Invasion of Red and Blue LEDs: Humble Beginnings

Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
Cupid Stunt said:
I'm sure the irony is lost on you calling others ignorant all the while making fallacious comments without any factual data too back them up...
no one is disputing white light is good for cannabis...but you made a huge statement pertaining to genetic mutation if plants weren't given white light over successive generations as if it were factual and have declined the opportunity to provide evidence of this viewpoint...so why would you make such a broad statement without any knowledge of this actually occurring...?
Click to expand...
I don't think you would have genetic mutation due to lack of white light I just think you will get more larfy buds with all that blue light the old panels made, I know because I have two blackstar panels they have white, blue and red light and they make larf.
 
puffenuff

puffenuff

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
I don't think you would have genetic mutation due to lack of white light I just think you will get more larfy buds with all that blue light the old panels made, I know because I have two blackstar panels they have white, blue and red light and they make larf.
Click to expand...
I would think the larf would be largely due to lack of intensity in those old panels, not soley due to spectrum. Kind of like how you can get fluffy buds from cfls if they arent close enough.
 
Cupid Stunt

Cupid Stunt

Member
PetFlora said:
The factual 411 is found in many botany breeding studies, animal breeding studies even human genetics

How about monsantano and GMOs?

Remain ignorant at your own peril, but to call me out is far worse than ignorance
Click to expand...
Calling you out is worse than ignorance... LOL OK!!!.. why? highlighting the fact that you're a bullshiter is of benefit to guys who might read your drivel and believe it... you made a huge claim about genetic mutation in MJ plants that dont get white light... I asked for you to provide evidence of this and twice you have evaded this request... but yep ... I'm ignorant....now you are equating animals and human genetics to plants genetics and their light spectrum....

Clearly you have no evidence to back up your claims...why you made these claims with no facts to back them up only you will know..... you haven't referenced any of the botany breeding studies you referred too either...can you give me a link to one of these studies please that show mutation due to diminished lighting spectrum's..
 
Last edited:
mc130p

mc130p

Well-Known Member
Idk guys, I think both of you all are right. PF is right in that the environment determines expression levels of genes(health of the plant), and this in turn affects future generations through survival or non survival in those conditions. But the future generations will not become more deficient, instead they will utilize the available environment better and eventually thrive. This is the nature of selection. But I think the other guys also have a point. The difference is mainly due to intensity, as the genetic effects will take too many generations to manifest themselves.

I think that over many many generations and subsequent selections, you could evolve a plant species to thrive on a more 'limited' spectrum of light. But, I think we're talking hundreds or thousands of generations, and not really anything that matters in our lifetimes(look at how we selected for modern corn, starting with maize). Maybe if you had the capability to select from thousands of plants in each generation, you could make it a little faster, but it's still going to take a lifetime(s).
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
^^exactly. Ppl have stated it takes a few generations of the same clone of seed that was bred under HID to acclimate to LEDs. They will only adapt for the BETTER under whatever source of light they are under whether it be better or worse- they will adapt to use what they can get.
 
Swiller

Swiller

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
1966 is an old address, not a date. Jumping to conclusions is the only exercise I get. Don't criticize my healthy lifestyle. I saw they were selling those Surexi 3 bars for $250 on Amazon "while supplies last"
Click to expand...
See what I mean? I tried getting them for $250, but Amazon only had the $325 ones. The plants like the light so far, but I need a FEW grows not just one. So far so good. I get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions as well, the dangerous part is when you start to be correct more often than not....

I am ignorant, and the more I learn, the more I am aware of my ignorance.
 
Swiller

Swiller

Well-Known Member
As far as I know, there is no evidence that artificial lighting causes genetic evolution (changes) in cannabis, however, natural light and it's complete effects upon plants and animals versus long term artificial light exposure, is still being studied. Cannabis is so unusual because such a large proportion of it is grown under artificial light due to prohibition around he world.....for so long.

The main genetic changes I'm seeing with cannabis is more potency for both THC and CBD with selective cross breeding, if the artificial light is helping with that, then good, but there is no evidence, only theory.
 
cityworker415

cityworker415

Well-Known Member
PetFlora said:
The factual 411 is found in many botany breeding studies, animal breeding studies even human genetics

How about monsantano and GMOs?

Remain ignorant at your own peril, but to call me out is far worse than ignorance
Click to expand...
This is right where I walk away. Come on ladies!
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Why Green NMs are Important


Phototropin 1 and cryptochrome action in response to green light in combination with other wavelengths.
Wang Y1, Maruhnich SA, Mageroy MH, Justice JR, Folta KM.
Author information
Abstract

Genetic studies have shown the effects of various photoreceptors on early photomorphogenic processes, defining the precise time course of red (RL), far-red (FrL) and blue light (BL) action. In this study, the effect of green wavebands in conjunction with these responses is examined. Longer-term (end point; 24-96 h) analysis of hypocotyl elongation in enriched green environments shows an increase in growth compared to seedlings under blue, red or both together. The effect was only observed at lower fluence rates (<10 μmol/m² s). Genetic analyses demonstrate that cryptochromes are required for this GL effect, consistent with earlier findings, and that the phy receptors have no influence. However, analysis of early (minutes to hours) stem growth kinetics indicates that GL cannot reverse the cryptochrome-mediated BL effect during early stem growth inhibition, and instead acts additively with BL to drive cryptochrome-mediated inhibition. Green light (GL) treatments antagonize RL and FrL-mediated hypocotyl inhibition. The GL opposition of RL responses persists in phyA, phyB, cry1cry2 and phot2 mutants. The response requires phot1 and NPH3, suggesting that this is not a GL response, but instead a response to extremely low-fluence rate BL. Tests with dim BL (<0.1 μmol/m² s) confirm a previously uncharacterized phot1-dependent promotion of stem growth, opposing the effects of RL. These findings demonstrate how enriched green environments may adjust RL and BL photomorphogenic responses through both the crys and phot1 receptors, and define a new role for phot1 in stem growth promotion.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I'm no mad-scientist, but I don't think growing with monos would cause genetic changes of offspring, even in the short term.

In a way, that's like suggesting that if you cut off a mouse's tail, its offspring will be born without tails.

Spectrum will change genetic expression, but it won't change sexual genetics and natural selection (or human selection in this case).
 
cityworker415

cityworker415

Well-Known Member
mc130p said:
Idk guys, I think both of you all are right. PF is right in that the environment determines expression levels of genes(health of the plant), and this in turn affects future generations through survival or non survival in those conditions. But the future generations will not become more deficient, instead they will utilize the available environment better and eventually thrive. This is the nature of selection. But I think the other guys also have a point. The difference is mainly due to intensity, as the genetic effects will take too many generations to manifest themselves.

I think that over many many generations and subsequent selections, you could evolve a plant species to thrive on a more 'limited' spectrum of light. But, I think we're talking hundreds or thousands of generations, and not really anything that matters in our lifetimes(look at how we selected for modern corn, starting with maize). Maybe if you had the capability to select from thousands of plants in each generation, you could make it a little faster, but it's still going to take a lifetime(s).
Click to expand...
Not sure guys I thought the only way to change genetics was to introduce new genetics Or or enter do something along the lines of a teratogen which is something that mutates genetic lines often found in pesticides or radioactivity? Play nice I'm not sure

Sent from my XT1060 using Rollitup mobile app
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
I'm no mad-scientist, but I don't think growing with monos would cause genetic changes of offspring, even in the short term.

In a way, that's like suggesting that if you cut off a mouse's tail, its offspring will be born without tails.

Spectrum will change genetic expression, but it won't change sexual genetics and natural selection (or human selection in this case).
Click to expand...
Thinking is not science

So you've never seen pics of mice fed GMO food

Food=energy

Light = energy

Light is food
 
Cupid Stunt

Cupid Stunt

Member
PetFlora said:
Thinking is not science

So you've never seen pics of mice fed GMO food

Food=energy

Light = energy

Light is food
Click to expand...
by this logic mice=plants and if we can feed mice red and blue light we can mutate them into horses...

how about you actually provide some form of evidence or data that shows genetic mutation due to lighting spectrum... and by evidence I don't mean your stoned ramblings of what you "think" would happen...
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I know thinking is not science. It was only conjecture on part. It would seem right to me that sex is the main player in genetic changes offspring. I do know that spectrum plays a very important role on genetic expression, but only in the parents, not the offspring.

I don't know if I can argue even hypothetically for or against genetically modified photons. I think you're using the term "GMO" as a placeholder for everything bad. (I don't even think all GMOs are bad, but that's just me)
 
Pass it Around

Pass it Around

Well-Known Member
Blues and reds work for me, my yields are acceptable my trich count is improved over hps and I am happy. Your posts don't prove anything, yeah plants need all spectrums but people need to either buy quality LEDS or make their own out of quality. Don't blame red and blue cuz your panels sucked.
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Cupid Stunt said:
by this logic mice=plants and if we can feed mice red and blue light we can mutate them into horses...

how about you actually provide some form of evidence or data that shows genetic mutation due to lighting spectrum... and by evidence I don't mean your stoned ramblings of what you "think" would happen...
Click to expand...

Now how would you learn if I spoon fed you?

Instead of being contrary, take what little education you have and research
 
Cupid Stunt

Cupid Stunt

Member
PetFlora said:
Now how would you learn if I spoon fed you?
Instead of being contrary, take what little education you have and research
Click to expand...
and there's the tap....

how is it possible to research a claim that doesn't have any research papers... if it did you would stop yourself from looking like a dolt and actually put me in my place with EVIDENCE!!!.. but you won't...because these studies don't exists......your analogies of "look at what GMO food has done to mice is proof of what red and blue would do to plants" is vacuous and unfounded....

its been a pleasure destroying your asinine hypothesis...

its boggles the mind why you would enjoy making yourself look so foolish but there must be some satisfaction in it for you... you do it so well.... almost as if its natural...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top