More THC testing – UVA vs UVB vs near-UV

Grow Lights Australia

Well-Known Member
There was a study done in Jerusalem 25 or more years ago where they infused Red into the glass of 1 greenhouse, and just used the normal glass on the other. They used tissue cultured flowers, and the flowers on the red infused side grew twice as fast as the non red side.

I myself both veg, and flower with a 1000w Hortilux HS, and have used them for at least 20 years. I used to use metal halide until Hortilux came out with an HPS buld that had a bit of Blue added. Ive always had good, tight internode spacing.
Most of the food Isralis eat, are grown in their greenhouses. They are one of the leaders in Greenhouse technology.
This is what we have seen also. Plants do not stretch under our spectrum and more importantly there is no excessive branching like you see under some blue-heavy spectra. It is worth noting that most of the horticultural lights we have produced over the years have had around 15% blue and over 50% red and far red. The propagation spectrum above is less than 20% blue.
 

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
I would assume its best to have a combination of UVA/B. Not just one, or the other. The sun has both. Also the damaging effects from UVB is the point. In some places in the Andes mountains, the UV level is as high, as it is on Mars.

Also I dont run the Solacure 12 hours. Its recommended 6 hours tops.
As in nature UVA/B is very low up until around 10am, and starts waning after 4PM. So I run no UVA/B the first 3 hours, run it 6 hours, and then it goes off the last 3, giving plenty of time to work with the plants with no UVA/B exposure.

I also run the Solacure from Seedling- Flowering. As soon as they come up, they see UVA/B.

Some of the best weed in the world comes from South America, where the UVB is extremely high.


Blazing World Record: Strongest UV Rays Measured in South America

On Dec. 29, 2003, a world-record UV index of 43.3 was detected at Bolivia's Licancabur volcano. The UV index is used to forecast the strength of the sun's ultraviolet rays.


A radiation detector left on the 19,423-foot-tall (5,920 meters) peak picked up the extreme spike in UV-B radiation during the Southern Hemisphere summer. A UV index of 43 is more similar to surface radiation on Mars than typical conditions on Earth, and the reading is well above the mid-20s routinely measured in the high Andes, said lead study author Nathalie Cabrol, a planetary scientist at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California.

Earlier studies by Richard McKenzie, a scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, also found that the high Andes in Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina regularly hit UV index levels higher than 25.

During the NASA-funded project, Cabrol and her colleagues explored high-elevation lakes in the Andes for insight into how life evolves in extreme environments. Licancabur volcano's summit lake was probed for its similarities to Gusev Crater on Mars, the landing site for NASA's Mars rover Spirit in 2004.


Because the team's primary goals were to look for Mars counterparts and weird life, such as the extremophiles that thrive in these harsh environments, they didn't realize their instruments had picked up a huge spike in UV levels until years after their fieldwork was complete. And, at first, the values were so high that they thought the UV data was the result of an instrument error, Cabrol said. But two dosimeters placed more than 6 miles (10 km) apart saw the same peaks at the same time, she said.


Cabrol said the team wanted to verify their observations with a return visit, to retrieve more monitoring data from Licancabur, but political instability in Bolivia prevented another trip.


Cabrol thinks a UV monitoring program in the Andean countries, similar to those already in place in Australia and New Zealand, would shed more light on the extreme UV levels at high altitudes, and offer better protection to people living on the Altiplano.

Researchers at the University of Maryland used Westinghous FS40 blubs which have a 280nm-315nm range

Cannabis researchers in Maryland exposed pot plants to ultraviolet radiation to see the reaction. And what they discovered is just amazing!

Thus, they discovered that a lot of UVB radiation allows marijuana strains producing around 28% more THC in the buds.

In attempting to understand more about the function of cannabinoids - scientists opened a simple way to raise its power. They started making an experiment on CBD hemp and Jamaican marijuana to discover whether cannabinoids will increase. Thus, while THC was high in the Jamaican weed, the Czechoslovakian weed didn’t show more CBD.

As you can see, UVB radiation influence THC production in a lot of ways. Moreover, UVB radiation increases THC in strains that already express high THC.



How to take advantage of the UVB effect?


UV light intensity increases significantly at higher altitudes; the best hash plants in the world are grown in mountains and high regions.

Special fluorescent light bulbs generate radiation similar to UV light, and were used in the study. Growers put the plants under 40W Westinghouse FS-40 Sunlamps 10 inches from the canopy.

FS 40 has a 280nm-315nm spectrum. This is also a T12 bulb.

According to the National Weather Service, UV light increases “4-5% for every 1000 feet ascended.” This means going from Phoenix to the top of the San Francisco Peaks increases UV radiation by 50%!
  • 280 nm to 315 nm
    UVB – useful for curing, and medical applications
The UV-B photoreceptor UVR8: from structure to physiology
Journal Information
The Plant Cell is in its 19th year of publication. Within three years of its initial publication, it ranked first in impact among primary research journals in the plant sciences, a standard of excellence it has maintained ever since. The Plant Cell publishes novel research of special significance in plant biology, especially in the areas of cellular biology, molecular biology, genetics, development, and evolution. Articles provide new insight that is of broad interest to plant biologists, not only specialists.

Low doses of UV-B light (280 to 315 nm) elicit photomorphogenic responses in plants that modify biochemical composition, photosynthetic competence, morphogenesis, and defense. UV RESISTANCE LOCUS8 (UVR8) mediates photomorphogenic responses to UV-B by regulating transcription of a set of target genes. UVR8 differs from other known photoreceptors in that it uses specific Trp amino acids instead of a prosthetic chromophore for light absorption during UV-B photoreception. Absorption of UV-B dissociates the UVR8 dimer into monomers, initiating signal transduction through interaction with CONSTITUTIVELY PHOTOMORPHOGENIC1. However, much remains to be learned about the physiological role of UVR8 and its interaction with other signaling pathways, the molecular mechanism of UVR8 photoreception, how the UVR8 protein initiates signaling, how it is regulated, and how UVR8 regulates transcription of its target genes.
 
Last edited:

Speedtriplebbc

Well-Known Member
IMHO the Migro bulb is highly overrated.

Its only an 18w bulb, and says its good for a 4 x 4 area? Solacure is arguably one of the most powerful emiters of UVA/B made, and they say it takes 2 of them to cover a 4 x 4 area, and are 32w. 64w total.

The Migro peaks at 310nm, and the Solacure is most powerful at 280nm-300nm in the UVB range.

The Migro is also a T8, as the Solacure is a T12, and the T12 has much more mass. Solacure said they experimented with both T5, and T8 bulbs, and they were insufficient for their demands.
Migro also uses an aluminum reflector, and its well know UVA/B does not reflect very well, thuse why Solacure has a built in reflector

Im not impressed by the Migro at all, and I think thy overrate the bulb.

You can see even at 20w the Solacure is way more powerful than the Migro. And the Solacure is capable of running up to 80w.
At 40w the Solacure is 1400mw

4 foot Flower Power F40
40w, measured dead to lamp: 1400mw/cm2
20w, measured dead to lamp: 800MW/cm2 (normal F32 fixture)
1mw = 1000 uw

Migro is only 93uw/cm2
View attachment 5035357
I can see what you’re saying, but getting a solacure in the uk is difficult for a start, and these are clearly more than powerful enough to do the job. I’m not saying these are better or as good as the solacure, but they made a difference using 18w for 30 minutes a day for two weeks. That’s good enough for me. As I said before, I use these because I brought them prior to reading this thread, if I was buying again I wouldn’t buy these, reptile lamps or solacure as I could get similar results with 3-4% uva that would benefit full cycle. Just my opinion though
 

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
No, Ive just been using them with success for several years. I wish I was on commission. I used to use the Arcadia 4ft Dragon bulbs

I also frequent guitar, and amp forums, and always reommend Roger Mayer guitar pedals. He was Jimi Hendrix pedal guy. I get accused for shilling for Roger too. I just believe in the products.
 

Speedtriplebbc

Well-Known Member
No, Ive just been using them with success for several years. I wish I was on commission. I used to use the Arcadia 4ft Dragon bulbs

I also frequent guitar, and amp forums, and always reommend Roger Mayer guitar pedals. He was Jimi Hendrix pedal guy. I get accused for shilling for Roger too. I just believe in the products.
Just confirming that I was joking, I can come across badly sometimes in writing. I don’t have any intention of discrediting you on this. Just sharing my thoughts on it. I haven’t got any problem with solacure overall, I just chose a different product and saying how I found it. Hopefully anyone reading this can look at all the options, you generally get what you pay for by the looks of things. I would certainly say that I’m getting results from the Migro uvb that compare to solacure, it would be an interesting side by side comparison too. Maybe for another thread and with some test results, I wouldn’t write either off as options for people depending on budget, results they want or lifespan etc.
 

Speedtriplebbc

Well-Known Member
Oh I didnt take any offense, and actually didnt think you were serious about me getting commission. I wish I was getting commission.
If people cant have an hoenst discussion, then its a sad world.
Haha, glad you didn’t see it that way. As I said, I have come across badly and offended people on social media and texting etc so I thought I’d confirm. Especially as there’s always a few trolls on whatever forum you choose.
 

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
No man, all is good, and I didnt take offense in any way. Im just a firm believer some form of UVB in the 285nm-300nm is critical for activation of the UVR8 receptor., and Ive seen no studies that state otherwise. But its up to everyone to do what they do.
 

Rurumo

Well-Known Member
I guess I'll try my uv bulbs this time if I can figure out how to hang them in between my bar lights without it getting too awkward.
 

Speedtriplebbc

Well-Known Member
I use UVA/B on mine from seedling-flowering. I figure they get it in nature.
How long at a time do you run them? I was looking at uva full cycle as I have seen growth improvement but I’ve only thought about using uvb for a little bit last two or three weeks. Interesting to hear from someone who’s had more time to play with uvb. Also, have you had tests on the results or is it the smoke and effect results. To be fair, the latter is more important as a grower, he tests are more important if I want to win an argument, and I don’t lol.
 

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
Depending on the height from the top, I run then between 4-6 hours a day.
In nature th strongest UVA/B is between 10AM-4PM. It peaks I believe at 2PM, but is till pretty strong until 4PM.

The main thing is that it changes the chemical profile. All my friends also tell me the weed is noticably stronger since Ive been using UVA/B. Ive been using them now for about 4 years. Ive not had it tested. Im in a very unfriendly state, so its not feasable. But the weed is noticably stronger.
To much UVA/B will stunt them. The guy at Solacure recommends running them between 2-3 hours a day, to start with, but gradually build up to that. This is equal to growing plants in the Northern Latitudes.
If you do overdo it, it can stunt, or kill the plants.
I run mine 4-6 hours a day depending on how far away they are from the plants, and the stage of growth. I bring the lights down closer the last month, and reduce duration.
I usually wait until the HID/LED I run to be on 3 hours before the UVA/B bulbs come on. This more closely simulates nature. Not alot of UV is there between daybreak, and 10AM, so I dont turn them on until the other lights have been on for a few hours. This also gives me time to work with the plants, and not get burned, or blinded. I also turn them off for the last 3 hours of light.

I veg for 24 hours a day, and I still only use 4-6 hours of UVA/B per day. I veg, and have seedlings under either a 1000w Hortilux HPS, or a Gavita 1700e. I use 2 bulbs per light, in a 4 x 4 area. I change bulbs about every 5.5 months.

I try and make the plants think theyre growing at the Equator, in the Andes mountains at around 8,000- 10,000 feet, where he UVA/B is extremely high. And some of the best weed in the world is grown at high altitude.

Also growing them from seedlings reduces the chance of overstressing them, or killing them. Though admittedly, you have to buy bulbs often.

The Solacure also has UVA, and is very strong in the 360nm-385nm range. Its not just a UVB bulb.

Heres some info rom SC site.

Using UV lamps as plant stressing lights

This is trickier, but offers the greatest return. The goal is to push the limit of how much the plant can handle, up to the point before noticeable damage. This forces the plant into maximum protection mode and is done the last month of fruiting. Instead of producing larger fruit, it focuses on protecting the fruits already on the plant by producing much more resinous material (flavonoids or cannabinoids, depending on plant). What you end up with is denser but slightly smaller fruit that is considerably more potent. Some lab tests have indicated as much as 35% higher THC level in cannabis, although 20-25% is more realistic until the technique is mastered over a few seasons.

When it comes to cannabis, there is no single guide on how to do this, and never will be. This is because cannabis sativa and cannabis indica are two very different strains with different tolerances, and most plants are hybrids. Sativa plants grow in areas that traditionally get more UV (and tend to naturally have more THC) whereas indica plants have been grown traditionally at higher latitudes and are higher in CBD than sativas. It short, it requires a hands on approach and careful monitoring for every hybrid. This is also true of non-cannabis plants, which are just as varied, just as much hybrids. If you are growing tomatoes in a greenhouse, this same principle would apply to you: You can't compare a Beefstake with a Roma when it comes to UV tolerance, you have to dial it in manually.
 

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
I dont grow in a tent Ive got a big basement. 30 x 30, with 3 different rooms. I also have all kinds of fresh air.

Ive not found the UVA/B has degraded anything. If its degrading anything, youre giving it to much. Light to close, or to much duration. Plants not broken properly to the stress.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying you are not seeing good results, but with all due respect "strong smoke" is subjective. If you haven't actually tested anything, then how do you know what is optimal? How do you know when THC levels peak and at what point too much UVB starts to oxidise the cannabinoids that are already on the plant? At what point does short-wave UVB actually start to break down the cannabinoids faster than it helps produce them?

We know that UVB exposure stunts plant growth and reduces dry yields, so at what point are we seeing a lineal increase in THC production and not just a defacto increase in correlation with reduced dry flower and leaf mass? After all, if increased THC production comes at the expense of reduced yield, then total yield of THC could actually be less.

These are things that can be determined with regular testing – and which medicinal growers are keen to explore as they are interested in total cannabinoid yield per unit of energy or area for the purpose of efficient processing. They are tests which companies such as Solacure should be able to prove with multiple examples.

Instead, we get statements like this: https://www.solacure.com/stress.html?viewfullsite=1
All the lamps discussed are capable of producing at least some 280-290nm, thus triggering the UVR8 protein. Virtually all non-Solacure lamps don't do this.
We know this is not true, as the UVR8 absorption curve goes all the way to 420nm.

Our Universal UV and SG-1 series lamps are good examples of bulbs that people use for this, although the Universal won't trigger UVR8 like the SG-1 will.
As above, not true.

THC has an amazing ability to block UV. The only reason the plant makes THC is to use as sun block. There is no other reason.
Again, not true. THC appears to have quite a number of evolutionary functions, including pest and mould resistance. It is also the reason cannabis has spread far and wide around the world, and which may explain why we have cannabinoid receptors in our brains.

The goal is to push the limit of how much the plant can handle, up to the point before noticeable damage.
If you are pushing UVB to the point where it is causing DNA damage to the plant, then it is almost guaranteed that cannabinoid levels will have suffered through oxidation far before that.

The relationship between UVB and THC is not as straight forward as some companies will have you believe. You might want to read this study to appreciate what other wavelengths do: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030

You might also want to keep an open mind to the fact that wavelengths other than UVB can trigger the UVR8 protein. Because unfortunately all I have seen you do is repeat what Solacure has stated with no real evidence on your own part.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, but you started this whole conversation by stating that only 285nm triggers the UVR8 receptor and you are also stating that a mix of UVB and UVA is best "because that's what nature has" (or rather, because that's what Solarcure states).

Perhaps you can address the elephant in the room: why is 285nm radiation so ideal when there is so little of it in nature to begin with?
 

Speedtriplebbc

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying you are not seeing good results, but with all due respect "strong smoke" is subjective. If you haven't actually tested anything, then how do you know what is optimal? How do you know when THC levels peak and at what point too much UVB starts to oxidise the cannabinoids that are already on the plant? At what point does short-wave UVB actually start to break down the cannabinoids faster than it helps produce them?

We know that UVB exposure stunts plant growth and reduces dry yields, so at what point are we seeing a lineal increase in THC production and not just a defacto increase in correlation with reduced dry flower and leaf mass? After all, if increased THC production comes at the expense of reduced yield, then total yield of THC could actually be less.

These are things that can be determined with regular testing – and which medicinal growers are keen to explore as they are interested in total cannabinoid yield per unit of energy or area for the purpose of efficient processing. They are tests which companies such as Solacure should be able to prove with multiple examples.

Instead, we get statements like this: https://www.solacure.com/stress.html?viewfullsite=1

We know this is not true, as the UVR8 absorption curve goes all the way to 420nm.


As above, not true.


Again, not true. THC appears to have quite a number of evolutionary functions, including pest and mould resistance. It is also the reason cannabis has spread far and wide around the world, and which may explain why we have cannabinoid receptors in our brains.


If you are pushing UVB to the point where it is causing DNA damage to the plant, then it is almost guaranteed that cannabinoid levels will have suffered through oxidation far before that.

The relationship between UVB and THC is not as straight forward as some companies will have you believe. You might want to read this study to appreciate what other wavelengths do: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030

You might also want to keep an open mind to the fact that wavelengths other than UVB can trigger the UVR8 protein. Because unfortunately all I have seen you do is repeat what Solacure has stated with no real evidence on your own part.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, but you started this whole conversation by stating that only 285nm triggers the UVR8 receptor and you are also stating that a mix of UVB and UVA is best "because that's what nature has" (or rather, because that's what Solarcure states).

Perhaps you can address the elephant in the room: why is 285nm radiation so ideal when there is so little of it in nature to begin with?
All this information is why I don’t use it for over 30 minutes. I’m not disputing any results of improvement or damage, just that I read this after purchasing so I thought I’d use a little. Definitely a lot of technical information to take in on uvb. In all honesty, if I was investing now I’d go no lower than 385nm and run full cycle but possibly have it at 3-4% on a dimmer to boost towards the end. Again, personal thoughts on this and I don’t consider myself the expert by any means. Information and experiences are always good to share
 

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying you are not seeing good results, but with all due respect "strong smoke" is subjective. If you haven't actually tested anything, then how do you know what is optimal? How do you know when THC levels peak and at what point too much UVB starts to oxidise the cannabinoids that are already on the plant? At what point does short-wave UVB actually start to break down the cannabinoids faster than it helps produce them?

We know that UVB exposure stunts plant growth and reduces dry yields, so at what point are we seeing a lineal increase in THC production and not just a defacto increase in correlation with reduced dry flower and leaf mass? After all, if increased THC production comes at the expense of reduced yield, then total yield of THC could actually be less.

These are things that can be determined with regular testing – and which medicinal growers are keen to explore as they are interested in total cannabinoid yield per unit of energy or area for the purpose of efficient processing. They are tests which companies such as Solacure should be able to prove with multiple examples.

Instead, we get statements like this: https://www.solacure.com/stress.html?viewfullsite=1

We know this is not true, as the UVR8 absorption curve goes all the way to 420nm.


As above, not true.


Again, not true. THC appears to have quite a number of evolutionary functions, including pest and mould resistance. It is also the reason cannabis has spread far and wide around the world, and which may explain why we have cannabinoid receptors in our brains.


If you are pushing UVB to the point where it is causing DNA damage to the plant, then it is almost guaranteed that cannabinoid levels will have suffered through oxidation far before that.

The relationship between UVB and THC is not as straight forward as some companies will have you believe. You might want to read this study to appreciate what other wavelengths do: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030

You might also want to keep an open mind to the fact that wavelengths other than UVB can trigger the UVR8 protein. Because unfortunately all I have seen you do is repeat what Solacure has stated with no real evidence on your own part.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, but you started this whole conversation by stating that only 285nm triggers the UVR8 receptor and you are also stating that a mix of UVB and UVA is best "because that's what nature has" (or rather, because that's what Solarcure states).

Perhaps you can address the elephant in the room: why is 285nm radiation so ideal when there is so little of it in nature to begin with?
The stronges trigger for UVR8 is between 285nm, and 315nm

All one has to do is google UVR8, and all info state the UVR8 receptor is most sensitive at 285nm-315nm. Solacure may say it, but they aint the only ones. Plenty of info stating as much. I have given multiple info stating as much. Scientific info. Not Solacure.

Also Solacure was picked for usage by a couple Colleges, that are known for Agricultural Research. Texas A&M, and

While upper frequiencies may stimulate it to a degree, I see not scientific info in these articles stating as much.

Also one does not use so much UVB/A that is causes visible damage.

UVR8 - Wikipedia
1638121560651.jpeg
UV-B resistance 8 (UVR8) also known as ultraviolet-B receptor UVR8 is an UV-B – sensing protein found in plants and possibly other sources. It is responsible for sensing ultraviolet light in the range 280-315 nm and initiating the plant stress response. It is most sensitive at 285nm, near the lower limit of UVB. UVR8 was first identified as a crucial mediator of a plant's response to UV-B in Arabidopsis thaliana


.
 

Attachments

Top