I have a question for all you veteran growers out there!

[colonuggs]

yaaa I win......Freakin Thread police suck...hahahahhaha

 

[Jack Larson]

I win...now go back to your coner and contiune to do what you do best

Freakin Thread police suck...hahahahhaha

That's your response because you know I'm right, but if you think you're right, please explain to all of us how leaving your plants in 72 hours of dark every two weeks during flower is, in any way, related to the thread topic, much less a good idea. Show me just one other person on this site that thinks that's a good idea... and while you're at it, show me some proof that three days dark at harvest does not work. Funny, there is scientific evidence that it does, where is your empirical proof that it doesn't work? Or... you can just spew another one of your smart ass responses, in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Wolverine97]

That's your response because you know I'm right, but if you think you're right, please explain to all of us how leaving your plants in 72 hours of dark every two weeks during flower is, in any way, related to the thread topic, much less a good idea. Show me just one other person on this site that thinks that's a good idea... and while you're at it, show me some proof that three days dark at harvest does not work. Funny, there is scientific evidence that it does, where is your empirical proof that it doesn't work? Or... you can just spew another one of your smart ass responses, in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Quit being an ass.

 

[Brick Top]

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 .

There are over 3,000 strains. If only 20% of them will see the full 30% increase, that's still a lot of strains. If only 10% of them will only see a 15% increase, that's still a lot of strains.

It is irresponsible for someone to deem something to not work or be a waste of time when if they actually tried it, and did it correctly, the full 72-hours of darkness, they could only have tried it on a infinitesimal number of the over 3,000 strains and based on their tiny sampling tell others to not waste their time, that it is not worth it, that it does not work and by doing so cost them possibly a 6% increase in THC or a 9% increase in THC or a 17% increase in THC or a 24% increase in THC or a 30% increase in THC.

Consider this. Look at how much money some people pay for their genetics, which are very often picked for high THC percentages. Then look at how much money people pay for 'designer soils' or hydro or aero setups. Add to that the 'designer fertilizers and nutrients' people pay for. Consider what some people pay for high dollar lighting and high dollar bulbs, plus those up pay even more to add UV-B lighting ..... and all the rest that people pay for in an attempt to squeeze every last percentage of THC out of the strain or strains they grow. Then add the operating costs for their setups. In some people's case that ends up being a very high total amount of money, all to try to squeeze each and every tiny bit of THC as they possibly can from their genetics

Then there is something that can be done that will in some cases increase the level of THC tremendously, AND IT IS TOTALLY FREE TOO DO. Considering that it is free, why in the wide, wide world of sports would anyone pass it up even if it only gave them an additional 1.2% of THC, let alone the possibility of a 10% increase or a 20% increase or a 30% increase?

If after paying so much money and going to such efforts and waiting so long and accepting the risks that goes along with growing, and that includes legitimate med patients and caregivers and dispensaries because as we all know, they are only partially legal, three quarters legal, why not take advantage of something that is totally free too do that could, and in some cases will, make a major improvement in a growers final results?

It is totally illogical to not take advantage of it and it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it, all only based on an attempt or two, that might not have been done correctly in the first place, on a few strains that resulted in their human physical senses not being capable of being positive of any increase.


Additional: The; "human palate" as you call it would not be what judges any increase in THC. That would be occur in the human brain, the CB1 and CB2 receptors.

 

[Jack Larson]

Quit being an ass.

If I'm such an ass, why don't you just ignore me? The only reason I'm still here, is to see if colinuggs will ever have the stones to admit he was wrong, or proves otherwise. So if you don't like me, shut up! If you have something to contribute in a positive way, then I'm all ears. If you want to perpetuate the stupidity I will gladly oblige you. Your call. If you respond, don't bitch !!! Try actually answering a question or contributing something, instead of worrying about me and defending someone who doesn’t deserve defending.

 

[homebrewer]

The human palate isn't a laboratory so all we have to go on is our senses and perceptions.

First of all, the above statement was in regards to decocting, but thanks for the diagram .

It is totally illogical to not take advantage of it and it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it, all only based on an attempt or two, that might not have been done correctly in the first place, on a few strains that resulted in their human physical senses not being capable of being positive of any increase.

Secondly, a minimum of 10 strains were tested on my end and it's laughable to think someone isn't capable of creating a 'dark space' for 72 hours. Maybe I used a closet?

But you do have a point. Other than wasting time, this 'dark period' is free to try and I would encourage everyone to try it and conduct blind tests with their patients. Younger growers have a tendency to see what they want to see which is why this hobby is full of bad practices a BS products. Cutting the fat from our growing practices and nutrient cabinets only serves to produce better results.

 

[Brick Top]

Secondly, a minimum of 10 strains were tested on my end and it's laughable to think someone isn't capable of creating a 'dark space' for 72 hours. Maybe I used a closet?

What I said was not at all about someone being able to find or create a dark location but instead because many people believe it is a 24-hour dark period and others a 36-hour dark period and others a 48-hour dark period. Over the years when I have seen someone ask about an extended period of light before harvesting, which has been near countless times, only a very small number of times did someone ask about the correct length period of darkness, that being 72-hours. Where I felt if you made any error it would likely be more like untold numbers of others have where they did not know the facts and believed a shorter, sometimes much shorter, length period of darkness in mind. That would of course make a difference.

But you do have a point. Other than wasting time,

There you go again ... and as I said; "It is totally illogical to not take advantage of it and it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it, all only based on an attempt or two, that might not have been done correctly in the first place, on a few strains that resulted in their human physical senses not being capable of being positive of any increase.

Younger growers have a tendency to see what they want to see which is why this hobby is full of bad practices a BS products.

I agree with that. That is why I am so happy that having started growing in 1972, that my 39 years, almost 4 decades now, of growing experience does not put me in that group of younger growers with so many bad practices.

Just for curiosity's sake, how many decades have you been growing? You started growing when, in 1970-what? 74? 76? 79 maybe? Or maybe in 70 or 71, or even sometime in the 60's. I wasn't growing in the 60's. I didn't start getting high until the spring of 1968.

 

[homebrewer]

Just for curiosity's sake, how many decades have you been growing? You started growing when, in 1970-what? 74? 76? 79 maybe? Or maybe in 70 or 71, or even sometime in the 60's. I wasn't growing in the 60's. I didn't start getting high until the spring of 1968.

One decade . Would you like me to post some pics? Here is a teaser and I'd love to see your girls while we're at it .

 

[Brick Top]

One decade . Would you like me to post some pics? Here is a teaser and I'd love to see your girls while we're at it .

One decade. Not bad. That beats many people here. That also means experience-wise I only have you by a little under 3 decades.

Nice looking plant? What strain is is? If it were a bit frostier and a bit 'heavier' it would look almost like a twin to some G13 x White Russian I grew a few years back.

As for pics from me, well if I am ever in a med state and find myself three quarters legal I might go back to posting pictures, but I stopped posting pictures some years back after a handful of busts that resulted from people posting pictures on sites like this. I don't need to post pictures and ask anyone what a problem might be if I happen to have one and while I do have an ego it's not so large that I feel the need to post pictures that would basically be nothing more than saying, hey everyone, look at what I did, aren't I something, aren't I cool .. like why a fair number of people post pictures.

So don't hold your breath waiting to see any pictures from me or else you will need to change your username to Mr. Blue.

 

[homebrewer]

Nice looking plant? What strain is is? If it were a bit frostier and a bit 'heavier' it would look almost like a twin to some G13 x White Russian I grew a few years back.

It's a clone only strain called Dumpster that is popular back in Ohio. It tends to mold if I try to grow big buds on the plants, so I diffuse the growth to many medium sized buds by topping and supercropping.

hey everyone, look at what I did, aren't I something, aren't I cool .. like why a fair number of people post pictures.

Well, the 'hey look what I did' pictures act as a resume of sorts. I post pictures because it's a 'if you like what you see, you may want to listen to me' kind-of statement. On the topic at hand however, I guess we'll agree to disagree and we can also add Dumpster to the long list of strains 'dark periods' do nothing for .

 

[dajosh42069]

Well...That was thoroughly unenjoyable...
And after 8 pages of arguing, were left with THIS"

"If I do a 72 hr dark period for my plants just before harvest, will it help my THC increase by any percentage at all???"

"Perhaps....It depends..."

"It depends? On what?"

"On what strain you have."

"FUCK YOU, I'M JESUS ON A UNICYCLE!!!!!!!!!"

"...Ok, I have {INSERT STRAIN NAME HERE}, Will that work?"

"I'm not, your not, and we're not friends with, a scientist...... So I don't know! Just do it!! WTF do you have to lose??!"

""

Thank you, Thank you...This has been MY rendition OF, a convo between multiple growers of cannabis.

THERE, now ppl who want the answer without sifting through 8 pages of arguing can just read my simplified version of it. I left in a tiny bit of conflict to mirror the original version, but I feel it's TASTEFUL.

 

[Brick Top]

Well, the 'hey look what I did' pictures act as a resume of sorts. I post pictures because it's a 'if you like what you see, you may want to listen to me' kind-of statement.

I can normally tell if someone knows what they are talking about without seeing pictures. There are a lot of people who can grow plants pretty well but when it comes to knowing plants, they don't know beans, and that shows. Plus with the maybe million or so pictures of cannabis plants online now on the numerous growing sites, and ones that could have been copied by the equally many sites that are nor defunct, virtually anyone could find a picture, or even an entire grow thread, and use all the pictures and claim them to be theirs and get away with it.

Until a few years back when I lost a hard drive I had an entire LED grow thread saved, well not all the things other people said, just all the pictures with things the person who started the thread posted. I kept it not to use to claim it was mine but to show what high quality LEDs used in sufficient numbers and used correctly could do. It was the most impressive grow thread I have ever followed.

But with that site now long gone if someone were to have the same thing as I had they could easily make it appear as if it were their grow. Use the pictures, alter some wording to bring it up to date and go with it. I never see pictures as irrefutable proof of anything. There are just too many out there to be able to assume in each case one you are looking at is as claimed too be.

On the topic at hand however, I guess we'll agree to disagree

After the busts that occurred on sites I was a member of, and one I was a mod on, and a local bust that happened through a site I was never a member of, but that did involve a tip-off of an upset ex-wife, and by chance not all that long after moving here I met the local Sheriff at my brother in law's house and in a casual conversation he asked where bought and I mentioned the name of the little 8 house development I live in and he went on and on about his former best friend who had moved had lived there and went on to describe the house, deck, yard and dock as well as if it were his own ... and as luck would have it, it's the house I bought ... between the combination of busts and the local Sheriff knowing my house, deck and dock as well as I did I didn't see it as all that wise to post pictures anymore .. and with not needing help from others there is no need for me to post pictures asking WTF is up?

and we can also add Dumpster to the long list of strains 'dark periods' do nothing for

So with Dumpster added to the list, what does that make it, 10, 12, 20 or maybe even 30 of the over 3,000 existing strains that you do not believe respond to an extended period of darkness?

Just out of curiosity, was the lab that tested Dumpster after an extended period of darkness have many plants that did not receive the extended period of darkness and an equally large number of plants that did receive an extended period of darkness, or were there only a few of each .... or was the success or failure of an extended period of darkness decided from different runs relying purely on human senses and the memory of some previous run of it to go by for comparison?

 

[VICTORYGARDENSHYDRO]

what knowone has mentioned is, If you run your normal cycle, then add 72 hours of darkness on top of that, you just extended your grow by 3 days, maybe some plants are just finishing better being there allowed another 3 days to grow. Just sayin

 

[homebrewer]

So with Dumpster added to the list, what does that make it, 10, 12, 20 or maybe even 30 of the over 3,000 existing strains that you do not believe respond to an extended period of darkness?

That would bring the total up to about 11 or 12 strains, which brings my batting average to 0.000. Randomly selected hybrids from different breeders and origins around the Earth all had the same results for me. How much time does one need to waste trying to make great herb even better? To that, the best way to realize the genetic potential of any strain has nothing to do with dark periods and everything to do with maintaining healthy plants until harvest. How many people on this site grow healthy plants until harvest day? Probably about 5%.

These kind of threads, IMO, focus attention on the wrong sorts of things. The vast majority of the growers around here could see more than a 30% increase in THC if they actually treated their plants better.

Just out of curiosity, was the lab that tested Dumpster after an extended period of darkness have many plants that did not receive the extended period of darkness and an equally large number of plants that did receive an extended period of darkness, or were there only a few of each .... or was the success or failure of an extended period of darkness decided from different runs relying purely on human senses and the memory of some previous run of it to go by for comparison?

Again, I was illustrating this with my decoction example. If you do something and no one can tell a difference, then did it actually do anything?

 

[Brick Top]

That would bring the total up to about 11 or 12 strains, which brings my batting average to 0.000. Randomly selected hybrids from different breeders and origins around the Earth all had the same results for me.

Get back to me with your batting average when you have tried it and had lab results for proof on the other more than 3,000 strains in existence.

How much time does one need to waste trying to make great herb even better?

Based on only 11 or 12 strains you have deemed it to be a waste of time even though there are over 3,000 more strains you have not tested it on, and not had it lab tested to begin with, and regardless of actual scientific research having proved that it does work on some strains.

If you tried it again on another strain and there clearly was an appreciable increase would you still consider it a waste of time and say since it was' "great" before even though it made it much better it was still a waste of time?

As I said; "it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it" because by accepting your opinion on some 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 known strains they could end up with far less potent herb than they otherwise could have had.

To that, the best way to realize the genetic potential of any strain has nothing to do with dark periods and everything to do with maintaining healthy plants until harvest. How many people on this site grow healthy plants until harvest day? Probably about 5%.

You are likely at least close to being accurate with your 5% guesstimate and I could not argue with most of the rest of what you said. But since potency is job one for most people, why should they believe your personal opinion that is based on some 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains when the; "The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" have scientifically proven otherwise?

These kind of threads, IMO, focus attention on the wrong sorts of things. The vast majority of the growers around here could see more than a 30% increase in THC if they actually treated their plants better.

Again I would not argue against that. The strain with the highest tested THC percentage in the world is no guarantee that in the hands of an unskilled grower and or one with a poor setup will end up with something half as high in THC percentage as what was tested and found to be so high in THC. It is far simpler to not grow a strain to it's potential than it is to grow a strain to it's potential. But that being the case would make an even better case for someone to give their plants an extended period of darkness before harvest. If they only grew them to 75% or 80% or 90% of their potential and by giving them an extended period of darkness before harvest if that would raise them close to or to what they could have gotten with better skill and a better setup then it would really make sense for them to do it. And if it could gain them even more, it would be worth even more to do it ... and if they grew their plants as well as they could be grown and still end up with something better, why would anyone ever willingly pass that up when it is totally free, is simpler than falling off a log and only makes you wait an additional 72-hours before you harvest?

Oh I know why, because based om 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains your human sensory system evaluated the 11 or 12 and told you that the actual scientific research was flawed, that it was incorrect, that a bunch of PhDs with high tech equipment were all wrong and that you are totally correct.

Again, I was illustrating this with my decoction example. If you do something and no one can tell a difference, then did it actually do anything?

So, your 11 or 12 strains that were not lab tested has in your mind proven the actual scientific research that has proven it not only works but it works to very well with some strains to be totally inaccurate, right? Your 11 or 12 strains and your human sensory system has proven a group of PhDs from the; "The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" to all be incorrect and that all their high tech equipment turned out false results, right?

You are flat out saying that you are 100% correct and the; "The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" are all 100% incorrect, right? If so that is an extremely ballsy thing to claim based on your tiny sampling minus actual lab results compared to the credentials of the group of PhDs from different research facilities and the results their state of the art high tech equipment found to be factual.

 

[homebrewer]

But since potency is job one for most people, why should they believe your personal opinion that is based on some 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains when the; "The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" have scientifically proven otherwise?

You really like referring to this supposed 'institute' found here: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/index.html

Where is a link to their 'study'?

Who at SIMM has a PHD? You'd think the co-founder James Burton would have one right? But they make no mention of that: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/html/james_burton.html

 

[Brick Top]

You really like referring to this supposed 'institute' found here: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/index.html

Where is a link to their 'study'?

Who at SIMM has a PHD? You'd think the co-founder James Burton would have one right? But they make no mention of that: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/html/james_burton.html

Do you believe that TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden are lacking in PhDs? They are the ones who performed the tests and found the actual increases.

If you Google long enough, and I do mean LONG enough because when I found it, it was on something like page 93 in a search that turned up about a half million hits, you will eventually find an abstract and then if you pay you can read and download the entire research study where it takes you from step one to the very last step.

But just for the sake of discussion lets say that most involved only has masters degrees ... along of course with all their high tech lab equipment. What do you have that equates to it or tops it? Roughly 10 to 12 strains out of the over 3,000 existing strains where you relied completely and totally on your physical senses and on those of some number of others?

I will never be able to understand how someone can totally reject scientifically proven facts but totally believe what they have simply decided in their own minds to be factual.

If someone knows cannabis plant functions, rather than just knows how to grow them, the basic principal behind the idea of an extended period of darkness makes perfect sense and says there has to be some increase in THC, even if in some cases it is minimal, but there has to at least be some.

During hours of light, even under full sunlight, the energy plants have to work with is limited. During the day many functions take place, the plants multitask, and they allocate energy to the functions that are most important during daylight hours.

During periods of darkness when plants operate on stored energy, what to make things sound simple I call operating on battery backup, most plant functions cease or are at least scaled way back. The amount of energy available is allocated towards different priorities and THC production is one of them so it receives more energy during hours of darkness then during hours of light.

During hours of light THC is produced but some THC is also lost as it is degraded by light as it protects the delicate inner glands of glandular trichome heads. During hours of darkness, with increased amounts of energy to use, the amount of THC that was lost is replenished plus an additional amount is created so there is a long slow increase of gain and loss and gain and loss and gain and loss until the end of flowering when the amount of gain has maxed out the best it could under normal conditions of light and darkness.

When you give plants an extended period of darkness they only perform the functions they would perform during hours of darkness. That means THC production is maximized but since the period of darkness is not broken by periods of light there is no light-caused degradation of THC. So for as long as the plants have enough stored 'battery backup' energy to use it allocates a good deal of it to THC production and continues to do so until it's stored energy is used up. 72-hours is about the longest some plants will be able to operate on 'battery backup' and after that it would just die, so that is why 72-hours is what someone shoots for. A shorter period of time would not maximize what is being done and a longer period of time would be pointless because no more could be done.

It is the same principal as harvesting before daybreak, if growing outside, or if growing inside after the last light cycle ends manually turning off the lighting so it will not be able to turn back on before someone gets a chance to harvest and because of that there is more THC than if outdoors plants were harvested at some point in the day after the sun had come up or if indoors, harvested at some point after the lighting had turned on.

It's the same principal but drawn out, carried out over a longer period of darkness in an attempt for plants to be able to create as much THC as they possibly can without any loss due to light degradation.

Is that really all that difficult to understand and accept?

 

[Illumination]

absolutely awesome debate...please continue...am learning so much

And good day to you both BT and HB

Namaste'

 

[Jack Larson]

No dis-respect to you, HB, but you are out of your element on this one. BT is a Bulldozer and you're a smart car...Brick Top Fucking ROCKS!!!!!

 

[homebrewer]

If you Google long enough, and I do mean LONG enough because when I found it, it was on something like page 93 in a search that turned up about a half million hits, you will eventually find an abstract and then if you pay you can read and download the entire research study where it takes you from step one to the very last step.

Oh, I googled and all i found is the same 'cut and paste' on a dozen different cannabis websites about the 'SIMM and TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden' conducting a study but no one has a link to the study. Are there other studies? Are these 'results' repeatable? But again, where is a link to the study?

I will never be able to understand how someone can totally reject scientifically proven facts but totally believe what they have simply decided in their own minds to be factual.

Where are these facts? Testing this on 11-12 random strains and conducting blind tests where no one could tell a difference tells me enough to make the statements I've made.

If someone knows cannabis plant functions, rather than just knows how to grow them, the basic principal behind the idea of an extended period of darkness makes perfect sense and says there has to be some increase in THC, even if in some cases it is minimal, but there has to at least be some.

Again, refer to my decoction example.

During hours of light, even under full sunlight, the energy plants have to work with is limited. During the day many functions take place, the plants multitask, and they allocate energy to the functions that are most important during daylight hours.

During periods of darkness when plants operate on stored energy, what to make things sound simple I call operating on battery backup, most plant functions cease or are at least scaled way back. The amount of energy available is allocated towards different priorities and THC production is one of them so it receives more energy during hours of darkness then during hours of light.

During hours of light THC is produced but some THC is also lost as it is degraded by light as it protects the delicate inner glands of glandular trichome heads. During hours of darkness, with increased amounts of energy to use, the amount of THC that was lost is replenished plus an additional amount is created so there is a long slow increase of gain and loss and gain and loss and gain and loss until the end of flowering when the amount of gain has maxed out the best it could under normal conditions of light and darkness.

When you give plants an extended period of darkness they only perform the functions they would perform during hours of darkness. That means THC production is maximized but since the period of darkness is not broken by periods of light there is no light-caused degradation of THC. So for as long as the plants have enough stored 'battery backup' energy to use it allocates a good deal of it to THC production and continues to do so until it's stored energy is used up. 72-hours is about the longest some plants will be able to operate on 'battery backup' and after that it would just die, so that is why 72-hours is what someone shoots for. A shorter period of time would not maximize what is being done and a longer period of time would be pointless because no more could be done.

This sounds great on paper but here is where I'm coming from: there are people on this site that I'll look to for growing advice, and then there are people like you who will do a lot of cutting and pasting about resin gland stuff and the history of strains etc, etc, which is helpful in it's own right. Even if you were BushyOlderGrower himself (whom first inspired me to try 72 hours of dark AND had pictures of his grows), I'd still be saying the same thing, even after growing his own strains and trying it on the same strains he grew.

Theory and practice differ in a lot areas in both of my hobbies and there is a lot more to be said about brewing science and microbiology than this hobby which is illegal almost everywhere and limited in it's knowledge base.

There are things I do because they make a difference, and there are things I skip because they don't, it's really that simple.

It is the same principal as harvesting before daybreak, if growing outside, or if growing inside after the last light cycle ends manually turning off the lighting so it will not be able to turn back on before someone gets a chance to harvest and because of that there is more THC than if outdoors plants were harvested at some point in the day after the sun had come up or if indoors, harvested at some point after the lighting had turned on.

I've harvested at night and I've harvested during the day. I've even dried my product in my veg room with the MH lights blaring. Again, no one could tell the difference between 'doing it the right way' and doing it how I had to do it a few times. With that being said, I prefer to harvest at night and dry in the dark but if I can't, I know it doesn't make squat worth of difference if I 'do it the wrong way'.

Is that really all that difficult to understand and accept?

I'm not a 'cutter and paster', I test methods, procedures and practices for the advancement of my own product and to refine the quality going to my patients.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Every time this subject comes up, I will continue to voice my experience and no doubt you'll continue to cut and paste. People can decide for themselves if they'd rather believe 'theory' or 'real world experience'. Better yet, they can try it for themselves .