I have noticed that factors such as clone burn-out seem
to suggest that overexposure to light is adversely affecting
the hormonal balance of the growing plants and
causing the genetics of the cuts and seedlings to degrade
over the course of several generations.
That is the premise for the rest of the .pdf
he's seen clones, not all of them... as some clones can age for years without any degradation, others can be grown only a few times and suddenly they become a different plant, genetically fucked. low frost, etc, etc... when you grow clones for a few years you get to see that some will degrade. But do we blame that on light? everything that the plant does when the lights are off it also does when they are on. Light is life. Instead what we should blame it on is AGE. Just like every other living thing on this planet. Some plants will last for years with little to no degradation, others will mess up after just a few grows. Not to mention grower error. genes do respond to environmental influences.
I turn to the conditions of nature to find the solution,
and in a natural model, I can see that from the point of
view of the plants, the sun gradually moves past, casting
sunbeams and shadows of objects and trees in front,
beside, and behind the plant successively across photo
surfaces during the course of the day. This clearly shows
that in the natural environment, the play of light and
shadow are significant to the natural progress of the
plant.
the solution to a conclusion incorrectly assumed? Let's roll with it anyway...
From the point of view of the plants, everybody knows that to get the best growth one should make a clearing. it is not just for root space, but for adequate light penetration too. A shaded plant will not grow as well as one in full sun. this is why plants get bigger in Cali than they do in the UK. lol... ever seen an outdoor plant in the UK? then look at the ones in California, 10lb trees in some cases. what's the difference? quality of light, you think?
Of course the natural light processes come into play, that conclusion is the correct one... how though he has incorrectly gathered that less light is better for cannabis i'll never know.
During a recent discussion with other growers, we
rediscovered a rumored century-old technique that
proves that the direct and intense application of light
for longer than necessary can be more stressful to the
plant than previously known, and could even degrade
the plants genetic strength.
Rumoured? century-old technique that nobody has ever heard of until now? that everybody stopped using for favour of better growth and yields? How does this fabled, rumoured, century-old technique
prove that direct and intense (huh?) application of light (for longer than necessary) be more stressful than
previously known?
that has me scratching my head... bullshit perpetuates bullshit I suppose. a century ago sounds pretty
previous to me... yet the information was buried until finally recovered by a bunch of stoners sitting around talking shit. Nice story.
Now that cannabis growers are starting to grow specifically
for medicines, the health of the plant needs to be
properly considered so that the full natural potential of
the plant can be realized and the fullest expression of the
plants medicines be produced. The margin for error is
becoming smaller as the mistakes of the past are revealed
and medicinally specific growing is gaining importance.
The health of the plant has always been considered and cannabis has always been grown specifically as a medicine. pretentious bitch.
Plants mostly grow themselves... making way more of this than there needs to be.
The commonly used cash cropping method of cannabis
cultivation wastes energy. People use this method by rote,
since they simply dont know what the real requirements
of the plants are. It is stressful to the hormonal systems
of cannabis, and not necessary to produce fully healthy
and productive plants. It does not recognize that overexposure
to light is harmful to the plants, and so they
underperform in terms of taste, yield, quality, and potency
of the medicine, or require supercharged fertilizers to
reach their potential. It is surprising that these techniques
are used with profits in mind, since they are clearly
expensive and counterproductive.
Not surprising at all. sensible in fact. That's why it is done. growers used to grow on 18/6 for veg that was the standard, some would even grow 16/8. they argued and argued about how 24/0 would even kill your plants in some cases. witchcraft! they would scream. even cervantes fianlly conceded several years ago that 24/0 is the best and fastest way to veg'. the most stressful thing to a plant is a change in it's environment, particularly the lights going down. Plants are reactionary, the lights going down signals lower growth as the palnt must conserve energy for important processes until the lights come back on again. Plants do not die in the light, but they do in the dark. i know which i would find more stressful if i were a plant.
This information will seem quite revolutionary to growers
who have been using the standard cycles to produce
cannabis, seemingly with little or no trouble at all.
You don't say?
Actually, in a grow that more closely mimics the outdoor
growing environment under indoor lighting conditions,
the plants may be maintained in vegetative cycle using
only a total of 13 hours of light daily, which dramatically
reduces the cost of production.
12/5.5/1/5.5 is not natural in any way shape or form. Indeed i'm slowly arriving at the conclusion that that hour in the middle is not actually enough to prevent flowering. In all my experience with straight to 12/12 from seed and clone, a couple of the reports i'm hearing here have all the hallmarks.
The less is more approach of the Gas Lantern Routine
provides the growing plant with adequate darkness to
promote health, and by inserting a full hour of light in
the center of the dark period, the plants are tricked, and
neither flower nor express hermaphrodites. The growing
plants get more than the average amount of rest, thus
reducing stress, and improving plant yield, overall performance,
and medicinal quality.
In what way do plants need darkness to promote health? They don't is the quick answer to that. Plants cannot be tricked, they are reactionary. although this statement still interests me because of the age-old, less light or more dark theory for the trigger of flower.
GTFO if you don't like it or stop being a pointless retard and posting shite.
