Jack Larson
Active Member
I'm not going to take a whipp'n from the olive brach I extended, I gave him an out , but he keeps coming back for more, so if he wants to play, I'll play ! ( man does'nt any body ever read my signature? )
I have a question for all you veteran growers out there!
- Thread starter Miketsu
- Start date
homebrewer
Well-Known Member
Have you tried it? I'm an experienced grower and tried it on a number of strains throughout the years and it did nothing except waste my time. Am I growing in a lab? Nope, but I'd but my quality up against any lab in the world.
Brick Top
New Member
It did not specify. Their goals were not to help advertise some strain or strains and help some breeder or breeders get more business and earn more money. It was strictly research and all it said was; "Analysis of the resulting dried buds showed that some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same."
Brick Top
New Member
Sure I have, many times, and only using my physical senses, which is all any of us here have to go on because we are not PhD's with high tech laboratories to conduct scientific research and testing in, I would say that in some strains is will make a fairly appreciable difference and in others it will not.
I think I could honestly claim to have at least a fairly decent amount of growing experience. I began growing in 1972, that's 39 years ago, that's getting close to 4 decades of growing experience.
Is that enough experience to satisfy you?
Brick Top
New Member
I believe you do not understand the difference between sponsorship and to advertise.
Definitions of sponsorship on the Web:
the act of sponsoring (either officially or financially)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definitions of advertise on the Web:
- call attention to
- make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Jack Larson
Active Member
Yes you are correct . I have apologized for my mistake, as well as uducated myself on both the defonision and orgin of the word...thanks for your help and understanding. Agian I am sorry, the statement was rude and challanging and not a part of my everyday attitude
UltramegaMJ
Member
Does anyone have any knowledge regarding what cannabis does when lights are off normally? I thought I read somewhere on here that the desirable compounds in the trichomes are produced during lights off. Maybe there is some connection between that process and this final 72 hours of darkness idea. Maybe 72 hours being the approximate amount of time it takes for the plant to use up the remaining nutrients in leaves and such to produce more THC?
Ace Capone
Member
It's funny what people will tell you to get free nug. They probably told him the same thing right before/after they told you. If you both grew the same clones, especially as similiar to eachother as you did, the buds should be relatively identical.
homebrewer
Well-Known Member
I wasn't implying that you weren't experienced, just that I fit the criteria of who the OP is looking for feedback from as well. I've noticed you pop up in threads where a lot of theory or history is being questioned and I enjoy reading most of your posts. My practices and knowledge-base on the otherhand are based in pragmatism so regardless of what is written by hightimes or Mel Frank or whatever institute, if myself or my patients can't perceive a difference, then that 'theory' or 'practice' holds no weight for me.
VICTORYGARDENSHYDRO
New Member
funny how you were giving the other guy shit for his spelling, yet you post this,WTF???
hoagtech
Well-Known Member
no more spell correction. wee R awl Stownerrz heeer sow git yewsed too iht
Brick Top
New Member
Something that has been scientifically proven is not "theory" and I know of no one whose senses are so highly refined that they will be able to; 'perceive" a difference in levels of cannabinoids the way gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry can.
The thing that bothers me about the naysayers is threefold. Only their experience with an extended period of darkness before harvesting matters, even if possibly they were like many who do not know how long to give plants darkness and only did it for 24 or 36 or 48 hours or something. It doesn't matter in the least to them when someone like myself says how I have done it many and at times there clearly is an appreciable difference and other times there is not. The second thing that bothers me is for someone who has tried it, in some form or another, and could not tell a difference declares that it does not that they're their basement or closet or store room or grow tent or spare room or attic grow has somehow disproved proven science performed by people with PhDs in high tech research laboratories. Third is where the findings clearly said "SOME STRAINS" will see increased levels of THC of as much as 30% without either CBD or CBN increasing. When someone tries it and the strain or strains they grow are ones where any increase might be so little as to not be perceptible to the human senses they just simply decides it does not work at all. They they tell others that it does not work at all and some of the people who believe them might be people growing strains that will have a 9% or 17% or 16% or 30% increase ...but they won't get it because they won't try it because someone who tried it, possibly even performed incorrectly, and could not; "perceive" any change with their human senses told them it does not work, it is not worth doing, it is a waste of time.
.
colonuggs
Well-Known Member
why not get a test kit and run the test yourself...try a Cannalytics Kit.... already validated at the University of Leiden (department of pharmacognosie).
Do you have any links to the test already preformed by the pros? I'm going to order a few test kits... if possible
In Denver they do have places where you can take your weed to have it tested costs $25 this is my Sour Diesel %
Calculated Active Cannabinoids
CBD:
0.43%
CBN:
0.08%
THC:
24.44%
CBC:
0%
THCV:
0%
Total Active Cannabinoids: 24.95%
Do you have any links to the test already preformed by the pros? I'm going to order a few test kits... if possible
In Denver they do have places where you can take your weed to have it tested costs $25 this is my Sour Diesel %
Calculated Active Cannabinoids
0.43%
0.08%
24.44%
0%
0%
Total Active Cannabinoids: 24.95%
Brick Top
New Member
People could test their results, and some would find little to no change, some would find a slight change and some would find a moderate change and some would find a considerable change.
But if someone would find little to know change would not mean the research findings were inaccurate. It would only mean they grew a strain or strains that did not respond as well as others will. As the findings said; "SOME" strains will seen an increase in levels of THC up to 30%.
The way most people on sites like this thing, all it would take is one person with little to no increase found and for that person, and for very many others, that would be considered to be proof positive that it does not work.
I can never understand how so many people can so totally refuse to accept proven facts and put more faith in what they do in their basement or store room or spare room or grow tent or garage or attic where growing conditions/environment are not as tightly controlled and they often times do not run side by side comparisons all grown from clones and where in a case like this they will rely on the results of one single strain or maybe two strains grown, in most cases, in relatively small numbers.
While this is not the vest of examples it does in a way point out how so many growers will do things on a small scale and in anything but a highly controlled environment but still later claim to have really done something. Look at the number of basement pollen chuckers who write about the fantastic crosses they made when they took a pack of seeds of one strain and crossed the females with one or more of the better looking males from another pack of seeds.
I do not recall off the top of my head which Haze variety Neville was working on at the time but he started with over 1000 different plants. He popped over 1000 different seeds to have a large enough number of plants to go through to find the best and to have enough to make various crosses with to eventually end up with his final strain.
Things done on a small scale in people's homes with little to no control and lacking test groups and the latest state of the art equipment, and not being performed by exceedingly educated people whose life work it is to research cannabis plants, should never be seen by anyone to be more accurate than actual scientific research findings. Never.
colonuggs
Well-Known Member
I think if you grow 10 plants in the same condtions.. same strain....same everything.... the only thing you do differnet is 72 hours darkness on 1/2 of the plants at the end of the grow .,....then test them.... if there is a difference in % content it will show itself.
Many despensaries in Denver send their strains in for testing in labs
Again do you have links to the tests done showing the 30 % potency increase...I would like to read it
Many despensaries in Denver send their strains in for testing in labs
Again do you have links to the tests done showing the 30 % potency increase...I would like to read it
Brick Top
New Member
What if that singular strain is one that does not respond to an extended period of darkness or at best responds in the most minimal amounts. Would that be proof that the same would be the case for every single other strain? Nope! You do realize that there are over 3,000 strains, don't you, and that not all respond the very same way to many different things, so why would you assume all would respond the same as one single strain in this case?
Remember, the findings said; "SOME STRAINS" and testing one single strain, and especially in such small numbers, could very easily result in very different findings than the actual research found. But even if it did it would not disprove the actual research findings. It would have been based on too small of a sampling of both different strains and plants.
you are the one who is fighting. So that means Colon wins!!
homebrewer
Well-Known Member
The Germans used to decoct their beers and on a homebrewing level, it makes a 6 hour brewday a 12 hour brew day. There are absolutely conversions and reactions going on at the enzymatic level when a brewer pulls off part of the mash and boils it for a period of time, then returns it.
At the end of the day, if the customer or competition judges can't tell a difference between a decocted beer and a beer that was just step-mashed, then that means that time, energy and money were all wasted, regardless if something actually changed at a laboratory level.
The human palate isn't a laboratory so all we have to go on is our senses and perceptions. If you want to encourage people to do something that's possibly only effective in a small percentage of strains and may or may not even be perceivable, then go ahead. I'll continue to be the 'naysayer' with real world experience and pragmatic advice
.Its not like people are having to do anything difficult. Why not just shut off the lights for 72 hours worst case scenario, you save a few Kwh. If there is no change you are no worse off.The Germans used to decoct their beers and on a homebrewing level, it makes a 6 hour brewday a 12 hour brew day. There are absolutely conversions and reactions going on at the enzymatic level when a brewer pulls off part of the mash and boils it for a period of time, then returns it.
At the end of the day, if the customer or competition judges can't tell a difference between a decocted beer and a beer that was just step-mashed, then that means that time, energy and money were all wasted, regardless if something actually changed at a laboratory level.
The human palate isn't a laboratory so all we have to go on is our senses and perceptions. If you want to encourage people to do something that's possibly only effective in a small percentage of strains and may or may not even be perceivable, then go ahead. I'll continue to be the 'naysayer' with real world experience and pragmatic advice
Jack Larson
Active Member
What exactly did he win? I don't really give a shit if you " like" me or not !!! Yep, I have a bad attitude !!! I don't fucking care !!! It is blatenly WRONG to compare leaving a plant in total dark every two weeks to the method of 72 hours dark before harvest, much less, say it doesn't work based on doing it every two weeks so all I've really done is take the focus off the fact that it was and still is bad info. If you're just defending him, because you don't "like" my attitude, put your plants in total darkness for 72 hours every two weeks, then you can tell me who the "winner" is.