveries are set out in the article’s first section. The writer’s goal is to present his or her findings and persuade the readers with his or her interpretation of the data. Journal articles are divided into sections, each with a specific purpose. Although every journal has a particular “house style” for the way it formats and names the sections of the scientific articles it publishes, a generic scientific article would include the following:

* Title: A well-written title gives information about the research. The names of all scientific contributors are usually listed immediately after the title. By convention, the scientist who performed most of the work described in the article is listed first, while the last author is usually a senior scientist who secured funding for the work and who runs the lab in which it was performed.

* Abstract: Some journals call this the “summary” because it must concisely describe the experimental question, the general methods and the major findings and implications of the experiments. It is generally limited to 250 words because the text is typed into literature databases, such as PubMed (see the Research links in the right menu). A well-written abstract will include likely “search words” because searching databases is a major way scientists find articles of interest.

* Introduction: The central experimental question and important background information are presented in this section. Relevant and established scientific knowledge is cited in this section and then listed in the References section at the end of the article. Introductions are intended to lead the reader to understand the authors' hypothesis and means of testing it.

* Materials and Methods: All experimental procedures and reagents are described in detail sufficient for another researcher to reproduce the findings. This section must be accurate and complete if the discoveries are to be validated and then extended by others.

* Results: The data are presented in this section, giving other scientists an opportunity to judge their merit. The findings are described with words and also illustrated using figures and tables. Figures are used to facilitate the interpretation of the data and have accompanying explanations, called “legends.”

* Discussion: In this section, authors may present a model or idea they feel best fits their data. They also present the strengths and significance of their data. Some journal articles fuse “Results and Discussion” into one section, but when they are separated a reader can easily distinguish the data collected from the authors' interpretation of it.

* References: Scientific progress builds on existing knowledge, and previous findings are recognized by directly citing them in any new work. The citations are collected in one list, commonly called “References,” although the precise format for each reference section varies considerably. Some journals ask that citations be listed alphabetically, whereas others require that they be listed by the order of appearance in the text."

this thread is good example of peer-review-type thread @ icmag:

Canna Boost V Molasses - side by side comparison.

 

[VerdantGreen]

hey opt1c thanks for the support, i agree photos of properly conducted tests/experiments are valid, as are references to scientific papers. thats the whole thing really - to reconcile science with experience in an atmosphere that is balanced. at the moment i feel that the science/academic side of it is shouted down by the anecdotal side.

a lot of people may have very successful grows, but not understand why or what part of their practice is the thing that makes the difference. i guess im one of those people who is slowly learning. trying to do proper experiments in the confines of a home grow can be tricky because there are so many factors and variables, but its not impossible by any means

 

[Dave Coulier]

I wouldn't mind it Verdant. Hopefully, it will keep the riff-raff out, but I doubt it. Ive seen what an "advanced mj cultivation" forum looks like elsewhere and you get tons of crap in there that doesn't belong, so it would need heavy mod support to actually serve its purpose.

 

[*mistress*]

tbh i think you are just as guilty about debating the organic vs synthetic as most

just p.o.v.....

does the plant need mycorrhyzae, tricoderma, bacteria, fungi, nematodes to survive?

or,

does the plant need inert substrate for anchor & water-soluble cations & anions?

maybe the questions can be answered in the coming forum.........

maybe gardened w/ mycorrhyzae, "beneficial micro-organisms".... & maybe gardened w/ 100% water-soluble fertilisers, w/out any addition of "beneficial biologicals". plants capable of thriving w/in either method......

c3 & c4 plants are very adapative. & are continually adpating. plants can grow out of the side of rock-faced cliffs....

pics...... og/cw lost lots of pics...... some members may not post any. hope this does not make contributions less.

 

[ganja_hasi]

great idea VG

 

[statusquo]

Definitely interested I support this 100%. Should have a mod that enforces proper reasoning too! hahahahahaha

 

[Tropic]

Great idea for a forum!

 

[Noobian]

I support this idea, but only if JapanFreakier is made mod

I kid, great idea VG

 

[guest2012y]

Kudos to Verdant for taking the initiative to make positive change.