ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Except that we're talking about plants and husbandry, not physics. The trade offs are different. But you know, you're a norse god and all, so of course you know everything...
Light ???
- Thread starter RM3
- Start date
Odin*
Well-Known Member
I "need" more "humble pie", while you speak for the whole of the community.
Always looking to learn. It's "closed mindedness" that I'm preaching against.
You can deny the results/scientific facts/common sense/"grow know" all you want. I'm not force feeding it to anyone. Just putting out there for the benefit of all.
Odin*
Well-Known Member
Except that we're talking about plants and husbandry, not physics. The trade offs are different. But you know, you're a norse god and all, so of course you know everything...
And now you're just being eristic.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Your pompous ass is out there telling everyone there is only one way to grow, the braying of a fool in direct response to those who've been plying their craft for likely longer than you've been breathing.
So yeah. Humble pie is definitely on the menu. With a side of crow. Maybe your hat for dessert?
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
No your right!!!!! I agree with all those things.
Odin*
Well-Known Member
Big words.
I never said "one way", I did point out the science behind "a better way".
Longer than I've been breathing? Possibly. How many here have been growing for a tic under 40 trips around the sun? Anybody posting here that has been at it that long should chime in, my hats off to you (before it's eaten).
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
You attacked/challenged their cult leader.
RM3
Well-Known Member
44 for me
RM3
Well-Known Member
A better way for what? Science is freakin awesome, but sometimes ya gotta think out side the box to make "new" discoveries
Take a bunch of clones from a mom and have different growers grow em in different gardens and you'll get a bunch of different highs, this is because of how the environment affects genetic expression. I have experimented for years to discover how to get the best out of these genetic responses, what triggers what and which ones affect the high. I don't grow for yield, I'm not a cash cropper. I grow because I have compound PTSD and I used to have to smoke a bunch of hash to meet my medical needs. Now I simply smoke half a joint and I have been smokin that same half a joint for years now, yeppers same strain for 3+ years same amount, same high, zero tolerance issues. And this is why folks follow me, because they are Med patients that have a need for this type of medicine. The folks that bash what I do are cash croppers, yielders that care more about the $$$ than the medicine. I have no problem with that !!! But they would never adopt my different way of drying and curing as it affects bag appeal and until the main stream learns that the high can be better that will be a solid given fact.
Read the smoke reports on page 2 of my sig link, my buds will wreck an average smoker, folks wanna think I'm braggin but I'm not, I'm tryin to spread a simple truth, I find it incredibly odd that folks that enjoy gettin high would not be interested in a better end product? This just blows my mind !!! And there is no greater joy than sharin a J with an old timer like myself that remembers those old 60"s~70's highs and seein the smile on their faces as it creeps up on em
How bout you try find science that explains why nothing I grow has couchlock? Yeppers I've grown 100% Land Race Indicas that have a euphoric, up, energetic high, not only that but every thing I grow creeps as well. Tis all about genetic expression as it relates to our environments. It's not for every body but there are a few folks that are interested in what I do and how I do it, why they traveled from all over the world to smoke a J with me and if it seems I'm braggin, or bein condescending I'm sorry because that would be the furthermost thing from my thoughts ! But to be honest it does get old bein bashed around every corner for simply tryin to tell folks how to have better herb.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Here's something that may interest you, RM3.
"Plants grown at reduced levels of UV-B radiation invested less biomass in flowers and more in stem material compared to plants grown at ambient UV-B levels."
Didn't read the full text yet, but it's available free here. I just looked at the results part and this is an interesting thing about CO2 enrichment. It may be mostly growing more stem.
"Allocation of biomass in C02-enriched plants shifted from investment in leaf material towards investment in stem material. Leaf weight per plant weight (LWR) decreased by 13% and the fraction of biomass allocated to the stem (StWR) increased by 12% at the final harvest (Table 3). CO2 enrichment decreased leaf area per unit plant weight (LAR) by 16%- at the final harvest. This decrease was caused by both a decrease in the LWR and a decrease in the leaf area per unit leaf weight (SLA). The weight of the flowers per total plant weight (FWR) at the final harvest decreased by 9% under CO2 enrichment. No shifts in allocation between above-ground and belowground parts occurred, leaving the root weight per total plant weight (RWR) and the shoot to root ratio (SRR) unaffected."
"Plants grown at reduced levels of UV-B radiation invested less biomass in flowers and more in stem material compared to plants grown at ambient UV-B levels."
Didn't read the full text yet, but it's available free here. I just looked at the results part and this is an interesting thing about CO2 enrichment. It may be mostly growing more stem.
"Allocation of biomass in C02-enriched plants shifted from investment in leaf material towards investment in stem material. Leaf weight per plant weight (LWR) decreased by 13% and the fraction of biomass allocated to the stem (StWR) increased by 12% at the final harvest (Table 3). CO2 enrichment decreased leaf area per unit plant weight (LAR) by 16%- at the final harvest. This decrease was caused by both a decrease in the LWR and a decrease in the leaf area per unit leaf weight (SLA). The weight of the flowers per total plant weight (FWR) at the final harvest decreased by 9% under CO2 enrichment. No shifts in allocation between above-ground and belowground parts occurred, leaving the root weight per total plant weight (RWR) and the shoot to root ratio (SRR) unaffected."
Last edited:
RM3
Well-Known Member
Photosynthetic Responses to Heat Treatments at Different Temperatures
High temperature treatments included 35, 40 and 45°C, with 25°C as the control and recovery temperature. Heat treatment at 35°C did not significantly (P>0.05) inhibit net photosynthetic rate (Pn). However, with treatments at 40 and 45°C, Pn was decreased, accompanied by an increase in substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci), decreases in stomatal conductance (gs) and the activation state of Rubisco, and inhibition of the donor side and the reaction center of PSII. The acceptor side of PSII was inhibited at 45°C but not at 40°C.
Conclusions
Heat treatment at 35°C did not significantly (P>0.05) influence photosynthesis.
High temperature treatments included 35, 40 and 45°C, with 25°C as the control and recovery temperature. Heat treatment at 35°C did not significantly (P>0.05) inhibit net photosynthetic rate (Pn). However, with treatments at 40 and 45°C, Pn was decreased, accompanied by an increase in substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci), decreases in stomatal conductance (gs) and the activation state of Rubisco, and inhibition of the donor side and the reaction center of PSII. The acceptor side of PSII was inhibited at 45°C but not at 40°C.
Conclusions
Heat treatment at 35°C did not significantly (P>0.05) influence photosynthesis.
Odin*
Well-Known Member
@RM3 Again, you're misconstruing what you've just read and "cherry picking" information that you think backs your "ideas".
This is the introduction to that very article;
"High temperature negatively affects plant growth and survival and hence crop yield. Photosynthesis is known to be one of the most heat-sensitive processes, and it can be inhibited by high temperature before other symptoms of stress are detected [1], [2]. Inhibition of photosynthesis by heat stress has long been attributed to an impairment of electron transport activity, especially the inhibition of photosystem II (PSII) activity [3], [4]. Heat stress not only damages the oxygen-evolving complex of PSII [5], [6], but also impairs electron transfer within the PSII reaction centres [7], [8], [9] and downstream of PSII. Some authors [10], [11] have suggested that the initial site of the inhibition is associated with a Calvin cycle reaction, especially inactivation of Rubisco [12], [13], [14], [15]. However, for different species, the specific effects of heat stress maybe different."
The key term used in the study is "heat treatment". The plant was subjected to those temperatures only for a moment, the bulk of the study was on the plants recovery/reaction after the treatment. They were not subjected to those temperatures for a prolonged period of time, like say, 12hrs of lights on.
Another thing to note, this study was performed on a fruit plant (grape), not a flower, fruit producing plants tend to be hardier and less susceptible to heat.
Full article here;
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023033
This is the introduction to that very article;
"High temperature negatively affects plant growth and survival and hence crop yield. Photosynthesis is known to be one of the most heat-sensitive processes, and it can be inhibited by high temperature before other symptoms of stress are detected [1], [2]. Inhibition of photosynthesis by heat stress has long been attributed to an impairment of electron transport activity, especially the inhibition of photosystem II (PSII) activity [3], [4]. Heat stress not only damages the oxygen-evolving complex of PSII [5], [6], but also impairs electron transfer within the PSII reaction centres [7], [8], [9] and downstream of PSII. Some authors [10], [11] have suggested that the initial site of the inhibition is associated with a Calvin cycle reaction, especially inactivation of Rubisco [12], [13], [14], [15]. However, for different species, the specific effects of heat stress maybe different."
The key term used in the study is "heat treatment". The plant was subjected to those temperatures only for a moment, the bulk of the study was on the plants recovery/reaction after the treatment. They were not subjected to those temperatures for a prolonged period of time, like say, 12hrs of lights on.
Another thing to note, this study was performed on a fruit plant (grape), not a flower, fruit producing plants tend to be hardier and less susceptible to heat.
Full article here;
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023033
RM3
Well-Known Member
I know
I was trolling my own thread lol
Odin*
Well-Known Member
I don't have any issue with you, at all. Heck, you can look at it this way, we both love growing these beautiful plants, "brothers in arms" of sorts.
I keep saying it, but I'll repeat it, I know for a fact that fire can be grown in higher temps, I've done it myself. I haven't said that you can't be creating fire with your set up. I'm not a cash cropper, could care less about yield, my lowest yielders are the most potent plants in my garden. This thread is about "Light", I'm bringing to "Light" (said that earlier, play on words) the science behind cooler temps and greater light increasing the plants productivity (if all else is in order).
We're both trying to achieve the same thing (best smoke), just have different ways of going about it.
I keep saying it, but I'll repeat it, I know for a fact that fire can be grown in higher temps, I've done it myself. I haven't said that you can't be creating fire with your set up. I'm not a cash cropper, could care less about yield, my lowest yielders are the most potent plants in my garden. This thread is about "Light", I'm bringing to "Light" (said that earlier, play on words) the science behind cooler temps and greater light increasing the plants productivity (if all else is in order).
We're both trying to achieve the same thing (best smoke), just have different ways of going about it.
RM3
Well-Known Member
One LoveI don't have any issue with you, at all. Heck, you can look at it this way, we both love growing these beautiful plants, "brothers in arms" of sorts.
I keep saying it, but I'll repeat it, I know for a fact that fire can be grown in higher temps, I've done it myself. I haven't said that you can't be creating fire with your set up. I'm not a cash cropper, could care less about yield, my lowest yielders are the most potent plants in my garden. This thread is about "Light", I'm bringing to "Light" (said that earlier, play on words) the science behind cooler temps and greater light increasing the plants productivity (if all else is in order).
We're both trying to achieve the same thing (best smoke), just have different ways of going about it.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
BULLSHIT! This is a LIE. I don't sell weed. You are WRONG.
Your excuse is ballz. The reason people (mostly me) bash you is for 2 reasons, and neither of them has to do with being cash croppers. You're a fucking prick, do you know that?
The reason you're bashed is because:
1) You talk shit about other people's weed and exaggerate the quality of your own.
2) You recommend CRAZY shit that hurts yield and plant health.
It has nothing to do with other people not wanting to grow high quality weed. For the last time you stubborn old man...
GET OVER YOURSELF.
Last edited:
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I have PTSD and MHGS (moral high ground syndrome). My weed is 10x better than yours.
You all just don't understand! None of you can think outside the box! Blah blah blah blah..
If I wasn't so great, would have I made this awesome thread on growing weed with T5s?? Nope.
I made a thread on growing with T5s and people are bashing me... Let me come up with delusional reasons for why I think people might be attacking me!
You all just don't understand! None of you can think outside the box! Blah blah blah blah..
If I wasn't so great, would have I made this awesome thread on growing weed with T5s?? Nope.
I made a thread on growing with T5s and people are bashing me... Let me come up with delusional reasons for why I think people might be attacking me!
Capt. Stickyfingers
Well-Known Member
Capt. Stickyfingers
Well-Known Member
Growing 2 ft tall plants in a tanning bed isn't impressive. Neither is boiling roots, cherry picking science, or having a group of noobies riding your dick. Anyone thats not a total dumbass can see that RM3 doesn't have the facilities to do the kind of breeding he claims. I've seen him admit to being broke, so I guess his seeds and bud must not be making any cash. If his weed and breeding was that good, he wouldn't be sitting on his ass without any money while trying to hustle through riu and "fake" website. I mean, how the fuck can the smartest guy with the most skill, best weed, and most stable genetics in seed on the planet - be broke and resort to hustling through riu and a "parody" website? And I used quotations on fake and parody because those are the words used by rm3 himself to describe his own website. I don't believe it was a parody or fake. I think he played it off that way to saved face after being laughed at for the stupid claims and pricing. Who the fuck thinks that making a website with your own gear priced so ridiculously will bring you business and get your name out there? Unless you're doggies nuts. But you see how far that got them. Only a retard would follow their business model.