30% more thc every grow.

Bookush34 said:

@BBQtoast
Why so much hate?
Their is plenty of evidence (3rd party) that prove UVA/UVB increase THC and other cannabinoids in the plant.

so your hate is towards the science? Or the claims? Or you got a beef with the company?

you just come across as “I am right until proven otherwize” But it’s not ok for a company to publish their findings?

are you against all advertising or just things that go against what you believe?

Click to expand...

Hate towards companies that think I won't work out the truth.

The science is great, don't know why theirs needs to leave the realms of mine.

Everything I buy is advertised correctly, what kind of market would I create if I supported the opposite, not one I could find an accurate claim In.

The answer seems more clear on solacure, it's not going to do much for me.

PJ Diaz said:

Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth, physiology and cannabinoid production of Cannabis sativa L (Thesis/Dissertation) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information

www.osti.gov

Click to expand...

Increase in thc means less of another substance, their are studies that go into detail on profile concentrations. It does change other cannabinoids just too lazy to study or report even the change into thc from one unit to another.

I agree 100% it causes a small increase, that's not what sola and the growers reading it say so I hope this helps people get a next level shit understanding and not to expect too much.

There's nothing bad here, someone has to ask.

BBQtoast said:

Increase in thc means less of another substance

Click to expand...

Possibly, but not necessarily. It could simply increase the total tricome density, which would indeed mean a lessor ratio of other substances, but not necessarily lessor total quantities. There is not enough data to fully support either assertion however.

The AgroMax pur UV also claims 28% increase in THC.

hotrodharley said:

Yeah. Keep going. Talk about THC levels and terpene profiles. Don’t just mention the word. Keep going. About lower THC and the right terpene profiles.

The term you want to search for is “Entourage Effect”.

Click to expand...

Oh I totally believe in the entourage effect. When I make RSO for the wife I'm not using the QWISO method. I'm soaking down whole buds with room temp ISO and mashing them up in there for 10 minutes or more so I extract everything. Would be nasty to smoke and tastes nasty too but has everything the plant has to offer.

The wife's been taking it for over a year now to fight her liver tumours and a nice side-effect is her glaucoma numbers are back in the normal range. Her last liver scans showed a reduction in the numbers of tumours and the size of those that remained so something is working and the only other thing she takes for it is chaga mushroom tea.

Would be nice to know which terpenes etc are best for her thing as liver cancers are trickier to deal with than others but we still don't know whether hers is benign or malignant. They haven't been able get a biopsy due to SS rods in her back from childhood scoliosis so they can't use MRI and ultrasound doesn't let them see well enough to hit the main tumour without risking hitting the large vein next to it. New scans in March so hopefully things are even better than the last ones a year ago.

Green Refuge said:

The AgroMax pur UV also claims 28% increase in THC.

New Grow Hack Increases THC Levels By 28% – AgroMax

Click to expand...

They also reference a scientific study, which I have not read thru myself: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/UV‐B-RADIATION-EFFECTS-ON-PHOTOSYNTHESIS,-GROWTH-OF-Lydon-Teramura/1286274e9e6a286e8989e7825557ff49ce481759?p2df

PJ Diaz said:

Possibly, but not necessarily. It could simply increase the total tricome density, which would indeed mean a lessor ratio of other substances, but not necessarily lessor total quantities. There is not enough data to fully support either assertion however.

Click to expand...

Sorry that was to do with inside the trichome.

But more detailed studies showed stronger interactions in cannabinoids of smaller percentages than thc and there are so many more interesting changes.

That's why the big claims won't make sense, it's not a focused effort to increase thc but to change lots of things by small amounts even density.

Were ignoring a lot of science we would be more interested in without the holy grail UV because such big gains are too hard to resist over everything else. Hobbyists might do more to re look at UV and all the other stuff than thc.

BBQtoast said:

Sorry that was to do with inside the trichome.

But more detailed studies showed stronger interactions in cannabinoids of smaller percentages than thc and there are so many more interesting changes.

That's why the big claims won't make sense, it's not a focused effort to increase thc but to change lots of things by small amounts even density.

Were ignoring a lot of science we would be more interested in without the holy grail UV because such big gains are too hard to resist over everything else. Hobbyists might do more to re look at UV and all the other stuff than thc.

Click to expand...

None of this is cut and dry. As I mentioned before, it's largely strain dependent. Focusing on the fact that it won't increase THC by 28% for every strain, doesn't automatically discount that it may for another strain. Also, the differences between UV and non-UV supplement will depend upon the source of the main lighting.

PJ Diaz said:

They also reference a scientific study, which I have not read thru myself: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/UV‐B-RADIATION-EFFECTS-ON-PHOTOSYNTHESIS,-GROWTH-OF-Lydon-Teramura/1286274e9e6a286e8989e7825557ff49ce481759?p2df

Click to expand...

That gives me a week's worth of reading and checking not just one study.

I wanted to look at the wider reason for trichomes and why ours are not very responsive to any one stress.


Old farmers swore drought increased resin, we say this is bullshit but who's to say that a study might not show it a few percent true now.

UV drought light temperature water use wind rain ozone all get use from the trichome and cannabinoid, UV should also drive metabolites into action to stop UV problems not just thc as a very low factor sunscreen.

BBQtoast said:

Old farmers swore drought increased resin, we say this is bullshit but who's to say that a study might not show it a few percent true now.

Click to expand...

Actually the crop steering practice does show that proper drybacks make a difference: https://www.grodan101.com/siteassets/grodan-101/downloads/grodan_irrigationstrategy

PJ Diaz said:

Actually the crop steering practice does show that proper drybacks make a difference: https://www.grodan101.com/siteassets/grodan-101/downloads/grodan_irrigationstrategy

Click to expand...

Chunky_Toenail said:

View attachment 4804759
^^^Study done by experts, guys with PhD's.

- 25mg THC per 1g of bud at <1KJ/m2/day UVB
- 32mg THC per 1g of bud at ~13kJ/m2/day UVB

32mg ÷ 25mg = 1.28; 28% increase

This study was done decades ago in the 1980's. Tbh UVB and the effect on THC is kinda an old discovery but imo its now gaining popularity again due to increasing legality. MJ hasn't been legal till recently so there hasn't been a push to sell products designed to optimize their cultivation till more recently, ie UVB. All the UV sources currently being used are being repurposed from other industry and devices and aren't specifically designed for MJ, and imo the headache of trying to fit the square peg into the round hole has kept most away from implementing. The upside can be significant (or so its been documented) but you can also fry your plants and hurt your eyes and skin with great ease (and perhaps there's other biochemical pathways being investigated that are safer that achieve the same outcome). Imo manufacturers aren't adding UVB rn due to liability and safety concerns. Also, The cost hasn't been very effective and the longevity is far reduced. There's just a lot of hurdles industry wise before it can become widely accepted. If you do a bit of learning and dig to find the relevant factors then you can implement and design your own UVB system.

- Review photoreceptors and their role
- Understand what absorption, transmittance, and reflectance spectra are
- Understand the difference between energy of the emission vs the energy required by the source
- Understand how to extrapolate relative spectrums into real life data
- Understand UVI and its implications in determining doseage
- Understand what irradiance is and how to calculate
- Understand the relationship between photons and energy, though most of the units that you'll be dealing with will be in terms of energy, so is probably last on the list


Off the top of my head that's kinda what you'd want to familiarize yourself with if you were trying to design a DIY custom UV system yourself. You don't need to become an expert, but having a bit of knowledge on what you're trying to target and how intense and for how long ect will help you narrow it down a little bit better.
Idk about exact THC % increases, and obvi a company selling a product is going to oversell than under sell. I don't think you'll get a garunteed X% increase, but the science does point to a correlation between UVB intensity and THC concentration.

Click to expand...

Also remember that kJ of UV-Bbe is not the same as kJ of UVB. 13.4kJ/m2 UV-Bbe does not mean you need 13.4kJ/m2 of UVB. UV-Bbe is a specially weighted form of UVB.

3 spectra. The FS40, the celluose acetate transmittance, and Caldwells's action of generalized plant damage spectra.

FS-40


Celluose acetate transmittance


Caldwells's generalized plant damage


Procedure
In order to determine the relationship between UV-Bbe and the emitted wattage of the lamp used (FS-40), you need to...

1.
Integrate the relative FS40 SPD.

2.
Multiply all 3 spectra together (after you have normalized Caldwell about 300nm).

3.
Integrate this resultant spectrum from the lowest wavelength of emission to 320nm. Well call this figure the arbitrary UV-Bbe for the FS40 relative emission.

4.
Now divide the arbitrary UV-Bbe figure, by the integral of the FS40 you did firstly, in order to determine the relationship between the 2.

After you divide to find the constant, you can now convert total emitted wattage of an FS-40 into UV-Bbe, and visa versa. This constant will only be valid for converting FS-40 radiation into UV-Bbe. If you're using a different lamp then you'll have to digitize its spectrum and follow the procedure (minus the C-A multiplication step, unless of course, you plan on using celluose acetate for some reason) to find its UV-Bbe conversion constant.


Multiplying Spectra (its easy!)
You'd have to digitize the spectra in order to multiply them (use a program to convert the graphs into numbers). Then its just as easy as multiplying the Y-values for every X value and plotting. At 400nm, 1 spectra might be 0.76 and the other spectra might be 0.33 at 400nm. Just multiply 0.33 × 0.76 and that's your new point at the 400nm spot. Do this with all wavelengths, all nm's for the spectra you're multiplying, and when you have completed you have then just effectively multiplied 2 spectra together.

Integration/Riemann sums (its easy!)
Integrating is just adding up all the Y-values that lie within a certain range of X-values. (320nm's Y-value) + (321nm's Y-value) + (322nm's Y-value) + (323nm's Y-value)... ^^Thatd be integrating from 320nm to whatever nm you decided to stop at.

More talking
Anyways just wanted to re-iterate that UV-Bbe is not the same as UVB, so don't skim this study and think you need 13.4kJ/m2/day of UVB. Tbh I haven't done the conversion yet, though probably will shortly, so it may be coicendentally similar but they are ultimately different metrics and I'm thinking they will not be very close (real UVB and UV-Bbe). And FWIW UVB describes a wide range of EM, so describing doseage in terms of bulk UVB is not ideal as UVB can mean many things. Someone running a solacure is going to require a different amount of UVB wattage vs someone running 285nm LED. UV-Bbe is a more useful and detailed metric than bulk UVB.

Each UV lamp or source will have its own unique UV-Bbe conversion constant. UV-Bbe is just one of the many ways that UVB can be weighted. If Caldwells plant damage is equivalent to the action spectra for THC growth, then great, we can convert any lamps wattage into UV-Bbe and as long as UV-Bbe is the same for any lamp used then we could expect to see similar results even if different lamps were used. But if Caldwells plant damage in fact deviates from the action spectrum for THC production, then different lamps with similar UV-Bbe arent going to produce the same results.

BBQtoast said:

That gives me a week's worth of reading and checking not just one study.

I wanted to look at the wider reason for trichomes and why ours are not very responsive to any one stress.

Trichs

It was a warm humid day in East Qing-tang 30 million years ago, only just thrust kilometres into the sky after a fusion of thousands of species. Largely cut of and highly evolved the first cannabis plant got spat out of a mix of others mainly trees and herbs. It wasn't the only one, this was...

www.rollitup.org

Old farmers swore drought increased resin, we say this is bullshit but who's to say that a study might not show it a few percent true now.

UV drought light temperature water use wind rain ozone all get use from the trichome and cannabinoid, UV should also drive metabolites into action to stop UV problems not just thc as a very low factor sunscreen.

Click to expand...

"... The drought treatment elicited a 12% in-
crease in THCA concentration and a 13%
increase in CBDA concentration but had no
effect on the concentrations of the other detected cannabinoids..."

Chunky_Toenail said:

"... The drought treatment elicited a 12% in-
crease in THCA concentration and a 13%
increase in CBDA concentration but had no
effect on the concentrations of the other detected cannabinoids..."

Click to expand...

That's a good one read similar, fertigation issues cause a problem though as I think it says although I didn't read every detail.

My 2 cents

Not revolutionary by any means, lol and I'm sure this is redundant for many, but if you ever have questions, turn to Google. Look up and search for actual studies that you can download for free. The experts are experts for a reason. I try to learn as much from them as I can and you don't grasp everything all the time but as you read more of them you can start to gain more of an understanding through context and then when you re-read old papers with your newfound contextual knowledge you get an even better understanding, and it just snowballs. Lots of guys know lots of stuff on here, not knocking anyone, just saying that if you really want to get to the bottom of something you have to go to the source, or the peer reviewed experts. If you read about it in a research paper then you're not having to worry about salesmanship ect. If you read and understand from a scientific viewpoint you can look at various products and determine best value ect without having to wade through their biased marketing.

OldMedUser said:

Oh I totally believe in the entourage effect. When I make RSO for the wife I'm not using the QWISO method. I'm soaking down whole buds with room temp ISO and mashing them up in there for 10 minutes or more so I extract everything. Would be nasty to smoke and tastes nasty too but has everything the plant has to offer.

The wife's been taking it for over a year now to fight her liver tumours and a nice side-effect is her glaucoma numbers are back in the normal range. Her last liver scans showed a reduction in the numbers of tumours and the size of those that remained so something is working and the only other thing she takes for it is chaga mushroom tea.

Would be nice to know which terpenes etc are best for her thing as liver cancers are trickier to deal with than others but we still don't know whether hers is benign or malignant. They haven't been able get a biopsy due to SS rods in her back from childhood scoliosis so they can't use MRI and ultrasound doesn't let them see well enough to hit the main tumour without risking hitting the large vein next to it. New scans in March so hopefully things are even better than the last ones a year ago.

Click to expand...

Here in Alaska we’ve had stores selling since 2017. Huge focus on high THC. Now experienced budtenders might steer the unknowing in the right direction regarding effects. Personally I’m into the limonene profiles at the moment. Have been for years. Strains high in limonenes are usually low THC. But with the terpene profile I get more out of some of these strains.

On the other hand I’ve had multiple strains here testing 28%-33% THC and big whoop. You coulda fooled me. Some of the better growers are paying attention to this and pay extra for terpene analysis and include the assay report in a binder at retailers. Not many and certainly not all retailers but it’s increasing as people are becoming more educated in spending their money.

Bro Science in full swing - lets add uv light for an extra 15+% in THC, agree with @jimihendrix1 , use to get the so called Budda Sticks back in the 70's, and some so called Thai weed( chocolate brown color) extremely strong in the early mid eighties - these days dont get as smashed find alot of the weed (beans) are pretty much the same these days

hotrodharley said:

Here in Alaska we’ve had stores selling since 2017. Huge focus on high THC. Now experienced budtenders might steer the unknowing in the right direction regarding effects. Personally I’m into the limonene profiles at the moment. Have been for years. Strains high in limonenes are usually low THC. But with the terpene profile I get more out of some of these strains.

On the other hand I’ve had multiple strains here testing 28%-33% THC and big whoop. You coulda fooled me. Some of the better growers are paying attention to this and pay extra for terpene analysis and include the assay report in a binder at retailers. Not many and certainly not all retailers but it’s increasing as people are becoming more educated in spending their money.

Click to expand...

For the last 15 years or so I judge pot by how it makes me feel re: depression and joint pain relief. I couldn't give a damn about the THC #s. More interested in the medical effects. Where I am in northern Alberta there is finally going to be a pot store in the small town 10 miles from me. Was supposed to open last Nov. 1 but still nothing going on inside the store as of just last Friday when I was in town and cruised by to take a peek. I don't plan on buying any 'legal' pot but might see if I could score some part-time work. Got lots of experience. You have to take a gov't course to work in those places but it's only $27 and can do it online so I'm gonna get that done ASAP so I can show whoever that I'm ready to go. Thinking evenings as the owners live almost an hour away and most of the pot stores have fairly late hours like the liquor stores. No alcohol sales at grocery stores and such here.

Never had any dispensaries in Alberta while BC was loaded with them so about 6 years ago when I went out to help my mom downsize I went to a dispensary that sold to members only but you just had to sign up to be a member. That dude turned me on to a doc in Vernon that could sign me up for med pot so after the 2nd visit walked out with papers for 8g/day and he charged my Alberta medical for 2 unspecified visits. No cost to me other than the gas to drive the 30 miles there and back. Scored a few 1g samples from the dispensary and one was a 2:1 CBD:Thc strain that just killed my joint pain and made me feel good so bought 10g of that to bring home and make into cocobudder. Best meds ever! Just sprouted 5 seeds for pot that's more like 10:1 that need planting tonight. They can join the 5 Nepali Temple I just planted 2 days ago after getting them to sprout.

And another UV thread flares up and dies...

JSheeze said:

And another UV thread flares up and dies...

Click to expand...

Are you here to perform CPR?