UVB bulbs...

[l33t]

it's not the uvb part thats the problem, it's how it's being implemented.

Personally , I think you're very right on this . This also explains why some people that use UVB supplemental lighting see a difference and why others don't see any.


But we still need more research and solid proof don't we..? I mean there aren't any recent / up-to-date 'controlled environment/scientific ' tests that show that UVB supplemental lighting does increase THC content(dont quote me the MJOptics parper its relatively old) . I m not referring to 'if UVB changes the high perceptually'.


We must not forget that natural sunlight doesnt differ to indoor lights' light only in the UV part its spectrum , its completely different..and we still have no clue what each area of the spectrum does to the 'high' and what the respective intensities do etc etc .

----

I can prove it.

grow your plant outside (in different uvb environments)

Did it get you higher?

if not, its genes are not ready (haven't evolved - this takes eons ) for the uvb.

That also makes some sence..but things may be way more complicated..

 

[Aaronponic]

To be honest, I don't even know how I could test this.


You put two clones in identical conditions except for one receiving supplemental UVB lighting equal to the maximum you would see outside. You grow both plants out, and then what? I don't have a cannabinoid testing machine. I can theoretically smoke both plant's end product but how accurate is that really? That isn't really scientific, I could get 10 of my best friends who all smoke and get a bunch of opinions, but still...not that scientific.


I suppose I could make honey oil and compare the total amount of extractable THC, that might indicate something.


Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but what are the suggested methods of accurately measuring the cannabinoid profiles/THC% of plants?


And please don't say smoking/vapo...

 

[l33t]

There are many methods to measure & detect the cannabinoids/THC that is found in resin .. Thing is you need equipment that costs a lot and you need to have lots of technical knowledge and experience.

 

[inflorescence]

Word. What does it matter.

Some of my best highs were off of that couchlock northern crip indica where no doubt there was hardly any thc but mucho cbgs, cbd.

Shit, high thc weed like super sliver haze makes me crazy so it's a good point mentioned that high thc weed does not automatically equal the best weed.

(although I find brazillian based strains to be exquisite)

 

[Aaronponic]

There are many methods to measure the cannabinoids/THC in resin .. Thing is you need equipment that costs a lot and you need to have lots of technical knowledge and experience.

And we know how many published scientists grow cannabis...that's one of the main problems with situations like the one described, I truly don't believe that the amount of effect a tiny bit of UVB is going to have will be earth shattering. Certainly not like adding supplemental CO2. So simply the act of measuring any gains will require a precision far grater than that of anyone I know who could attempt to test it, myself included.

Now if anyone wants the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio of a SMPTE standard high definition serial digital interface data feed analyzed...I'm your man!

 

[inflorescence]

I truly don't believe that the amount of effect a tiny bit of UVB is going to have will be earth shattering. Certainly not like adding supplemental CO2.

That would be a qualitative vs quanitative analysis.

 

[l33t]

Not only high THC content on its own does not guarantee that you ll have a 'good time' ..but also from my personal experience it also doesn't mean that a bud with more thc than another that has less will get me higher (feel it as more potent) Many strains that have less THC than others, are perceptually more potent and the high has a higher ceiling too.

THC on its own means not much. Its the combination of things that gives the final feeling . A sativa with 15% THC gives a completely different high to an indica with 15% THC . Most of the indicas cant get me higher when I smoke them for a long a time continuously , while many sativas keep on delivering the desired effects..

Thats why I m interested to know if UVB helps with the high and whats the effect on THC content too.

 

[Aaronponic]

That would be a qualitative vs quanitative analysis.

Which again, adds to my point of making it even more difficult to measure.



In my opinion that best service anyone could do for the cannabis scene, is to come up with a simple way to measure cannabinoid profiles within a plant. Something that people could actually do at home without a degree.


Or to create a lab that will do those tests for growers. Via mail or something.


Otherwise testing subtle differences in growing techniques is quite difficult. At times impossible.

 

[inflorescence]

I truly don't believe that the amount of effect a tiny bit of UVB is going to have will be earth shattering.

and albert hoffman probably didn't think so either that the 25th derivative of lsd would be all that different than the 24th derivative.

The wierd thing about the human brain is VERY (I mean VERY) subtle changes in chemicals can have an "earth shattering" difference.

So it's not suprising that a bit of uvb may change a cannabinoid ever so slightly yet when ingested have profound differences in the way the brain reacts to to that compound.

It's kind of like izomerization of thc from delta-9 to delta-whatever.

In other words the brain is the most exquistiely acute sensory organ ever and the most mundane and minute changes can be worlds of difference.

 

[dontstepongrass]

well short of someone having an hp gas-chromatograph machine or whatever i don't think you're going to be able to accurately measure anything. agreed, it would be nice for there to be access...

 

[Aaronponic]

and albert hoffman probably didn't think so either that the 25th derivative of lsd would be all that different than the 24th derivative.

Certainly we call all agree that a maximal amount of sunlight UVB will not produce a change in cannabis growth equal the the difference between the 24th and 25 extraction of LSD.



I can readily detect the difference in your example. How would you suggest I readily detect the differences between UVB supplemented and non-supplemented plants? How do I quantify these differences?


Are you saying one will make me think the walls are breathing?

I'd agree that would be quite earth shattering, but I am not seeing data to support that here.


My example of CO2 is simple, larger yields of more potent (this aspect could actually be debated, I haven't seen any empirical data) buds are easily discovered when one plant is fed CO2 and another is not. I have seen "earth shattering" results by adding supplemental CO2. The same doesn't seem to be doable with UVB lighting. People's personal opinion of the buds they grew using UVB lighting, are mixed. As has been stated in this thread some people felt it reduced potency. Others think it is the best thing since sliced bread...what I would like to see, is something that can be quantified, and my suspicion is that will be extraordinarily difficult to obtain.

 

[inflorescence]

Certainly we call all agree that a maximal amount of sunlight UVB will not produce a change in cannabis growth equal the the difference between the 24th and 25 extraction of LSD.

incorrect. In the world of cannabis the difference between cbd and thc could indeed be considered a difference similar to lsd-24 and lsd -25.

Pot is not lysergic acid and therefore the difference will obvioulsly not be as profound but WITHIN the chemical family of cannabinoids some may say that the difference between cbd and thc is very profound.

For me, it is a difference, but as you say, either way I'm smoking a blend of thc and cbd.

There are no pure thc and pure cbd plants so the comparison is impossible but it doesn't mean there isn't a difference. (there is a difference when comparing ratios so it can only be infered there is a difference when comparing pure chems)

 

[dontstepongrass]

there needs to be side by sides done...

 

[gramsci.antonio]

I think UVB's impact on long term evolution is completely different to the impact it has when we add it in a grow *once*. Yes high intensity UVB light may have contributed to cannabis more potent (forced them to produce more THC in the long term) BUT adding UVB light doesnt nessesarily mean that the plant will produce more THC . As many said the how much THC a plant produces is mostly determined by the genes.

Personally I m still not convinced that UVB light when added indoors increases the THC content of plants (even with equatorial sativas)..though I think I agree.

this is quite an interesting post. Basically the question is: what is more right? lamarckism or darwinism?

nowdays we know that darwin was right, and this may suggest us that UVB are quite useful. But just for breeders.



It's a pity that nowdays, even if the breeders make shitload of money, they don't invest anything to improve their breeding technique. Cannabis nowdays is breed as human was used to breed in the medieval...

 

[Guest]

The most trippy weed I've ever smoked was grown in southeastern Mexico where the UV is very high, and it was trippy indeed. Nepalese hash made from highland plants is more psychoactive than that made from lowland plants - the highland ones getting more UV due to the altitude.

But it remains to be demonstrated practically that increased UV indoors actually does make buds more resinous and psychoactive. I've added 50W of 380nm UV LEDs to my LED grow (8 x 60-LED panels) and will run them for 4 hhours in the middle of the 12 hour light period, to simulate the high UV levels of midday and see if this makes any difference at all.

 

[gramsci.antonio]

There are many methods to measure & detect the cannabinoids/THC that is found in resin .. Thing is you need equipment that costs a lot and you need to have lots of technical knowledge and experience.

easy cheap way, as they was used to do at the beginning of the 18th century: Take 2 buds, which weight the same, from two plants. Same clone, different lights, but same height (no use to compare popcorn buds with top cola). Then make butane extraction (same quantity of butane, for the same time, .... ) and weight it with a scale precise up to the 2th decimal digit.

If they weight the same, than the increase in THC, if exist, is smaller that the rounding error.


Ghetto-style laboratory

 

[gramsci.antonio]

i here what your saying antonio, i need a few more UVB lights to make 'the real differance' i wasnt good at math but im following the logic on your calc.

i'm happy our disguise has been solved without any further flaming

 

[Guest]

I think you mean the end of the 19th century don't you? THC extractions first became available in the late 1800s when chemists began producing them and selling them as medicine. Until O'Shaughnessy began his studies of hashish in 1839 no-one in the west had done any kind of THC extraction, he was the first and he based his early experiments on ntive Indian techniques. After that, all kinds of alcohol-based tinctures fo cannabis were produced.

http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap1/Shaughnessy.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA46,M1

 

[gramsci.antonio]

I think you mean the end of the 19th century don't you?

i'm speaking about acetone-benzene extraction, not related to cannabis, but to general essential oils.


I know it's difficult to imagine, but not just us stoners make extractions

 

[Guest]

I assumed you were talking about cannabis extracts as you were relating the info to a technique for gauging THC levels, I wouldn't recommend this technique as it would require accurate and carefully measured extraction being repeated on different samples, something that isn't so easy to achieve without proper equipment. Yes the extracts are easy to make (I'm currently pruging some QWISO I made this morning) but it's not so easy to ensure you make the extract in exactly the same way with different samples to enable any degree of accuracy when you comapre the results.

Surely a Cannalyze kit would be a lot easier?