EXPERIMENTS 101 - What Have You Tried - What Works/Doesn't Work

RM3 said:
My thoughts are that we need studies done on cannabis ! Looking at studies of other plants is moot in reality other than potential ideas that spring forth from it with regard to direction of studies we'd all like to see performed on cannabis. I take studies on other plants with a grain of salt and prefer to pay more attention to studies done on hemp as there are lots of those and some of what has been learned actually applies (well except for the whole hollow stem fuck up lol) IOW readin these papers and gettin ideas for experiments is a good thing. Doin proper side by sides several times is also a good thing even though potentially anecdotal. I've done 100's of experiments over the years and shared the results. It's not rocket science 8)

IMO the whole extended dark period is a waste of time whether before flip or before harvest, have done both and never saw any improvement, I believe it is a notion that carries a strong placebo effect.

I use Gas Light veg something that truly works to reduce stretch and finish faster. My average stretch is 6 to 10 inches instead of feet, buds show in 6 to 10 days instead of 2 to 3 weeks and plants finish on average 10 days faster

A lot of folks here like to bash some of my against the norm methods but hey they work for me and in the end that is all that really matters. Try growin a land race sativa and see if you can get node spacing like this 8)
.
View attachment 3760363
Click to expand...

I agree!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RM3
@Dr. Who You're trying to divert by bringing up trichome production, as it is not mentioned in the papers, or my posts. It can be inferred, however, that trichome production would be increased by a faster onset of flowering, as is yield.

Regarding the "Long Day" plant in the study, the hormones at work here are the same as in "Short Day" plants. ELF3 binding ELF4 and LUX, which block PILF4 and PILF5. So, shortened flowering time, stem growth, and increased yield by manipulating ELF3 are universal amongst Long/Short Day plants.

Now, our knowledge of "Long Day" and "Short Day" plants has changed, so much so, that the coined terms no longer apply (however these monikers have stuck). We now know that it is the night period/darkness that governs their veg/flower cycle, so it should be "Short Night" (instead of Long Day) and "Long Night" (instead of Short Day). That being said, a "Short Night" (Long Day) plant is still considered "Light Dominant" in it's growth cycle, while "Long Night" (Short Day, like cannabis) is "Dark Dominant" in it's growth cycle. The significance of the "Long Day/Short Night" plants accelerated flowering by longer periods of darkness (18.66 hours and 21.33 hours) is that this acceleration in flowering would be even greater in Dark Dominant/Short Day/Long Nights plants. Understand?



The fact that you're attempting to refute the proofs conveys a lack of understanding. I'm not attacking you either, but all of the evidence necessary was presented. Extrapolate from this what you will, but these findings are directly in line with my own; 24hrs of darkness before 12/12 results in accelerated flowering.


Here's another (nb; this article mentions that Long Day/Short Night/Light Dominant plants are effected by Red Light/Far Red Light at day's end, unlike Short Day/Long Night/Dark Dominant plants, such as cannabis)-




http://m.jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/9/2501.full
 
Last edited:
This is just an example of what I mean. The "T cycle" was probably the most rudimentary portion of the study.

Dr. Who said:
For #1 - I disagree! (Nice paper and a good read though!)

... with various lighting times equaling a spread of 16 to 32 hrs of lights out or Dark times - Correct? Please note that 32 hrs is all of 8 more then 24 and hardly the 72 hrs that some have suggested here.
Click to expand...


No, not correct. The T cycles are relative to the 24hr short day cycle of 8L16D (8 light, 16 dark). So, a 32 hour T cycle equates to roughly 21.33 hours of darkness. The 28 hour T cycles is 18.66 hours of dark. If you didn't understand it initially, it still could have been deduced here;

"Thus, T 28 hr short days were not perceived as inhibitory, even though the duration of the photoperiod was only 1.3 hr longer than under T 24 hr short-day cycles."

So;

24hr T cycle= 8L16D
28hr T cycle= 9.33L18.66D (1.3 greater than the 24hr T cycle)
32hr T cycle= 10.66L21.33D
 
@Odin*

@Dr. Who[/USER] You're trying to divert by bringing up trichome production, as it is not mentioned in the papers, or my posts. It can be inferred, however, that trichome production would be increased by a faster onset of flowering, as is yield.

I still disagree with you on the issue! No diversion as "trichome" production is often the call of those who champion longer dark periods for growth increase! In over 40 years of growing. I have tried this idea, several times! I have yet to count any real % increase in trich's.

Regarding the "Long Day" plant in the study, the hormones at work here are the same as in "Short Day" plants. ELF3 binding ELF4 and LUX, which block PILF4 and PILF5. So, shortened flowering time, stem growth, and increased yield by manipulating ELF3 are universal amongst Long/Short Day plants.

The plant is a Mustard plant. In college, it was the go-to plant for experiments (not so important). Your point is correct but,,,for the yield part, as WE grow FOR concerning yields to plant grown. --- What I'm saying is that the increase in the mustard plant yield is realized in total Biomass increase. NOT in flowering point increase (this is what WE would need to increase our yield) I'm saying the increase is in the increased stretch. I've seen this IN school, in an experiment close to whats going on here. Sadly, in the actual industry they quote as it helping (farming). How can we apply this extra darkness in the field?
With ALL honesty. I would use this if I could! It would increase alfalfa yields quite nicely!

Now, our knowledge of "Long Day" and "Short Day" plants has changed, so much so, that the coined terms no longer apply (however these monikers have stuck). We now know that it is the night period/darkness that governs their veg/flower cycle, so it should be "Short Night" (instead of Long Day) and "Long Night" (instead of Short Day). That being said, a "Short Night" (Long Day) plant is still considered "Light Dominant" in it's growth cycle, while "Long Night" (Short Day, like cannabis) is "Dark Dominant" in it's growth cycle. The significance of the "Long Day/Short Night" plants accelerated flowering by longer periods of darkness (18.66 hours and 21.33 hours) is that this acceleration in flowering would be even greater in Dark Dominant/Short Day/Long Nights plants. Understand?

Plant descriptive terms - YUP. Ok, your correct on the second part too! BUT, it's not an acceleration IN flowering. It's an acceleration TO flowering, (faster flowering onset)......In every experiment I have ever done to attempted to decrease the flowering time by increasing the darkness at the transition, it did not give a significant return! It did so little, other then give increased node spacing - that I don't do it! I can't for the life of me remember the kids name in school who tried this in his grow. It didn't work for him either and we were taking mostly AG classes!

The fact that you're attempting to refute the proofs conveys a lack of understanding. I'm not attacking you either, but all of the evidence necessary was presented. Extrapolate from this what you will, but these findings are directly in line with my own; 24hrs of darkness before 12/12 results in accelerated flowering.

I gotta ask then (Trust me, I have not the lack of understanding you speak of [not offended either] and I'm not attacking you either!)
Tell me please. How many days does this 24hr darkness remove from normal bloom times?
Did you do a side by side? Same mother for the clones? Run more then a cpl of plants and a side control? Did you actually do any trich counts per sq. mm? (If it looked possible in mine, I did cm counts too!) These turned turned out to be a non-affect percentage wise!

Here's another (nb; this article mentions that Long Day/Short Night/Light Dominant plants are effected by Red Light/Far Red Light at day's end, unlike Short Day/Long Night/Dark Dominant plants, such as cannabis)-

http://m.jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/9/2501.full


You say "unlike"

Cannabis does react directly to the pfr bands of light (DEEP reds)! All C3 plants do! The bands that are involved are like the 724 to 736 nm range, with the greatest response/effect between 727 to 733nm. This is considered the spectral banding that puts the plant to "sleep". In nature you get this right before sunset into darkness after sunset. This is a period of around 2 hrs of weak exposure. If you give indoor MM a dose of this with 10w 730nm diode LEDs (covers a 10x10 area effectively). The plant is completely at rest in less then 15 min!
The idea of this being, that you can increase lights on times in bloom by those 2 hrs, and increase the yield. I did this several times in several area's. I ran 3 light area's and 3 control area's. IT WORKED! But, found that in my case. The cost to return ratio as being a not viable situation.

In the end we may agree to disagree.....I don't think either of us will actually say the other is "wrong". I simply feel we draw different conclusions from the work listed!

Back at ya with respect!
 
Last edited:
Odin* said:
This is just an example of what I mean. The "T cycle" was probably the most rudimentary portion of the study.




No, not correct. The T cycles are relative to the 24hr short day cycle of 8L16D (8 light, 16 dark). So, a 32 hour T cycle equates to roughly 21.33 hours of darkness. The 28 hour T cycles is 18.66 hours of dark. If you didn't understand it initially, it still could have been deduced here;

"Thus, T 28 hr short days were not perceived as inhibitory, even though the duration of the photoperiod was only 1.3 hr longer than under T 24 hr short-day cycles."

So;

24hr T cycle= 8L16D
28hr T cycle= 9.33L18.66D (1.3 greater than the 24hr T cycle)
32hr T cycle= 10.66L21.33D
Click to expand...

Gothca! didn't read the tables! My bad! Does not change my conclusions!
 
I've read through a few of theses posts regarding light cycle because I am considering a change to how I do it but as of yet have not seen any examples similar to what I currently do. I cut 5 min off sunrise and sunset every day for 30 days taking from a 17/7 cycle to 12/12.

Have at it @Odin* @RM3 @Dr. Who et.al. chew me up spit me out tell my what is wrong with my method please!!

I grow in a cabinet small scale, at harvest plants are at about 3 feet long, 2-2.5 oz, led and t5, 30 days straight veg, 60 days full flower, roughly 120 days per cycle from seed, and a fair amount of trimming and training. I do not notice much if any difference (increase) in stretch during the flip. As for what I am doing this time instead of 5 min reduction I'll do a 10 min on each sunrise and sunset to cut the transition time in half in a hopes of getting closer to a 100 day cycle.
 
SSGrower said:
I've read through a few of theses posts regarding light cycle because I am considering a change to how I do it but as of yet have not seen any examples similar to what I currently do. I cut 5 min off sunrise and sunset every day for 30 days taking from a 17/7 cycle to 12/12.

Have at it @Odin* @RM3 @Dr. Who et.al. chew me up spit me out tell my what is wrong with my method please!!

I grow in a cabinet small scale, at harvest plants are at about 3 feet long, 2-2.5 oz, led and t5, 30 days straight veg, 60 days full flower, roughly 120 days per cycle from seed, and a fair amount of trimming and training. I do not notice much if any difference (increase) in stretch during the flip. As for what I am doing this time instead of 5 min reduction I'll do a 10 min on each sunrise and sunset to cut the transition time in half in a hopes of getting closer to a 100 day cycle.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with that, you are not alone I have seen other growers do this. I say this all the time, what ever works for you in your garden is right on !!!

I don't care if folks flush or defoil or use this light or that nute, my problem with things happen when the jehovas witness mentality pushes the nonsense as fact and when I see this I merely share truth to offset it

I flower with T5's, I boil my roots, I use chem nutes but no where in this (or any other) forum will you see me tellin others to do it or that it is the only way or that it is the right way. I share what I do and why I do it, what others do with that info is up to them.

I have never gone into a "club" thread and shit on a growers choice (like some do here)

I have never condemned a grower for usin a blurple china light

You have any idea of where we could collectively take the herb if we all had open minds?

Think about it 8)
 
SSGrower said:
I've read through a few of theses posts regarding light cycle because I am considering a change to how I do it but as of yet have not seen any examples similar to what I currently do. I cut 5 min off sunrise and sunset every day for 30 days taking from a 17/7 cycle to 12/12.

Have at it @Odin* @RM3 @Dr. Who et.al. chew me up spit me out tell my what is wrong with my method please!!

I grow in a cabinet small scale, at harvest plants are at about 3 feet long, 2-2.5 oz, led and t5, 30 days straight veg, 60 days full flower, roughly 120 days per cycle from seed, and a fair amount of trimming and training. I do not notice much if any difference (increase) in stretch during the flip. As for what I am doing this time instead of 5 min reduction I'll do a 10 min on each sunrise and sunset to cut the transition time in half in a hopes of getting closer to a 100 day cycle.
Click to expand...

I see NO problem with that ideal!
Go back to page 2 of this thread and I rebutted a different poster. I at the time, read several papers on differing lighting ideals. From some of the data I read, I felt that trying a daily reduction in light times of like an hr even - showed some interesting promise in increasing yields some. From the data I read, I drew that theory, and that would be the first time I would try and then, if that showed promise. Go down to 30min a day. maybe a cpl of more attempts in reduction to see if there was any difference between them that would be optimal or even viable!

If I remember right, from AG classes many moons ago. Reduction in light starts June 21st? We loose about 1 minute a day, every three days till the winter Solstice. Um Dec 21st?

I still like to set a cpl plants that have been under 11/13 for about 4-7 days. Outside on my deck yearly. They go out around the 4 of July and begin to revert. The stretch stops and when they return to bloom they don't really go into a stretch! They simply fill out some LONG ass horse cock buds. They get the nice natural UV and are simply blinding in potency.....that's my personal for the winter. :wink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RM3
RM3 said:
I see nothing wrong with that, you are not alone I have seen other growers do this. I say this all the time, what ever works for you in your garden is right on !!!

I don't care if folks flush or defoil or use this light or that nute, my problem with things happen when the jehovas witness mentality pushes the nonsense as fact and when I see this I merely share truth to offset it

I flower with T5's, I boil my roots, I use chem nutes but no where in this (or any other) forum will you see me tellin others to do it or that it is the only way or that it is the right way. I share what I do and why I do it, what others do with that info is up to them.

I have never gone into a "club" thread and shit on a growers choice (like some do here)

I have never condemned a grower for usin a blurple china light

You have any idea of where we could collectively take the herb if we all had open minds?

Think about it 8)
Click to expand...
im kind of interested in hearing more about boiling the roots at harvest and what actually will do for the plant. It is a myth or is scientific proff about this. Or is just your opinion? Respectfully im not trying to start an argument., is it supposed to bring the juices and other stuff from the roots to the buds or increase thc? Or what. Tnx
 
tropicalcannabispatient said:
im kind of interested in hearing more about boiling the roots at harvest and what actually will do for the plant. It is a myth or is scientific proff about this. Or is just your opinion? Respectfully im not trying to start an argument., is it supposed to bring the juices and other stuff from the roots to the buds or increase thc? Or what. Tnx
Click to expand...

I know I'm going to try it for what it "does"! Kind of a "spin" on an old hippie thing of boiling the roots and hanging the plant.
For what Riddle does this for - I'm in to try !
I'll let him send you to thread school.
 
tropicalcannabispatient said:
im kind of interested in hearing more about boiling the roots at harvest and what actually will do for the plant. It is a myth or is scientific proff about this. Or is just your opinion? Respectfully im not trying to start an argument., is it supposed to bring the juices and other stuff from the roots to the buds or increase thc? Or what. Tnx
Click to expand...
It starves the roots of O2 and simulates a flood condition. Plants are genetically programmed to ferment sugars into alcohol in order to survive floods. Once you boiled, you leave the plant under the lights for 3 to 5 days (varies with strains) and watch the plant go to work fading, pullin N from the leaves as N is required to do the ferment process.

All plants do this survive floods, tis science folks

What this does is starts the cure prior to the dry and once harvested and dried your buds will smoke like they have a 10 day cure. It does NOT increase frost, it does NOT increase potency, it does NOT increase yield. It merely lets the buds cure on the vine as they fade prior to harvest

It also sterilizes my medium which I reuse, a beneficial side effect
 
I had to segment the response, for some reason the forum software keeps adding double "end quotes", which bundles everything after the first quote. These end quotes could not be edited. Odd.

Dr. Who said:
I still disagree with you on the issue! No diversion as "trichome" production is often the call of those who champion longer dark periods for growth increase! In over 40 years of growing. I have tried this idea, several times! I have yet to count any real % increase in trich's.
Click to expand...

Perhaps "counting" was a waste of time. You can't count the qualitative increase in trichome production as you can quantify it. Terpene development, this is what I was referring to. 4-5 days in, when tiny flowers are present, the terpenes developed in that time give off a "finished" scent (when the plants are brushed against). This level of terpene development (in the strains tested) does not occur within 4-5 days of 18/6 to 12/12. With 24 hours of dark, it does.

Please clarify, "In over 40 years of growing...", cannabis?
 
RM3 said:
It starves the roots of O2 and simulates a flood condition. Plants are genetically programmed to ferment sugars into alcohol in order to survive floods. Once you boiled, you leave the plant under the lights for 3 to 5 days (varies with strains) and watch the plant go to work fading, pullin N from the leaves as N is required to do the ferment process.

All plants do this survive floods, tis science folks

What this does is starts the cure prior to the dry and once harvested and dried your buds will smoke like they have a 10 day cure. It does NOT increase frost, it does NOT increase potency, it does NOT increase yield. It merely lets the buds cure on the vine as they fade prior to harvest

It also sterilizes my medium which I reuse, a beneficial side effect
Click to expand...
sounds good!! im down to try it myself. Tnx for the info
 
  • Like
Reactions: RM3
Edit- You've got to be kidding me, end quotes still being added (expand below to see my response included in the end quotes).
 
Last edited:
Odin* said:
I had to segment the response, for some reason the forum software keeps adding double "end quotes", which bundles everything after the first quote. These end quotes could not be edited. Odd.



Perhaps "counting" was a waste of time. You can't count the qualitative increase in trichome production as you can quantify it. Terpene development, this is what I was referring to. 4-5 days in, when tiny flowers are present, the terpenes developed in that time give off a "finished" scent (when the plants are brushed against). This level of terpene development (in the strains tested) does not occur within 4-5 days of 18/6 to 12/12. With 24 hours of dark, it does.

Please clarify, "In over 40 years of growing...", cannabis?
Click to expand...

Cannabis -yes ..... over 40.

I found counting as no waste of time.....How would you do it? How are you figuring you've increased trich production.

Interesting on the treps. Might just have to do the test again and see for myself on that one.

Still you'll never sell me that it does increase yields or trich's - been there done that - got the tee shirt - says "Don't Work" on it!
 
[QUOTE="Odin*, post: 12882100, member: 917325"


Please clarify, "In over 40 years of growing...", cannabis?[/QUOTE]
How can you doubt Dr. Who? He never lies. He has Chem from 1989. He has tons of grow logs. He doesn't just google everything and pretend it's his personal experience. Come on man, surely you've seen his dank pics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Whats up Growtatos?
Replies
1
Views
204
legitroller
legitroller
H
Height, Veg and Flowering
Replies
3
Views
336
Phytoplankton
P
G
General advice please. GSK autoflower approx 8.5 weeks old.
Replies
7
Views
428
GreenGenez421
GreenGenez421
O
Experiment with Net Pots - Any opinions so I don't fuck my grow?
Replies
13
Views
446
Unga Bunga
Unga Bunga
P
Just not sure what to do here.. Help!
Replies
12
Views
742
Prodigus
P
Back
Top