Need Advise On The Truth Behind the 24, 48, 72 Hours Of Darkness Before Harvest.

[Brick Top]

Correction; I said it doesn't work and it's not a personal opinion, I actually tried it many times. You and I have gone over this before.

So, like the highly educated research scientists who discovered how and why there is an increase in levels of THC and who performed their scientific research in a highly controlled environment and their results were verified using high tech equipment, you did the very same? What degrees do you hold that would be pertinent to plant research and from what universities are they from? What high tech equipment do you have and used to test your plants level of THC?

This is why I was so fed up and ready to leave this site last Fall and why after my ban was lifted I did not race back and why once I did come back I only lurked for a while and why after that for a while I hardly said anything. Ignorance not only runs on this site, it practically gallops. People who love to claim an educated status about growing cannabis will refuse to accept proven scientific fact and will in place of it believe, and preach, personal opinions that are based on what they did in their basement or in a closet or in a store room or in a spare room or in an attic or in a garage or in a green house or in their back yard or in some field or woods and they will also claim that what they can sense with their human senses to be more accurate than what is found using state of the art high tech equipment. It is inane.

Sites like this do not really teach growing. They are universities of ignorance and you are one of the professors on staff.

Brick, you don't even grow anymore,

Do you honestly believe that if you attempt to create a false reality that by doing so it will somehow alter actual reality? I am not presently growing because I am in the process of selling my home so I can move and I think even you would agree that it would be a very injudicious thing to do to have a crop under lights with prospective buyers and Realtors roaming through my house since I am not in a state where what I do is legal and I am legal.

I have never stopped growing for good, never, not since I first began way, way back in 1972, and unless something totally unexpected occurs I will never stop growing until I am physically unable or I die.

Where in the world you got the absurd notion that I do not grow anymore is beyond me. The only logical reason I can think of for you to claim it would be in hopes that people who you live to impress with your highly limited amount of growing knowledge would believe that I had actually stopped growing and that by doing so my nearly four decades of growing experience would vanish, become invalid, and all the years and years and years of research I have done and knowledge I gained from it would then become meaningless and if so, what you so inaccurately claim would then be seen as being more valid than what I have said.

yet you continue to post in these 'growing threads' with no evidence to back up your claims other than 'I've done it and it works'. Well, I'm also saying I've done it and it didn't work

So, what you are saying is that your claim, based strictly on your personally created belief and nothing more, is more valid and carries more weight than my own personal experience combined with my having read the actual research study findings and that your personal opinion, for some inexplicable reason, should be accepted by others but mine, along with the scientific findings, should not be believed.

Very interesting.

so as we left it in the last thread, let the kiddies try it themselves and make up their own minds about it.

Rather hypocritical position there, guy. If you believed it you would not have attempted to refute what I said so strongly. If you actually practiced what you are now preaching you would have instead you would have left your first comment on the subject stand and not bother to attempt to influence others to believe what you want the facts to be rather than believe what the facts actually are.

Oh yeah, so when you tried this dark period deal, did you rely on your physical senses to determine it 'worked' or did you get your herb tested? In the event that you got it tested, feel free to post those reports.

Yep, I relied on how high I got or did not get. I never said my personal experience was based on scientific findings, like the study was. I have, on a number of occasions, taken part of a crop and given it total darkness for 72-hours and the rest was harvested and a few times I gave part of a crop 72-hours of total darkness and left the rest under lights receiving a normal flowering light schedule and what my physical senses told me was that enough of the time there was a difference, an increase in potency, in the plants that received 72-hours of darkness that it was, and is, more than well worth my giving my crops 72-hours of total darkness before harvesting them.

Still, that is only so meaningful. What is meaningful is that regardless of your home pseudo-experiments and the personal opinion you have created from them it has been scientifically proven that 72-hours of darkness prior to harvesting will, depending on the strain, increase levels of THC as much as 30%.

Just as your totally inaccurate claim that I have stopped growing does not alter the fact that I in fact did not stop growing, your claim that 72-hours of darkness prior to harvesting increasing levels of THC does not work does not alter the fact that it has been scientifically proven to work.

You, and others like you, need to learn and accept that personal opinion, or the opinions of others that you have read and then mindlessly parrot, will never erase scientifically proven facts. Never.

On to a broader point: properly grown cannabis doesn't need these cutesy little tricks to be tasty or potent or high quality. If you guys spent as much time understanding how to keep your plants healthy as you do researching magic potions and gimmicky growing practices, you'd all have some stellar plants.

To a point I could agree with that. Where I would not be able to agree would be where you might draw the line for what is good enough, or what is considered by you to be potent and high quality, and also how you evidently define; "cutesy little tricks."

The goal of any intelligent and skilled grower is to tickle out as much potency as can possibly be found from the genetics we grow, and not to settle for just good enough. If something has been proven to increase the quality, the potency, of cannabis plants only a fool would not do it because to them they see it as being; "cutesy little tricks." Hell, I would do a headstand at twelve noon in Buckingham Fountain in Chicago while totally naked if it had been scientifically proven that doing so would increase the potency of cannabis plants. I wouldn't give a damn if someone like you laughed at me. I want the best I can get from what I grow. I do not want just good enough like you. If there is more to be squeezed out of genetics, and something is scientifically proven to do so, I will not hesitate a second to do it no matter what someone like you thinks or inaccurately claims.

You really do a disservice to others when you wrongly claim that something that has been scientifically proven to be beneficial does not work. Your ignorance and inability to accept scientifically proven facts over your personally created opinions holds others back and keeps them from learning and achieving as much as they possibly can.

You really should not be telling others how to grow when you are as much or more of a hindrance to their learning and success as you are in helping them learn and succeed.

Say what you wish in response, I will not reply. You have reminded me why I had grown so frustrated with this site and the imbeciles who infest it so I will not waste another moment of my time typing on this subject.

You are a perfect example of how having a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and also that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

 

[homebrewer]

So, like the highly educated research scientists who discovered how and why there is an increase in levels of THC and who performed their scientific research in a highly controlled environment and their results were verified using high tech equipment, you did the very same? What degrees do you hold that would be pertinent to plant research and from what universities are they from? What high tech equipment do you have and used to test your plants level of THC?

You keep acting like this study exists and dismiss the same sensory evaluations that you used to determine dark periods work.

Sites like this do not really teach growing. They are universities of ignorance and you are one of the professors on staff.

Please, you're a long-winded 'cut-and-paster' with zero evidence of growing experience. Sorry, I forgot that you don't post pics because the local Sheriff knows your house inside-and-out so once again we're left with words and nothing to back them up.

So, what you are saying is that your claim, based strictly on your personally created belief and nothing more, is more valid and carries more weight than my own personal experience combined with my having read the actual research study findings and that your personal opinion, for some inexplicable reason, should be accepted by others but mine, along with the scientific findings, should not be believed.

Nope. I'm saying you're very quick to dismiss someone else's sensory evaluation and experience based on your experience and study, neither of which you can prove exist.

Yep, I relied on how high I got or did not get. I never said my personal experience was based on scientific findings, like the study was. I have, on a number of occasions, taken part of a crop and given it total darkness for 72-hours and the rest was harvested and a few times I gave part of a crop 72-hours of total darkness and left the rest under lights receiving a normal flowering light schedule and what my physical senses told me was that enough of the time there was a difference, an increase in potency, in the plants that received 72-hours of darkness that it was, and is, more than well worth my giving my crops 72-hours of total darkness before harvesting them.

Sounds good. I did the same and conducted blind tests in which no one could tell the difference.

Still, that is only so meaningful. What is meaningful is that regardless of your home pseudo-experiments and the personal opinion you have created from them it has been scientifically proven that 72-hours of darkness prior to harvesting will, depending on the strain, increase levels of THC as much as 30%.

Where is your reference for this statement? Are you referring to the 'study' again that no one has access to? Pretty convenient, huh?

You, and others like you, need to learn and accept that personal opinion, or the opinions of others that you have read and then mindlessly parrot, will never erase scientifically proven facts. Never.

I can accept an opinion when stated as such. I cannot accept 'data' from a 'scientific study' that no one has seen except for you. If the roles were reversed, I'm sure you'd be busting my chops too.

You really do a disservice to others when you wrongly claim that something that has been scientifically proven to be beneficial does not work. Your ignorance and inability to accept scientifically proven facts over your personally created opinions holds others back and keeps them from learning and achieving as much as they possibly can.

You really do a disservice to others when you wrongly quote a study that conveniently no one can find.

You really should not be telling others how to grow when you are as much or more of a hindrance to their learning and success as you are in helping them learn and succeed.

I'm a straight-shooting no-nonsense type of grower. I'm honest with myself and others about my experiences and results because trial and error is essentially how any of us have gotten to where we are. Forgive me if I question practices that cannot be backed up with pictures or articles or studies.

 

[themanwiththeplan]

bricktop FTW.

I turn my lights off before hand...it is beneficial. if you dont think so check out my bud it looks like sugar or coke was sprinkled all over it and 1 hitter quitter potency (never reached that quality with the same strain when i didnt leave the lights off...it adds a kick trust me)

 

[oHsiN666]

i see i have stirred up quite a debate. im glad i ruffled a couple feathers. thank you Brick Top, again, for coming through in a time of, uhm... crises, lol!! i will back to spread +reps around. but i just got up to take a piss and saw my laptop on. ill be back later.

 

[Brick Top]

You keep acting like this study exists and dismiss the same sensory evaluations that you used to determine dark periods work.

Please, you're a long-winded 'cut-and-paster' with zero evidence of growing experience. Sorry, I forgot that you don't post pics because the local Sheriff knows your house inside-and-out so once again we're left with words and nothing to back them up.


Nope. I'm saying you're very quick to dismiss someone else's sensory evaluation and experience based on your experience and study, neither of which you can prove exist.

Sounds good. I did the same and conducted blind tests in which no one could tell the difference.

Where is your reference for this statement? Are you referring to the 'study' again that no one has access to? Pretty convenient, huh?

I can accept an opinion when stated as such. I cannot accept 'data' from a 'scientific study' that no one has seen except for you. If the roles were reversed, I'm sure you'd be busting my chops too.

You really do a disservice to others when you wrongly quote a study that conveniently no one can find.

I'm a straight-shooting no-nonsense type of grower. I'm honest with myself and others about my experiences and results because trial and error is essentially how any of us have gotten to where we are. Forgive me if I question practices that cannot be backed up with pictures or articles or studies.

I fully intended to not say more on the subject, but I will end with this.

Not every single scientific finding or event that has ever occurred can be found online. The net has a great deal of information, but it does not have every single piece of information. That in no way shape or form is proof that all those things that cannot be found online never happened or that those scientific findings did not occur.

But since you clearly feel that without absolute proof of a position the position cannot be believed by anyone, so, where is your absolute proof for your position? What scientific research study can you provide to prove your position that 72-hours of darkness does not work? Can you even supply so much as a short summary of research from a research institute and a university to support your position, as I supplied for mine? Or can you only continue to offer your own personal opinion?

If you are incapable of supplying anything other than your own personal opinion formulated in your basement or store room or closet or wherever you grow, you really should consider not taking the position that if a claim cannot be supported with irrefutable scientific proof no one should believe it, because by doing so you tell others that your position is not believable since you offer nothing more than your own personal opinion to support it.

 

[k0ijn]

Can you guys please keep a proper tone in here.
No need for personal insults

 

[homebrewer]

But since you clearly feel that without absolute proof of a position the position cannot be believed by anyone, so, where is your absolute proof for your position? What scientific research study can you provide to prove your position that 72-hours of darkness does not work? Can you even supply so much as a short summary of research from a research institute and a university to support your position, as I supplied for mine? Or can you only continue to offer your own personal opinion?

If you are incapable of supplying anything other than your own personal opinion formulated in your basement or store room or closet or wherever you grow, you really should consider not taking the position that if a claim cannot be supported with irrefutable scientific proof no one should believe it, because by doing so you tell others that your position is not believable since you offer nothing more than your own personal opinion to support it.

The issue I have with your argument is that it hinges on a study that no one has seen except for yourself. If instead this discussion was focused completely on personal experience and a preference for the practice or not, then I really doubt that these discussions would turn into 20+ page arguments.

One thing I always find interesting is that there are usually two kinds of posters in these types of threads; the guys with experience and the youngins with none. Guess who is more likely to support cutesy practices like this one (hint: it's not the experienced guys with in-depth grow journals).

 

[SCT1984]

So I am new to growing in general (first real grow this year.. and only moderately satisfied) but my opinion is this - and I will state it quite simply.

IMHO for discussion purposes, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me... if a plant is taking 8-10 weeks in flowering - 12/12 light cycle, that's 672-840 total hours each of darkness and light. I am no botanist either, so this is strictly a gut feeling... but how can THC levels increase 30% in 72 hours, which is only approx 8-10% of the darkness throughout it's total 8-10 week flowering period?

that would suggest to me that THC levels degrade at an extreme rate during light hours, which would make sense to me... but I read in some posts UV rays mentioned as the cause of degrading THC?? What about under HPS lighting?

Either way, I am going to try it with my plants now just out of curiosity and because Brick Top is right in saying that there has only been personal opinions being thrown around as why it doesn't work (the opinion of which I am in agreement)... but at the same time I haven't seen any links to the study either, or where it can be easily obtained (correct me if I'm wrong, I read a lot but did a bit of skimming too lol). Those quotes could be from a student's research project for all we know lol.

Regardless... even if the 30% value IS true keep in mind that as SCIENTIFIC research, this would have been performed in an EXTREMELY well controlled environment... much better controlled than most home growers, so the results would have been OPTIMAL in those conditions... not necessarily the result that an average home grower would acheive, but in theory still possible.

Also as someone stated, in a plant that contains 10% THC, that would equate to only 13% THC with the increase... which would explain why no one would really know what such a marginal increase would "feel" like.


I don't know... this is stupid lol. If you think it works, great, do it... keep it to "I've read that it works, I've tried it and it works for me"... if you think it doesn't work, then keep it to "tried it and it hasn't worked for me", and when all is said and done, just respect eachothers opinion and let others decide for themselves. Unless either method will hurt the plant (darkness or no darkness), then who cares either way? to me, if it doesn't work, it's just a waste of curing/drying time lol.

 

[oHsiN666]

i suppose it is time i do my own studies with my own plants. i have full reason to believe that it will not HURT the plant in anyway shape or form. so, its merely a personal opinion and weather it works or not is purely up to the individual. honestly my buds are sticky and coated in crystals. i do not see how anymore can form, but i have head that at least 24 hours of darkness is required before cutting your plant down. weather 48 or 72 is worth the extra time i see is very open to debate. since i am on my own and have all the time in the world, i will cut a few branches off, then cut the entire plant down after 48 hours of pure darkness. just to see if the difference is any noticeable in any way shape or form. the great thing about growing is everyone has there own methods. its really hard for me to just believe things just because someone says them. so i will be doing theses tests for myself. once i get my journals started and my new genetics going, everyone will be able to see my progress and results. and i have many subjects to run studies and test on. i have a huge family. and they all love me. so, i doubt i would get any dishonest feedback. thanks for all who have been positive and informative. i can only believe at this time that that more research needs to be done. i seems to me i have been caught in the middle of a long time feud. Brick Top, your posts are always appreciated. thank you.

 

[themanwiththeplan]

So I am new to growing in general (first real grow this year.. and only moderately satisfied) but my opinion is this - and I will state it quite simply.

IMHO for discussion purposes, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me... if a plant is taking 8-10 weeks in flowering - 12/12 light cycle, that's 672-840 total hours each of darkness and light. I am no botanist either, so this is strictly a gut feeling... but how can THC levels increase 30% in 72 hours, which is only approx 8-10% of the darkness throughout it's total 8-10 week flowering period?

that would suggest to me that THC levels degrade at an extreme rate during light hours, which would make sense to me... but I read in some posts UV rays mentioned as the cause of degrading THC?? What about under HPS lighting?

Either way, I am going to try it with my plants now just out of curiosity and because Brick Top is right in saying that there has only been personal opinions being thrown around as why it doesn't work (the opinion of which I am in agreement)... but at the same time I haven't seen any links to the study either, or where it can be easily obtained (correct me if I'm wrong, I read a lot but did a bit of skimming too lol). Those quotes could be from a student's research project for all we know lol.

Regardless... even if the 30% value IS true keep in mind that as SCIENTIFIC research, this would have been performed in an EXTREMELY well controlled environment... much better controlled than most home growers, so the results would have been OPTIMAL in those conditions... not necessarily the result that an average home grower would acheive, but in theory still possible.

Also as someone stated, in a plant that contains 10% THC, that would equate to only 13% THC with the increase... which would explain why no one would really know what such a marginal increase would "feel" like.


I don't know... this is stupid lol. If you think it works, great, do it... keep it to "I've read that it works, I've tried it and it works for me"... if you think it doesn't work, then keep it to "tried it and it hasn't worked for me", and when all is said and done, just respect eachothers opinion and let others decide for themselves. Unless either method will hurt the plant (darkness or no darkness), then who cares either way? to me, if it doesn't work, it's just a waste of curing/drying time lol.

ive done it and still do.

i agree with bricktop. its beneficial. infact some breeders suggest you do this with certain strains:

proof in the following link!
http://www.cannabis-seeds-bank.co.uk/seedsman-seeds/seedsman-seeds-regular/seedsman-seeds-white-widow-seeds/prod_313.html

granted my example said try to shut the lights off for the last two weeks but its the same idea. you want to stress the plant into thinking winter is coming and get it to push out its last bits of thc, making the plant more sticky to the touch to catch pollen as bricktop mentioned.

I don't think a breeder would tell you to do something to a strain that would cause harm to it...i mean they bred it...they're the experts on that strain obviously.

i dont think the extended darkness is required for all strains (imo) but i always make it a habit to chop just before the day cycle of 12/12 starts (as thc degrades in light...i wanna make sure im getting out all i can)

 

[oHsiN666]

i don't think putting the Widow in the spotlight like that is the best example considering we all know that is not the original breeder of the White Widow. if the same thing i said from Mr Nice guy, or Shantibaba, then i might agree. but 2 weeks with no lights, have you actually tried that with that strain? that seems highly extreme. do they get water in this 2-week no-light cycle? it would not feel 100% comfortable watering in the dark. plus, i do not know much about this TL strain i am growing atm, but it is about 2-4 weeks from being finished, and it was hella sticky to the touch weeks ago. ridiculous sticky! they have the appearance of being "wet" and like they were just sprayed with sticky sugar crystals. and the underneaths of some of the buds, they look white already. and as far as i know, it is NOT a white strain at all. i have a few late finishers in the tent, so they just look chunky and thick! not too sugary yet, but they are starting to come out. the person who made the comment on counting th total dark hours, that almost makes sense, except for one thing. its not continuous. the continuous-ness of total darkness makes it to where it is a solid darkness, light i can see interrupting this continuous cycle. i haven't done enough research or studies, but everyone i have talked ot says 24hrs of darkness before harvest. i know a grower that does 72hrs of darkness before flower. i do not know if that is different, or he he does it at the end too, but at some point, i hear that the crazy growers with the crazy good crops give there plants 48-72hrs of darkness at some point in time in the plants life.

 

[themanwiththeplan]

i don't think putting the Widow in the spotlight like that is the best example considering we all know that is not the original breeder of the White Widow. if the same thing i said from Mr Nice guy, or Shantibaba, then i might agree. but 2 weeks with no lights, have you actually tried that with that strain? that seems highly extreme. do they get water in this 2-week no-light cycle? it would not feel 100% comfortable watering in the dark. plus, i do not know much about this TL strain i am growing atm, but it is about 2-4 weeks from being finished, and it was hella sticky to the touch weeks ago. ridiculous sticky! they have the appearance of being "wet" and like they were just sprayed with sticky sugar crystals. and the underneaths of some of the buds, they look white already. and as far as i know, it is NOT a white strain at all. i have a few late finishers in the tent, so they just look chunky and thick! not too sugary yet, but they are starting to come out. the person who made the comment on counting th total dark hours, that almost makes sense, except for one thing. its not continuous. the continuous-ness of total darkness makes it to where it is a solid darkness, light i can see interrupting this continuous cycle. i haven't done enough research or studies, but everyone i have talked ot says 24hrs of darkness before harvest. i know a grower that does 72hrs of darkness before flower. i do not know if that is different, or he he does it at the end too, but at some point, i hear that the crazy growers with the crazy good crops give there plants 48-72hrs of darkness at some point in time in the plants life.

oh yeah. i forgot to mention i like to do a dark cycle inbetween veg and flower. ive tried doing that and NOT doing that and ive found the plants show sex more quickly if you give them 1-2 days of darkness going from veg to flower. Thats bout the only benefit ive seen from it...which is a plus of course.

I chose that one (the seedsman ww) as it was the first strain that came to mind where ive seen breeders suggest darkness before the chop. Seedsman is a very good breeder (responsible for the original Skunk #1 might i point out which is absolutely about as legendary as it gets in marijuana strains; everyone and their mother knows of it).

He probably has the 2nd best WW i've seen (compared to the mr nice original). Its highly potent and the high matches the description 110%.

I did leave half the plants in 1 week of darkness (instead of 2 wks) while the others got 8hrs of light the last week...

the yield between them didnt suffer btw. no bananas (ie hermies).

The big main difference was the stickyness of the bud, the quality of the high.

I found the ones left in total darkness were more desirable buds compared to those that still got light.


the only time the ones that stayed in the dark got light was when they were watered (i took them out of the room into the light for about 30-45 min while i watered them and let them drain out the excess water)

im all for the extended dark period.

normally i do a 24-48 hr dark period before the chop. i only went with a longer dark period as it was recommended by seedsman. i grew the WW 2 years ago or so and have some more beans ready to go. anyone interested in a highly potent hybrid that leans on the sativa side should deff check out seedsmans ww. for only $8 a bean (attitude pick and mix) you cant go wrong.

 

[oHsiN666]

oh yeah. i forgot to mention i like to do a dark cycle inbetween veg and flower. ive tried doing that and NOT doing that and ive found the plants show sex more quickly if you give them 1-2 days of darkness going from veg to flower. Thats bout the only benefit ive seen from it...which is a plus of course.

I chose that one (the seedsman ww) as it was the first strain that came to mind where ive seen breeders suggest darkness before the chop. Seedsman is a very good breeder (responsible for the original Skunk #1 might i point out which is absolutely about as legendary as it gets in marijuana strains; everyone and their mother knows of it).

He probably has the 2nd best WW i've seen (compared to the mr nice original). Its highly potent and the high matches the description 110%.

I did leave half the plants in 1 week of darkness (instead of 2 wks) while the others got 8hrs of light the last week...

the yield between them didnt suffer btw. no bananas (ie hermies).

The big main difference was the stickyness of the bud, the quality of the high.

I found the ones left in total darkness were more desirable buds compared to those that still got light.


the only time the ones that stayed in the dark got light was when they were watered (i took them out of the room into the light for about 30-45 min while i watered them and let them drain out the excess water)

im all for the extended dark period.

normally i do a 24-48 hr dark period before the chop. i only went with a longer dark period as it was recommended by seedsman. i grew the WW 2 years ago or so and have some more beans ready to go. anyone interested in a highly potent hybrid that leans on the sativa side should deff check out seedsmans ww. for only $8 a bean (attitude pick and mix) you cant go wrong.

i do know about Skunk #1, its a very very famous strain indeed. been around the block a few times and have heard about it on many occasions. i personal love the Skunk strain a tad bit more then the Widow. just because i have seen it a lot more times in life. i will most def take your advise as i plan on checking out a few other breeders version of Widow. i am just a firm believer in getting the original strain from the original breeder. i know that some of the others out there are just as good though, so im not knocking them. just prefer an original over a secondary source.

 

[careCO]

Wow, I always miss the good stuff.... You sure stirred up some great debates oHsin666. And had Brick Top stop in on your Thread with mass amounts of info. Nice work!!

 

[themanwiththeplan]

i do know about Skunk #1, its a very very famous strain indeed. been around the block a few times and have heard about it on many occasions. i personal love the Skunk strain a tad bit more then the Widow. just because i have seen it a lot more times in life. i will most def take your advise as i plan on checking out a few other breeders version of Widow. i am just a firm believer in getting the original strain from the original breeder. i know that some of the others out there are just as good though, so im not knocking them. just prefer an original over a secondary source.

i agree. the original is usually best. infact i dont think ive come across a knock-off (hate to call secondary breeders of strains that but dont know a better term) thats better than the original.

my goal (prolly will never happen) is to grow all the strains available one day, one day...

 

[ҖҗlegilizeitҗҖ]

The concept of an extended dark period has to do with why the plant produces buds in the first place. With the reduction of light to 12 hours of darkness the plant feels a change in season from summer to fall, it senses winter is coming. The plant forms sticky, dank, buds in order to catch male pollen. Now, as the saying goes... when you put that plant in the dark for 24 hours it is thinking "whoa, winter is here" and in a last ditch effort to get pollenated it will excrete more resin. I have done this as well and I am not sure if it works or not, I personally don't see the harm in doing so. Currently I can't do it because I have multiple plants that are harvested at different times. Another thing I like to do is during the last week of flowering is turn the lights to 14 hours of darkness. (just something I like to do).

just pointing out to you that if you have another closet or unused room you could probably just put the finished plant in there for 2 days and not turn on the lights.

 

[billy4479]

Well here is my .2 cents ....first homebrewer if it darkness was increasing your thc how would u know have you brought it to a lab and tested it to see if the thc was higher ..second thanks bricktop for sharing what you know i love when people add data instead of just there opinions ...If you really stop and think about it though the US goverment has been growing and breeding weed for a long time ...We dont have any of there research they probley know alot more than what we do ...marlboro already has a plain of action if weed is ever legal to start mass production ..and put home growers and the bottom people out of work ..the 15.$ ounce is comming ive herd news of major pharmaceutical companies trade marking names like Blue Berry and many others there is research being done right now to GMO the Plants ..There is a big rush on how to grow this stuff better than everyone else and information is going quick there less free info on the internet every day ..We The People wrote wikipedia and we can edit out facts as we see fit ....im going to end my rant with a old qoute that still holds sway in the world of science its about ego......Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. ...
►

 

[ҖҗlegilizeitҗҖ]

oops haha forgot to check if there was more than one page lol well for the guy second to last on the first page there you go

 

[sen.c]

No need to flush let the plant do it, cut the nutes for the last two weeks and just give it ph'd water and she will do it herself and you will have clean smoke.

Or you could feed it up until harvest then do a 5 day water cure and achieve the same thing.

 

[whileilaydying]

plants dont directly take the nutes you dissolve into your water into their systems guys, the plant senses changes of nutrients and excretes hormones and such which the microbes in the soil use as a guideline to produce what the plant needs when it needs it. in reality you arent putting nutes in the plant, youre putting them into the soil to feed the microbes that feed the plant. so as far as flushing goes, those of you that believe in it, go for it but i say you should learn how plants grow and exactly what processes take place when they are growing before you go and give your bullshit two cents worth. no need for flushing unless you have a lockout.