hello what do you think about this study ? https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.868350/full
Using amino acids could decrease THC content ?
- Thread starter psixerpsx
- Start date
weedemart
Well-Known Member
they found similar result with humic acids supplementation. My personal conclusion is that the increased chelation correlate with higher absorption of these chelated mineral which have a negative impact on flower quality. In fact , any excess of any elements is detrimental to cannabinoids in general.
Thats why Im probly gonna run a test on my plants and looks whats happen if I reduce micronutrients level to minimum. I noticed most of fertilizer have way too much molybdene and copper in comparison with the hoagland solution which personaly I find close to optimal.
Thats why Im probly gonna run a test on my plants and looks whats happen if I reduce micronutrients level to minimum. I noticed most of fertilizer have way too much molybdene and copper in comparison with the hoagland solution which personaly I find close to optimal.
It is mathematically impossible to have a 198% reduction in cannabanoids...
Tomatoesonly
Well-Known Member
Fascinating. If you ever watch any Harley Smith stuff, he talks about the two amino acids that he discovered really helped with Ca uptake and plant vigor. He credits the Ca uptake with alot of positive improvements.
If you look at figure 3 for Ca absorption, it's pretty clear that the control had more build up than those with aminos.
So crazy how you can find such opposite information for the same plant.
If you look at figure 3 for Ca absorption, it's pretty clear that the control had more build up than those with aminos.
So crazy how you can find such opposite information for the same plant.
The data they present does not support their claims. In figure 7 and 8 it is shown that atleast one cycle has no difference between treatment and control.
Also they do not show error bars which means that it is Impossible to say if there is a significant difference between control and treatment.
And then there are other problems with the methods. They claim that their treatment increases nutrient uptake. Then they did a three week flush in the end. And (who would have guessed) the treated planta continued to grow on stored nutrients while the control stagnated.
Maybe the differences are due to overfertilized plants?
It is really difficult to judge the value of this paper.
Also they do not show error bars which means that it is Impossible to say if there is a significant difference between control and treatment.
And then there are other problems with the methods. They claim that their treatment increases nutrient uptake. Then they did a three week flush in the end. And (who would have guessed) the treated planta continued to grow on stored nutrients while the control stagnated.
Maybe the differences are due to overfertilized plants?
It is really difficult to judge the value of this paper.
2cent
Well-Known Member
i think it’s a duff , humic reducing thc … how can shit that make the plant better make it produce less ?
Less the component related to more thx is stress which releases thc saying all plants with low levels are stressed ?
stick a screwdriver thru the stem 2days before chop or burn the roots with hot water , ripens them off to fook and non of my meds are weak
Less the component related to more thx is stress which releases thc saying all plants with low levels are stressed ?
stick a screwdriver thru the stem 2days before chop or burn the roots with hot water , ripens them off to fook and non of my meds are weak