# I have a question for all you veteran growers out there!



## Miketsu (Mar 24, 2011)

I have heard from friends, and read about, a technique that is supposed to stress the plants in a way that they produce more crystals, like the maximum amount, but im not sure if it works. They said to turn the light either off completely or down to 8 hours on instead of 12 durring the last week or two of flowering, then I met a guy who said he shuts the light off the last 3 days before harvest... does anyone have some insight into this? anyone practice this technique or any variation? Does it really add resin?


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Mar 24, 2011)

supposedly it forces the plant to think its dying and start squeezing every bit out before the end (harvest). I dont do it, i just harvest in the morning as usual.


----------



## MellowHaze (Mar 24, 2011)

*I give my plant 72hrs of darkness before I chop because it does produce more resin I also cut out nutes about a week or so before the chop too *


----------



## LowTimes (Mar 24, 2011)

I've heard of this to, and actually read something about it on a seed sight for purchasing White Widow seeds. It's supposed to be left in the dark for..i forget how many days to increase the resin to it's maximum.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 24, 2011)

see my thread, white widow 3 days dark , good info on first couple of pages .


----------



## WillyPhister (Mar 25, 2011)

*I've done this before a couple of times. Im not sure if it made any difference because I didnt have a control to compare them to.*


----------



## Buddy Ganga (Mar 25, 2011)

I don't know about this.

I harvested some of the stickiest smellyest shit anyones ever grown straight from the tent as lights were going out, and a pal growing the exact same clones with everything from nutes to soil and lights the same lost power a few days before he harvested, and everyone, "well everyone but then him says my grow was stickier and tastier and the high was even a little better .

So for now I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 25, 2011)

sorry bros extra darkness does not add to trichs or potency...

I have to leave my flowering girls in the dark for 3 days... every 2 weeks... for my entire 8 week flowering time...thats 4 times of 3 days of darkness


----------



## ChubbySoap (Mar 25, 2011)

i grew them their whole life trying to minimize stress...i want them to never see the knife descend.


does pampering and protecting a lamb until it grows up into a nice fat sheep and then locking it in a tiny cupboard for the last three days of its life make it's wool more fluffy and the meat more succulent?
maybe....maybe... but i can't really say.
i wouldn't do it myself...i couldn't.
Same goes for the plants for me.


----------



## Seiny (Mar 25, 2011)

Why do u have to leave them in the dark for that period?


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 25, 2011)

The answer to your question is a little more complicated than, yeah, it works, or no, it's bullshit. There are a lot of variables. Specifically lineage. There have been actual scientific tests done in advanced labs by scientists on this subject. I tend ot pay more attention to those findings than a guy who calls himself Chubby Soap. Do some research & experiment. This is one of those questions where there is no "one size fits all" answer. Good Luck!


----------



## elfroggo (Mar 25, 2011)

I read about this in High Times a while back. Water with cold water, then 3 to 5 days of dark before chopping.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 25, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> sorry bros extra darkness does not add to trichs or potency...
> 
> I have to leave my flowering girls in the dark for 3 days... every 2 weeks... for my entire 8 week flowering time...thats 4 times of 3 days of darkness


Anyone dumb enough to put their plants in total dark for 216 hours during flower or, for that matter, Any Time, should not be posting on an advanced forum...much less in an advisory capacity


----------



## xqshaun (Mar 25, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Anyone dumb enough to put their plants in total dark for 216 hours during flower or, for that matter, Any Time, should not be posting on an advanced forum...much less in an advisory capacity


I agree with this!! 3 days dark every 2 weeks is a horrible thing to do!!


----------



## hoagtech (Mar 25, 2011)

Light is the driving force of phtosynthesis and carbon production. Thc like evrything else is in this planet a form of carbon. Thats what my brain told me so Im not gonna try it. jacklarson apparently had good results doing this and if you think its magic, no ones holding a gun to your head so go ahead and try it. If it works for you then Im sure it will become a habit.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 25, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Anyone dumb enough to put their plants in total dark for 216 hours during flower or, for that matter, Any Time, should not be posting on an advanced forum...much less in an advisory capacity


Before you call someone Dumb....better know what your talking about  I grow Medically in denver... hand water...in dirt




xqshaun said:


> I agree with this!! 3 days dark every 2 weeks is a horrible thing to do!!


 


hahahaha.... droll bros droll...6 ozs a plants all day long.....Over 20 yrs experience growing weed young bloods

I have had to do this darkness routine because I;m out of town.....doesnt hurt the plants at all...been doing this over the past year... perpetual grows

These are my typical plants in 10-12 inch potters (2 gallon pot)


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 25, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> The answer to your question is a little more complicated than, yeah, it works, or no, it's bullshit. There are a lot of variables. Specifically lineage. There have been actual scientific tests done in advanced labs by scientists on this subject. I tend ot pay more attention to those findings than a guy who calls himself Chubby Soap. Do some research & experiment. This is one of those questions where there is no "one size fits all" answer. Good Luck!


 That test is bullshiz. Try it for yourself and conduct a blind test with your patients. My money is on the fact that no one will notice a difference.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 25, 2011)

I will stick with my previous statement! but nice story .


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

and WTF is droll ? your special nutes ?


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> I will stick with my previous statement! but nice story .


 
Show me one of your grows brother  I let pictures tell my story


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Do you really think posting pics, telling people where you live and that you're gone for three days every two weeks is a good idea? Most people would think that's not smart. So, who is gonna trust you when you say that it's a good idea to add 216 hours of dark to flowering? I never said it would kill plants I said it is dumb, but I would like to revise my statement " YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT" and you can't SPELL!!! I see average plants... where are the trichomes ? That's what this is really about.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Do you really think posting pics, telling people where you live and that you're gone for three days every two weeks is a good idea? Most people would think that's not smart. So, who is gonna trust you when you say that it's a good idea to add 216 hours of dark to flowering? I never said it would kill plants I said it is dumb, but I would like to revise my statement " YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT" and you can't SPELL!!! I see average plants... where are the trichomes ? That's what this is really about.


Where do I live in Colorado... no 

Do you know where I live ...No 

Do you know where my Medical grow is located? No

Heres my trichomes .......alls your doing is flaping off at the mouth and trying to cause problems with no knowledge ....



Jack Larson said:


> and WTF is droll ? your special nutes ?


And droll is French for funny.... you ignorant fuck








.


----------



## hoagtech (Mar 26, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> heres my trichomes .......alls you do is flap off at the mouth and cause problem with no knowledge ....
> 
> And droll is French for funny.... you ignorant fuck.....chasng me from thread to thread.... what a ass


Cant argue with that. Im trying this. Good choice on the 400w parabolas. If this works, It will save me so much energy consumption over the years. I just couldnt justify any dark period before those pictures. Thank you


----------



## hoagtech (Mar 26, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> That test is bullshiz. Try it for yourself and conduct a blind test with your patients. My money is on the fact that no one will notice a difference.


 Well even you dont notice difference, the difference is you dont have to pay electricity when your lights are off. Im starting to like this idea


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

I won't be "chasng" you ... also french? The fight is not worth the prize! As for the pic, again, average at best. I will miss our bantor, as it has been very "droll". ...and it's "an ass", not "a ass", but you're my intellectual superior, right?


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 26, 2011)

No bro.... you just been trying to debunk something you have no experience in....and for some reason you decided I was your target 

I offer proff that you can leave your flowering plants in the dark for days with no ill effects...I found this out due to power loss for 4 days

I been growing for many a year...I been on this site for years under Vaped13 then the site got wiped out and alot of people lost thier user names

I'm not smarter than you but I probably have more experience growing than you do seeeing as how you just go off at the mouth and you dont offer up any pictures as evidence to back up what your saying

Where are your trichs


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 26, 2011)

*"The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), the first company to sell marijuana through the pharmacies of Holland, has been investigating the medical possibilities of cannabis, together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden.

One of their discoveries has been that to keep the ripe plants in the dark before harvesting could increase their potency.SIMM&#8217;s growers separated a crop of mature plants, harvested half of them and kept the other half in absolute darkness for 72 hours before cutting and drying. Analysis of the resulting dried buds showed that some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same."*


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> sorry bros extra darkness does not add to trichs or potency...
> 
> I have to leave my flowering girls in the dark for 3 days... every 2 weeks... for my entire 8 week flowering time...thats 4 times of 3 days of darkness


 you started it dude...you are just flat out wrong. The method is to put plants in total dark "*at harvest*" not every two weeks. The reason for doing this is to stress the plant which makes the plant produce more/swell glands in an attempt to reproduce. As I have stated this does not work on all strains, but seems effective on some strains. It pisses me off when people give advice like it's gospel. That's why I said "*experiment*". Just because something you did pleases you, doesn't mean it's best for everyone. As I have never been one to put ego before common sense, I will not be posting photos. Where I come from, they call that evidence. Besides, as you've proven, any idiot can cut & paste a photo, and make claims that cannot be verified. I would love to put you in your place and tell you who I am, and how many years experience I have, but I recognize a pissant when I see one, and you are not worth it.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> *"The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), the first company to sell marijuana through the pharmacies of Holland, has been investigating the medical possibilities of cannabis, together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden.
> 
> One of their discoveries has been that to keep the ripe plants in the dark before harvesting could increase their potency.SIMMs growers separated a crop of mature plants, harvested half of them and kept the other half in absolute darkness for 72 hours before cutting and drying. Analysis of the resulting dried buds showed that some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same."*


No, no, no, no, no. Didn't you hear...this doesn't work! (Der, "sorry bros")


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 26, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Brick Top*
> *"The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), the first company to sell marijuana through the pharmacies of Holland, has been investigating the medical possibilities of cannabis, together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden.
> 
> One of their discoveries has been that to keep the ripe plants in the dark before harvesting could increase their potency.SIMM&#8217;s growers separated a crop of mature plants, harvested half of them and kept the other half in absolute darkness for 72 hours before cutting and drying. Analysis of the resulting dried buds showed that some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same."*






Jack Larson said:


> No, no, no, no, no. Didn't you hear...this doesn't work! (Der, "sorry bros")



I have read messages on sites like this where people growing in their basements and closets and store rooms and grow tents and garages and attics have claimed it doesn't work but I have never read anything from anyone or any place with credentials that equal or top that of; "*The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana, **TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" *that have supplied scientific proof that it doesn't work.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Yep , and Attidude seed bank suggests doing this with White Widow. You know... those guys that sponsor this site! (but, what do they know? lol)...........


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Yep , and Attidude seed bank suggests doing this with White Widow. You know... those guys that sponsor this site! (but, what do they know? lol)...........



For one, Attitude advertises here, that's all. Second, Attitude is a seedbank, not a professional breeder or group of professional breeders. Third, Attitude is not a high tech lab or research facility. Fourth, any information given about strains for sale on any seedbank comes from the breeder. 

But I do not understand what your point actually is? Scientific research was performed on a number of strains and the findings were that if given 72-hours of darkness SOME strains saw an increase of up to 30% in THC without any increase in CBD or CBN. You respond with what was said about what, one knockoff White Widow strain, that is the same idea but a different time frame and you believe that trumps what *"The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana, TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" scientific research discovered? *


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 26, 2011)

what strain saw the 30% increase??? I want to get 30% higher  

Bro you think I haven't tried the extra darkness thing on my strains..... 72 at the end sure I have....alot of people have ....I have not noticed any difference in MY strains potency wise

I am just saying that I am forced to leave my plants that are in flower ....in the dark for long periods (48-72 hrs) at different times of the flowering cycle.... it doesnt hurt or help them...

thats all I was saying...then peple wanna attack me on a personal level call me dumb, pissant and shit....I'm not afraid to post pictures beacuse I grow legally... if they want me they already know where I grow cause we have to register our Med grow site address


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> For one, Attitude advertises here, that's all. Second, Attitude is a seedbank, not a professional breeder or group of professional breeders. Third, Attitude is not a high tech lab or research facility. Fourth, any information given about strains for sale on any seedbank comes from the breeder.
> 
> But I do not understand what your point actually is? Scientific research was performed on a number of strains and the findings were that if given 72-hours of darkness SOME strains saw an increase of up to 30% in THC without any increase in CBD or CBN. You respond with what was said about what, one knockoff White Widow strain, that is the same idea but a different time frame and you believe that trumps what *"The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana, TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" scientific research discovered? *


I'm not sure you understand what sponsorship is. But I absolutely agree with you on everything else. I did not mean any disrespect to you personally.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> what strain saw the 30% increase??? I want to get 30% higher
> 
> Bro you think I haven't tried the extra darkness thing on my strains... 72 at the end sure I have ....I have not noticed any difference in MY strains potency wise
> 
> I am just saying that that I leave my plants that are in flower ....in the dark for long periods at different times of the flowering cycle.... it doesnt hurt or help them...I still flower for the same amount of time also


sorry bros extra darkness does not add to trichs or potency...








Well now...that's a little different than your original post, isn't it? Look, dude, I don't wanna fight with anybody, but we all need to be more responsible for our responses, and when someone makes a blanket statement like this, followed by an avatar depicting a head banging against a wall it sort of insinuates that that's just the way it is, and anyone who doesn't think so is just stupid. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing this shit derail an otherwise productive discussion. But when I see somebody doing this, I'm not just ganna sit on my hands.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Anyone dumb enough to put their plants in total dark for 216 hours during flower or, for that matter, Any Time, should not be posting on an advanced forum...much less in an advisory capacity


 


Jack Larson said:


> , but I would like to revise my statement " YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT" and you can't SPELL!!! I see average plants... where are the trichomes ? That's what this is really about.


 
your right bro people need to take responiblity for responces & personal attacks.... huh  this provokes responses in kind and puts people on the defensive...PEACE BRO



Jack Larson said:


> Look, dude, I don't wanna fight with anybody, but we all need to be more responsible for our responses, .


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Like I said "you started it". Perhaps you should try mastering the English Language before you start branching out to French. Really dude, I've seen better spelling from 5th graders.....If you knew how stupid you were, you'd be twice as smart as you are now.


----------



## suTraGrow (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Like I said "you started it". Perhaps you should try mastering the English Language before you start branching out to French. Really dude, I've seen better spelling from 5th graders.....If you knew how stupid you were, you'd be twice as smart as you are now.


Wow my friend you are a antagonistic ignorant f**k sorry but i think you could piss off a corpse with your ignorance. I do not apologize if this offended you. I do apologize if it offended anybody else. Talk all the shit you want now don't care as long as you know what i think about you is all that matters  take care now.


----------



## jeeba (Mar 26, 2011)

What was this thread about again?I think you need to work on you social skills,and have a intelligent discussion on this.Lets skip the personal attacks.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> I'm not sure you understand what sponsorship is. But I absolutely agree with you on everything else. I did not mean any disrespect to you personally.


I am sorry..! as I was absoltely " WRONG"!! my bad, you are in fact sir correct, Attude SEEDS is most definitely "NOT" a sponsor of this site.I apologize.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

I'm not going to take a whipp'n from the olive brach I extended, I gave him an out , but he keeps coming back for more, so if he wants to play, I'll play ! ( man does'nt any body ever read my signature? )


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 26, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> *I have read messages on sites like this where people growing in their basements and closets and store rooms and grow tents and garages and attics have claimed it doesn't work but I have never read anything from anyone or any place with credentials that equal or top that of; "The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana, TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden" that have supplied scientific proof that it doesn't work. *


Have you tried it? I'm an experienced grower and tried it on a number of strains throughout the years and it did nothing except waste my time. Am I growing in a lab? Nope, but I'd but my quality up against any lab in the world.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 26, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> what strain saw the 30% increase??? I want to get 30% higher


It did not specify. Their goals were not to help advertise some strain or strains and help some breeder or breeders get more business and earn more money. It was strictly research and all it said was; "*Analysis of the resulting dried buds showed that some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same."*


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 26, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Have you tried it?



Sure I have, many times, and only using my physical senses, which is all any of us here have to go on because we are not PhD's with high tech laboratories to conduct scientific research and testing in, I would say that in some strains is will make a fairly appreciable difference and in others it will not. 




> I'm an experienced grower


I think I could honestly claim to have at least a fairly decent amount of growing experience. I began growing in 1972, that's 39 years ago, that's getting close to 4 decades of growing experience. 

Is that enough experience to satisfy you?


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 26, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> I'm not sure you understand what sponsorship is.




I believe you do not understand the difference between sponsorship and to advertise.

Definitions of *sponsorship* on the Web:
the act of sponsoring (either officially or financially)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Definitions of *advertise* on the Web:


call attention to
make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 26, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> I believe you do not understand the difference between sponsorship and to advertise.
> 
> Definitions of *sponsorship* on the Web:
> the act of sponsoring (either officially or financially)
> ...


 Yes you are correct . I have apologized for my mistake, as well as uducated myself on both the defonision and orgin of the word...thanks for your help and understanding. Agian I am sorry, the statement was rude and challanging and not a part of my everyday attitude


----------



## UltramegaMJ (Mar 27, 2011)

Does anyone have any knowledge regarding what cannabis does when lights are off normally? I thought I read somewhere on here that the desirable compounds in the trichomes are produced during lights off. Maybe there is some connection between that process and this final 72 hours of darkness idea. Maybe 72 hours being the approximate amount of time it takes for the plant to use up the remaining nutrients in leaves and such to produce more THC?


----------



## Ace Capone (Mar 27, 2011)

It's funny what people will tell you to get free nug. They probably told him the same thing right before/after they told you. If you both grew the same clones, especially as similiar to eachother as you did, the buds should be relatively identical.


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 27, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> I think I could honestly claim to have at least a fairly decent amount of growing experience. I began growing in 1972, that's 39 years ago, that's getting close to 4 decades of growing experience.
> 
> Is that enough experience to satisfy you?


I wasn't implying that _you_ weren't experienced, just that _I_ fit the criteria of who the OP is looking for feedback from as well. I've noticed you pop up in threads where a lot of theory or history is being questioned and I enjoy reading most of your posts. My practices and knowledge-base on the otherhand are based in pragmatism so regardless of what is written by hightimes or Mel Frank or whatever institute, if myself or my patients can't perceive a difference, then that 'theory' or 'practice' holds no weight for me.


----------



## VICTORYGARDENSHYDRO (Mar 27, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Yes you are correct . I have apologized for my mistake, as well as *uducated* myself on both the *defonision* and orgin of the word...thanks for your help and understanding. *Agian* I am sorry, the statement was rude and *challanging* and not a part of my everyday attitude


funny how you were giving the other guy shit for his spelling, yet you post this,WTF???


----------



## hoagtech (Mar 27, 2011)

VICTORYGARDENSHYDRO said:


> funny how you were giving the other guy shit for his spelling, yet you post this,WTF???


no more spell correction. wee R awl Stownerrz heeer sow git yewsed too iht


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 27, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> I wasn't implying that _you_ weren't experienced, just that _I_ fit the criteria of who the OP is looking for feedback from as well. I've noticed you pop up in threads where a lot of theory or history is being questioned and I enjoy reading most of your posts. My practices and knowledge-base on the otherhand are based in pragmatism so regardless of what is written by hightimes or Mel Frank or whatever institute, if myself or my patients can't perceive a difference, then that 'theory' or 'practice' holds no weight for me.



Something that has been scientifically proven is not "theory" and I know of no one whose senses are so highly refined that they will be able to; 'perceive" a difference in levels of cannabinoids the way gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry can. 

The thing that bothers me about the naysayers is threefold. Only *their* experience with an extended period of darkness before harvesting matters, even if possibly they were like many who do not know how long to give plants darkness and only did it for 24 or 36 or 48 hours or something. It doesn't matter in the least to them when someone like myself says how I have done it many and at times there clearly is an appreciable difference and other times there is not. The second thing that bothers me is for someone who has tried it, in some form or another, and could not tell a difference declares that it does not that they're their basement or closet or store room or grow tent or spare room or attic grow has somehow disproved proven science performed by people with PhDs in high tech research laboratories. Third is where the findings clearly said "SOME STRAINS" will see increased levels of THC of as much as 30% without either CBD or CBN increasing. When someone tries it and the strain or strains they grow are ones where any increase might be so little as to not be perceptible to the human senses they just simply decides it does not work at all. They they tell others that it does not work at all and some of the people who believe them might be people growing strains that will have a 9% or 17% or 16% or 30% increase ...but they won't get it because they won't try it because someone who tried it, possibly even performed incorrectly, and could not; "perceive" any change with their human senses told them it does not work, it is not worth doing, it is a waste of time. 
.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 27, 2011)

why not get a test kit and run the test yourself...try a *Cannalytics Kit.... *already validated at the *University of Leiden* (department of pharmacognosie).

Do you have any links to the test already preformed by the pros? I'm going to order a few test kits... if possible


*



Unlike most people think, the effect of cannabis products is not only caused by THC. The specific characteristics and effect of a certain kind of cannabis is caused by the combination of several cannabinoids

Click to expand...

*


> The kit enables the user for the first time in history to do his own research on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of cannabis. *The Cannalytics kit* determines the *cannabis chemo-fingerprint* and the amount of the main (neuro-) pharmacologic & psychoactive principles. Find the different cannabinoids THC, THCV and CBN (%-age THC) in your sample, routinely, fast and in full color!


 
In Denver they do have places where you can take your weed to have it tested costs $25 this is my Sour Diesel %

Calculated Active Cannabinoids







CBD: 
0.43%





CBN: 
0.08%





THC: 
24.44%






CBC: 
0%





THCV: 
0%




Total Active Cannabinoids: 24.95%


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 27, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> why not get a test kit and run the test yourself...try a *Cannalytics Kit....The Cannalytics test kit* is already validated at the *University of Leiden* (department of pharmacognosie).



People could test their results, and some would find little to no change, some would find a slight change and some would find a moderate change and some would find a considerable change. 

But if someone would find little to know change would not mean the research findings were inaccurate. It would only mean they grew a strain or strains that did not respond as well as others will. As the findings said; "SOME" strains will seen an increase in levels of THC up to 30%. 

The way most people on sites like this thing, all it would take is one person with little to no increase found and for that person, and for very many others, that would be considered to be proof positive that it does not work. 

I can never understand how so many people can so totally refuse to accept proven facts and put more faith in what they do in their basement or store room or spare room or grow tent or garage or attic where growing conditions/environment are not as tightly controlled and they often times do not run side by side comparisons all grown from clones and where in a case like this they will rely on the results of one single strain or maybe two strains grown, in most cases, in relatively small numbers. 

While this is not the vest of examples it does in a way point out how so many growers will do things on a small scale and in anything but a highly controlled environment but still later claim to have really done something. Look at the number of basement pollen chuckers who write about the fantastic crosses they made when they took a pack of seeds of one strain and crossed the females with one or more of the better looking males from another pack of seeds. 

I do not recall off the top of my head which Haze variety Neville was working on at the time but he started with over 1000 different plants. He popped over 1000 different seeds to have a large enough number of plants to go through to find the best and to have enough to make various crosses with to eventually end up with his final strain. 

Things done on a small scale in people's homes with little to no control and lacking test groups and the latest state of the art equipment, and not being performed by exceedingly educated people whose life work it is to research cannabis plants, should never be seen by anyone to be more accurate than actual scientific research findings. Never.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 27, 2011)

I think if you grow 10 plants in the same condtions.. same strain....same everything.... the only thing you do differnet is 72 hours darkness on 1/2 of the plants at the end of the grow .,....then test them.... if there is a difference in % content it will show itself.

Many despensaries in Denver send their strains in for testing in labs


Again do you have links to the tests done showing the 30 % potency increase...I would like to read it


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 27, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> I think if you grow 10 plants in the same condtions.. same strain....same everything.... the only thing you do differnet is 72 hours darkness on 1/2 of the plants at the end of the grow .,....then test them.... if there is a difference in % content it will show itself.
> 
> Many despensaries in Denver send their strains in for testing in labs



What if that singular strain is one that does not respond to an extended period of darkness or at best responds in the most minimal amounts. Would that be proof that the same would be the case for every single other strain? Nope! You do realize that there are over 3,000 strains, don't you, and that not all respond the very same way to many different things, so why would you assume all would respond the same as one single strain in this case?

Remember, the findings said; "SOME STRAINS" and testing one single strain, and especially in such small numbers, could very easily result in very different findings than the actual research found. But even if it did it would not disprove the actual research findings. It would have been based on too small of a sampling of both different strains and plants.


----------



## xqshaun (Mar 27, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> I'm not going to take a whipp'n from the olive brach I extended, I gave him an out , but he keeps coming back for more, so if he wants to play, I'll play ! ( man does'nt any body ever read my signature? )


you are the one who is fighting. So that means Colon wins!!


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 27, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Something that has been scientifically proven is not "theory" and I know of no one whose senses are so highly refined that they will be able to; 'perceive" a difference in levels of cannabinoids the way gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry can.
> 
> The thing that bothers me about the naysayers is threefold. Only *their* experience with an extended period of darkness before harvesting matters, even if possibly they were like many who do not know how long to give plants darkness and only did it for 24 or 36 or 48 hours or something. It doesn't matter in the least to them when someone like myself says how I have done it many and at times there clearly is an appreciable difference and other times there is not. The second thing that bothers me is for someone who has tried it, in some form or another, and could not tell a difference declares that it does not that they're their basement or closet or store room or grow tent or spare room or attic grow has somehow disproved proven science performed by people with PhDs in high tech research laboratories. Third is where the findings clearly said "SOME STRAINS" will see increased levels of THC of as much as 30% without either CBD or CBN increasing. When someone tries it and the strain or strains they grow are ones where any increase might be so little as to not be perceptible to the human senses they just simply decides it does not work at all. They they tell others that it does not work at all and some of the people who believe them might be people growing strains that will have a 9% or 17% or 16% or 30% increase ...but they won't get it because they won't try it because someone who tried it, possibly even performed incorrectly, and could not; "perceive" any change with their human senses told them it does not work, it is not worth doing, it is a waste of time.
> .


The Germans used to decoct their beers and on a homebrewing level, it makes a 6 hour brewday a 12 hour brew day. There are absolutely conversions and reactions going on at the enzymatic level when a brewer pulls off part of the mash and boils it for a period of time, then returns it. 

At the end of the day, if the customer or competition judges can't tell a difference between a decocted beer and a beer that was just step-mashed, then that means that time, energy and money were all wasted, regardless if something actually changed at a laboratory level. 

The human palate isn't a laboratory so all we have to go on is our senses and perceptions. If you want to encourage people to do something that's possibly only effective in a small percentage of strains and may or may not even be perceivable, then go ahead. I'll continue to be the 'naysayer' with real world experience and pragmatic advice .


----------



## xqshaun (Mar 27, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> The Germans used to decoct their beers and on a homebrewing level, it makes a 6 hour brewday a 12 hour brew day. There are absolutely conversions and reactions going on at the enzymatic level when a brewer pulls off part of the mash and boils it for a period of time, then returns it.
> 
> At the end of the day, if the customer or competition judges can't tell a difference between a decocted beer and a beer that was just step-mashed, then that means that time, energy and money were all wasted, regardless if something actually changed at a laboratory level.
> 
> The human palate isn't a laboratory so all we have to go on is our senses and perceptions. If you want to encourage people to do something that's possibly only effective in a small percentage of strains and may or may not even be perceivable, then go ahead. I'll continue to be the 'naysayer' with real world experience and pragmatic advice .


Its not like people are having to do anything difficult. Why not just shut off the lights for 72 hours worst case scenario, you save a few Kwh. If there is no change you are no worse off.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 27, 2011)

xqshaun said:


> you are the one who is fighting. So that means Colon wins!!


What exactly did he win? I don't really give a shit if you " like" me or not !!! Yep, I have a bad attitude !!! I don't fucking care !!! It is blatenly WRONG to compare leaving a plant in total dark every two weeks to the method of 72 hours dark before harvest, much less, say it doesn't work based on doing it every two weeks so all I've really done is take the focus off the fact that it was and still is bad info. If you're just defending him, because you don't "like" my attitude, put your plants in total darkness for 72 hours every two weeks, then you can tell me who the "winner" is.


----------



## colonuggs (Mar 27, 2011)

yaaa I win......Freakin Thread police suck...hahahahhaha


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 27, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> I win...now go back to your coner and contiune to do what you do best
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's your response because you know I'm right, but if you think you're right, please explain to *all* of us how leaving your plants in 72 hours of dark every two weeks during flower is, *in any way,* related to the thread topic, much less a good idea. Show me just one other person on this site that thinks that's a good idea... and while you're at it, show me some proof that three days dark at harvest does not work. Funny, there is scientific evidence that it *does,* where is your empirical proof that it doesn't work? Or... you can just spew another one of your smart ass responses, in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## Wolverine97 (Mar 27, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> That's your response because you know I'm right, but if you think you're right, please explain to *all* of us how leaving your plants in 72 hours of dark every two weeks during flower is, *in any way,* related to the thread topic, much less a good idea. Show me just one other person on this site that thinks that's a good idea... and while you're at it, show me some proof that three days dark at harvest does not work. Funny, there is scientific evidence that it *does,* where is your empirical proof that it doesn't work? Or... you can just spew another one of your smart ass responses, in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Quit being an ass.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 27, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> If you want to encourage people to do something that's possibly only effective in a small percentage of strains and may or may not even be perceivable, then go ahead. I'll continue to be the 'naysayer' with real world experience and pragmatic advice .



There are over 3,000 strains. If only 20% of them will see the full 30% increase, that's still a lot of strains. If only 10% of them will only see a 15% increase, that's still a lot of strains. 

It is irresponsible for someone to deem something to not work or be a waste of time when if they actually tried it, and did it correctly, the full 72-hours of darkness, they could only have tried it on a infinitesimal number of the over 3,000 strains and based on their tiny sampling tell others to not waste their time, that it is not worth it, that it does not work and by doing so cost them possibly a 6% increase in THC or a 9% increase in THC or a 17% increase in THC or a 24% increase in THC or a 30% increase in THC.

Consider this. Look at how much money some people pay for their genetics, which are very often picked for high THC percentages. Then look at how much money people pay for 'designer soils' or hydro or aero setups. Add to that the 'designer fertilizers and nutrients' people pay for. Consider what some people pay for high dollar lighting and high dollar bulbs, plus those up pay even more to add UV-B lighting ..... and all the rest that people pay for in an attempt to squeeze every last percentage of THC out of the strain or strains they grow. Then add the operating costs for their setups. In some people's case that ends up being a very high total amount of money, all to try to squeeze each and every tiny bit of THC as they possibly can from their genetics 

Then there is something that can be done that will in some cases increase the level of THC tremendously, AND IT IS TOTALLY FREE TOO DO. Considering that it is free, why in the wide, wide world of sports would anyone pass it up even if it only gave them an additional 1.2% of THC, let alone the possibility of a 10% increase or a 20% increase or a 30% increase? 

If after paying so much money and going to such efforts and waiting so long and accepting the risks that goes along with growing, and that includes legitimate med patients and caregivers and dispensaries because as we all know, they are only partially legal, three quarters legal, why not take advantage of something that is totally free too do that could, and in some cases will, make a major improvement in a growers final results?

It is totally illogical to not take advantage of it and it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it, all only based on an attempt or two, that might not have been done correctly in the first place, on a few strains that resulted in their human physical senses not being capable of being positive of any increase. 


Additional: The; "*human palate*" as you call it would not be what judges any increase in THC. That would be occur in the human brain, the CB1 and CB2 receptors.


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 27, 2011)

Wolverine97 said:


> Quit being an ass.


If I'm such an ass, why don't you just ignore me? The only reason I'm still here, is to see if colinuggs will ever have the stones to admit he was wrong, or proves otherwise. So if you don't like me, shut up! If you have something to contribute in a positive way, then I'm all ears. If you want to perpetuate the stupidity I will gladly oblige you.* Your call. * If you respond, don't bitch !!! Try actually answering a question or contributing something, instead of worrying about me and defending someone who doesn&#8217;t deserve defending.


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 27, 2011)

> *The human palate isn't a laboratory so all we have to go on is our senses and perceptions. *


First of all, the above statement was in regards to decocting, but thanks for the diagram . 



Brick Top said:


> It is totally illogical to not take advantage of it and it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it, all only based on an attempt or two, that might not have been done correctly in the first place, on a few strains that resulted in their human physical senses not being capable of being positive of any increase.


Secondly, a minimum of 10 strains were tested on my end and it's laughable to think someone isn't capable of creating a 'dark space' for 72 hours. Maybe I used a closet?

But you do have a point. Other than wasting time, this 'dark period' is free to try and I would encourage everyone to try it and conduct blind tests with their patients. Younger growers have a tendency to see what they want to see which is why this hobby is full of bad practices a BS products. Cutting the fat from our growing practices and nutrient cabinets only serves to produce better results.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 27, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Secondly, a minimum of 10 strains were tested on my end and it's laughable to think someone isn't capable of creating a 'dark space' for 72 hours. Maybe I used a closet?


What I said was not at all about someone being able to find or create a dark location but instead because many people believe it is a 24-hour dark period and others a 36-hour dark period and others a 48-hour dark period. Over the years when I have seen someone ask about an extended period of light before harvesting, which has been near countless times, only a very small number of times did someone ask about the correct length period of darkness, that being 72-hours. Where I felt if you made any error it would likely be more like untold numbers of others have where they did not know the facts and believed a shorter, sometimes much shorter, length period of darkness in mind. That would of course make a difference.



> But you do have a point. * Other than wasting time,*


There you go again ... and as I said; "*It is totally illogical to not take advantage of it and it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it, all only based on an attempt or two, that might not have been done correctly in the first place, on a few strains that resulted in their human physical senses not being capable of being positive of any increase. *





> Younger growers have a tendency to see what they want to see which is why this hobby is full of bad practices a BS products.


I agree with that. That is why I am so happy that having started growing in 1972, that my 39 years, almost 4 decades now, of growing experience does not put me in that group of younger growers with so many bad practices. 

Just for curiosity's sake, how many decades have you been growing? You started growing when, in 1970-what? 74? 76? 79 maybe? Or maybe in 70 or 71, or even sometime in the 60's. I wasn't growing in the 60's. I didn't start getting high until the spring of 1968.


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 28, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Just for curiosity's sake, how many decades have you been growing? You started growing when, in 1970-what? 74? 76? 79 maybe? Or maybe in 70 or 71, or even sometime in the 60's. I wasn't growing in the 60's. I didn't start getting high until the spring of 1968.


One decade . Would you like me to post some pics? Here is a teaser and I'd love to see your girls while we're at it .


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 28, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> One decade . Would you like me to post some pics? Here is a teaser and I'd love to see your girls while we're at it .



One decade. Not bad. That beats many people here. That also means experience-wise I only have you by a little under 3 decades.

Nice looking plant? What strain is is? If it were a bit frostier and a bit 'heavier' it would look almost like a twin to some G13 x White Russian I grew a few years back. 

As for pics from me, well if I am ever in a med state and find myself three quarters legal I might go back to posting pictures, but I stopped posting pictures some years back after a handful of busts that resulted from people posting pictures on sites like this. I don't need to post pictures and ask anyone what a problem might be if I happen to have one and while I do have an ego it's not so large that I feel the need to post pictures that would basically be nothing more than saying, hey everyone, look at what I did, aren't I something, aren't I cool .. like why a fair number of people post pictures. 

So don't hold your breath waiting to see any pictures from me or else you will need to change your username to Mr. Blue.


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 28, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Nice looking plant? What strain is is? If it were a bit frostier and a bit 'heavier' it would look almost like a twin to some G13 x White Russian I grew a few years back.


It's a clone only strain called Dumpster that is popular back in Ohio. It tends to mold if I try to grow big buds on the plants, so I diffuse the growth to many medium sized buds by topping and supercropping. 



> hey everyone, look at what I did, aren't I something, aren't I cool .. like why a fair number of people post pictures.


Well, the '_hey look what I did_' pictures act as a resume of sorts. I post pictures because it's a '_if you like what you see, you may want to listen to me_' kind-of statement. On the topic at hand however, I guess we'll agree to disagree and we can also add Dumpster to the long list of strains 'dark periods' do nothing for .


----------



## dajosh42069 (Mar 28, 2011)

Well...That was thoroughly unenjoyable...
And after 8 pages of arguing, were left with THIS"



Grower #1 said:


> "If I do a 72 hr dark period for my plants just before harvest, will it help my THC increase by any percentage at all???"





Grower #2 said:


> "Perhaps....It depends..."





Grower #1 said:


> "It depends? On what?"






Grower #1 said:


> "On what strain you have."






Grower #3 said:


> "FUCK YOU, I'M JESUS ON A UNICYCLE!!!!!!!!!"






Grower #2 said:


> "...Ok, I have {INSERT STRAIN NAME HERE}, Will that work?"






Grower #1 said:


> "I'm not, your not, and we're not friends with, a scientist...... So *I* don't know! Just do it!! WTF do you have to lose??!"






Grower #2 said:


> ""





Thank you, Thank you...This has been MY rendition OF, a convo between multiple growers of cannabis.

 THERE, _now_ ppl who want *the answer* without sifting through 8 pages of arguing can just read my simplified version of it. I left in a tiny bit of conflict to mirror the original version, but I feel it's TASTEFUL.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 28, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Well, the '_hey look what I did_' pictures act as a resume of sorts. I post pictures because it's a '_if you like what you see, you may want to listen to me_' kind-of statement.


I can normally tell if someone knows what they are talking about without seeing pictures. There are a lot of people who can grow plants pretty well but when it comes to knowing plants, they don't know beans, and that shows. Plus with the maybe million or so pictures of cannabis plants online now on the numerous growing sites, and ones that could have been copied by the equally many sites that are nor defunct, virtually anyone could find a picture, or even an entire grow thread, and use all the pictures and claim them to be theirs and get away with it.

Until a few years back when I lost a hard drive I had an entire LED grow thread saved, well not all the things other people said, just all the pictures with things the person who started the thread posted. I kept it not to use to claim it was mine but to show what high quality LEDs used in sufficient numbers and used correctly could do. It was the most impressive grow thread I have ever followed.

But with that site now long gone if someone were to have the same thing as I had they could easily make it appear as if it were their grow. Use the pictures, alter some wording to bring it up to date and go with it. I never see pictures as irrefutable proof of anything. There are just too many out there to be able to assume in each case one you are looking at is as claimed too be. 




> On the topic at hand however, I guess we'll agree to disagree


After the busts that occurred on sites I was a member of, and one I was a mod on, and a local bust that happened through a site I was never a member of, but that did involve a tip-off of an upset ex-wife, and by chance not all that long after moving here I met the local Sheriff at my brother in law's house and in a casual conversation he asked where bought and I mentioned the name of the little 8 house development I live in and he went on and on about his former best friend who had moved had lived there and went on to describe the house, deck, yard and dock as well as if it were his own ... and as luck would have it, it's the house I bought ... between the combination of busts and the local Sheriff knowing my house, deck and dock as well as I did I didn't see it as all that wise to post pictures anymore .. and with not needing help from others there is no need for me to post pictures asking WTF is up?





> and we can also add Dumpster to the long list of strains 'dark periods' do nothing for


So with Dumpster added to the list, what does that make it, 10, 12, 20 or maybe even 30 of the over 3,000 existing strains that you do not believe respond to an extended period of darkness?

Just out of curiosity, was the lab that tested Dumpster after an extended period of darkness have many plants that did not receive the extended period of darkness and an equally large number of plants that did receive an extended period of darkness, or were there only a few of each .... or was the success or failure of an extended period of darkness decided from different runs relying purely on human senses and the memory of some previous run of it to go by for comparison?


----------



## VICTORYGARDENSHYDRO (Mar 28, 2011)

what knowone has mentioned is, If you run your normal cycle, then add 72 hours of darkness on top of that, you just extended your grow by 3 days, maybe some plants are just finishing better being there allowed another 3 days to grow. Just sayin


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 28, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> So with Dumpster added to the list, what does that make it, 10, 12, 20 or maybe even 30 of the over 3,000 existing strains that you do not believe respond to an extended period of darkness?


That would bring the total up to about 11 or 12 strains, which brings my batting average to 0.000. Randomly selected hybrids from different breeders and origins around the Earth all had the same results for me. How much time does one need to waste trying to make great herb even better? To that, the best way to realize the genetic potential of _any_ strain has nothing to do with dark periods and everything to do with maintaining healthy plants until harvest. How many people on this site grow healthy plants until harvest day? Probably about 5%. 

These kind of threads, IMO, focus attention on the wrong sorts of things. The vast majority of the growers around here could see more than a 30% increase in THC if they actually treated their plants better. 





> Just out of curiosity, was the lab that tested Dumpster after an extended period of darkness have many plants that did not receive the extended period of darkness and an equally large number of plants that did receive an extended period of darkness, or were there only a few of each .... or was the success or failure of an extended period of darkness decided from different runs relying purely on human senses and the memory of some previous run of it to go by for comparison?


Again, I was illustrating this with my decoction example. If you do something and no one can tell a difference, then did it actually do anything?


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 28, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> That would bring the total up to about 11 or 12 strains, which brings my batting average to 0.000. Randomly selected hybrids from different breeders and origins around the Earth all had the same results for me.


Get back to me with your batting average when you have tried it and had lab results for proof on the other more than 3,000 strains in existence. 






> How much time does one need to waste trying to make great herb even better?



Based on only 11 or 12 strains you have deemed it to be a waste of time even though there are over 3,000 more strains you have not tested it on, and not had it lab tested to begin with, and regardless of actual scientific research having proved that it does work on some strains. 

If you tried it again on another strain and there clearly was an appreciable increase would you still consider it a waste of time and say since it was' "great" before even though it made it much better it was still a waste of time? 

As I said; "*it is irresponsible reprehensible for anyone to attempt to dissuade anyone from doing it*" because by accepting your opinion on some 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 known strains they could end up with far less potent herb than they otherwise could have had. 




> To that, the best way to realize the genetic potential of _any_ strain has nothing to do with dark periods and everything to do with maintaining healthy plants until harvest. How many people on this site grow healthy plants until harvest day? Probably about 5%.


You are likely at least close to being accurate with your 5% guesstimate and I could not argue with most of the rest of what you said. But since potency is job one for most people, why should they believe your personal opinion that is based on some 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains when the; "*The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden*" have scientifically proven otherwise?



> These kind of threads, IMO, focus attention on the wrong sorts of things. The vast majority of the growers around here could see more than a 30% increase in THC if they actually treated their plants better.


Again I would not argue against that. The strain with the highest tested THC percentage in the world is no guarantee that in the hands of an unskilled grower and or one with a poor setup will end up with something half as high in THC percentage as what was tested and found to be so high in THC. It is far simpler to not grow a strain to it's potential than it is to grow a strain to it's potential. But that being the case would make an even better case for someone to give their plants an extended period of darkness before harvest. If they only grew them to 75% or 80% or 90% of their potential and by giving them an extended period of darkness before harvest if that would raise them close to or to what they could have gotten with better skill and a better setup then it would really make sense for them to do it. And if it could gain them even more, it would be worth even more to do it ... and if they grew their plants as well as they could be grown and still end up with something better, why would anyone ever willingly pass that up when it is totally free, is simpler than falling off a log and only makes you wait an additional 72-hours before you harvest? 

Oh I know why, because based om 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains your human sensory system evaluated the 11 or 12 and told you that the actual scientific research was flawed, that it was incorrect, that a bunch of PhDs with high tech equipment were all wrong and that you are totally correct.





> Again, I was illustrating this with my decoction example. If you do something and no one can tell a difference, then did it actually do anything?



So, your 11 or 12 strains that were not lab tested has in your mind proven the actual scientific research that has proven it not only works but it works to very well with some strains to be totally inaccurate, right? Your 11 or 12 strains and your human sensory system has proven a group of PhDs from the; "*The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden*" to all be incorrect and that all their high tech equipment turned out false results, right? 

You are flat out saying that you are 100% correct and the; "*The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden*" are all 100% incorrect, right? If so that is an extremely ballsy thing to claim based on your tiny sampling minus actual lab results compared to the credentials of the group of PhDs from different research facilities and the results their state of the art high tech equipment found to be factual.


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 29, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> But since potency is job one for most people, why should they believe your personal opinion that is based on some 11 or 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains when the; "*The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden*" have scientifically proven otherwise?


You really like referring to this supposed 'institute' found here: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/index.html

Where is a link to their 'study'? 

Who at SIMM has a PHD? You'd think the co-founder James Burton would have one right? But they make no mention of that: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/html/james_burton.html


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 29, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> You really like referring to this supposed 'institute' found here: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/index.html
> 
> Where is a link to their 'study'?
> 
> Who at SIMM has a PHD? You'd think the co-founder James Burton would have one right? But they make no mention of that: http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/html/james_burton.html


Do you believe that *TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden* are lacking in PhDs? They are the ones who performed the tests and found the actual increases. 

If you Google long enough, and I do mean LONG enough because when I found it, it was on something like page 93 in a search that turned up about a half million hits, you will eventually find an abstract and then if you pay you can read and download the entire research study where it takes you from step one to the very last step. 

But just for the sake of discussion lets say that most involved only has masters degrees ... along of course with all their high tech lab equipment. What do you have that equates to it or tops it? Roughly 10 to 12 strains out of the over 3,000 existing strains where you relied completely and totally on your physical senses and on those of some number of others? 

I will never be able to understand how someone can totally reject scientifically proven facts but totally believe what they have simply decided in their own minds to be factual. 

If someone knows cannabis plant functions, rather than just knows how to grow them, the basic principal behind the idea of an extended period of darkness makes perfect sense and says there has to be some increase in THC, even if in some cases it is minimal, but there has to at least be some. 

During hours of light, even under full sunlight, the energy plants have to work with is limited. During the day many functions take place, the plants multitask, and they allocate energy to the functions that are most important during daylight hours. 

During periods of darkness when plants operate on stored energy, what to make things sound simple I call operating on battery backup, most plant functions cease or are at least scaled way back. The amount of energy available is allocated towards different priorities and THC production is one of them so it receives more energy during hours of darkness then during hours of light. 

During hours of light THC is produced but some THC is also lost as it is degraded by light as it protects the delicate inner glands of glandular trichome heads. During hours of darkness, with increased amounts of energy to use, the amount of THC that was lost is replenished plus an additional amount is created so there is a long slow increase of gain and loss and gain and loss and gain and loss until the end of flowering when the amount of gain has maxed out the best it could under normal conditions of light and darkness. 

When you give plants an extended period of darkness they only perform the functions they would perform during hours of darkness. That means THC production is maximized but since the period of darkness is not broken by periods of light there is no light-caused degradation of THC. So for as long as the plants have enough stored 'battery backup' energy to use it allocates a good deal of it to THC production and continues to do so until it's stored energy is used up. 72-hours is about the longest some plants will be able to operate on 'battery backup' and after that it would just die, so that is why 72-hours is what someone shoots for. A shorter period of time would not maximize what is being done and a longer period of time would be pointless because no more could be done. 

It is the same principal as harvesting before daybreak, if growing outside, or if growing inside after the last light cycle ends manually turning off the lighting so it will not be able to turn back on before someone gets a chance to harvest and because of that there is more THC than if outdoors plants were harvested at some point in the day after the sun had come up or if indoors, harvested at some point after the lighting had turned on. 

It's the same principal but drawn out, carried out over a longer period of darkness in an attempt for plants to be able to create as much THC as they possibly can without any loss due to light degradation. 

Is that really all that difficult to understand and accept?


----------



## Illumination (Mar 29, 2011)

absolutely awesome debate...please continue...am learning so much

And good day to you both BT and HB

Namaste'


----------



## Jack Larson (Mar 29, 2011)

No dis-respect to you, HB, but you are out of your element on this one. BT is a Bulldozer and you're a smart car...Brick Top Fucking ROCKS!!!!!


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 29, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> If you Google long enough, and I do mean LONG enough because when I found it, it was on something like page 93 in a search that turned up about a half million hits, you will eventually find an abstract and then if you pay you can read and download the entire research study where it takes you from step one to the very last step.


Oh, I googled and all i found is the same 'cut and paste' on a dozen different cannabis websites about the 'SIMM and TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden' conducting a study but no one has a link to the study. Are there other studies? Are these 'results' repeatable? But again, where is a link to the study? 


> I will never be able to understand how someone can totally reject scientifically proven facts but totally believe what they have simply decided in their own minds to be factual.


Where are these facts? Testing this on 11-12 random strains and conducting blind tests where no one could tell a difference tells me enough to make the statements I've made.



> If someone knows cannabis plant functions, rather than just knows how to grow them, the basic principal behind the idea of an extended period of darkness makes perfect sense and says there has to be some increase in THC, even if in some cases it is minimal, but there has to at least be some.


Again, refer to my decoction example. 



> During hours of light, even under full sunlight, the energy plants have to work with is limited. During the day many functions take place, the plants multitask, and they allocate energy to the functions that are most important during daylight hours.
> 
> During periods of darkness when plants operate on stored energy, what to make things sound simple I call operating on battery backup, most plant functions cease or are at least scaled way back. The amount of energy available is allocated towards different priorities and THC production is one of them so it receives more energy during hours of darkness then during hours of light.
> 
> ...


This sounds great on paper but here is where I'm coming from: there are people on this site that I'll look to for growing advice, and then there are people like you who will do a lot of cutting and pasting about resin gland stuff and the history of strains etc, etc, which is helpful in it's own right. Even if you were BushyOlderGrower himself (whom first inspired me to try 72 hours of dark AND _had pictures of his grows_), I'd still be saying the same thing, even after growing his own strains and trying it on the same strains he grew. 

Theory and practice differ in a lot areas in both of my hobbies and there is a lot more to be said about brewing science and microbiology than this hobby which is illegal almost everywhere and limited in it's knowledge base. 

There are things I do because they make a difference, and there are things I skip because they don't, it's really that simple. 



> It is the same principal as harvesting before daybreak, if growing outside, or if growing inside after the last light cycle ends manually turning off the lighting so it will not be able to turn back on before someone gets a chance to harvest and because of that there is more THC than if outdoors plants were harvested at some point in the day after the sun had come up or if indoors, harvested at some point after the lighting had turned on.


I've harvested at night and I've harvested during the day. I've even dried my product in my veg room with the MH lights blaring. Again, no one could tell the difference between 'doing it the right way' and doing it how I had to do it a few times. With that being said, I prefer to harvest at night and dry in the dark but if I can't, I know it doesn't make squat worth of difference if I 'do it the wrong way'. 





> Is that really all that difficult to understand and accept?


I'm not a 'cutter and paster', I test methods, procedures and practices for the advancement of my own product and to refine the quality going to my patients. 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Every time this subject comes up, I will continue to voice my experience and no doubt you'll continue to cut and paste. People can decide for themselves if they'd rather believe 'theory' or 'real world experience'. Better yet, they can try it for themselves .


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 29, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Oh, I googled and all i found is the same 'cut and paste' on a dozen different cannabis websites about the 'SIMM and TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden' conducting a study but no one has a link to the study. Are there other studies? Are these 'results' repeatable? But again, where is a link to the study?
> Where are these facts?


After I first read about the 72-hours of darkness thing I Googled for the study. It literally took days, and days to find the abstract that then had to be paid for to read and download the full research study. It is out there, but you would never have found it in the short period of time you searched. 

If not for a total computer failure in early December where I lost years of collected links and downloaded files and untold numbers of bits of growing information I could post the study for you. But after it being to hard to find the first time I have not attempted to duplicate my efforts to find it again. 

If you would prefer to not accept the findings mentioned in the piece of the abstract that's totally cool and the gang with me, but it is irresponsible and reprehensible for you to attempt to convince others that the findings of a scientific research project are wrong just because you don't believe them to be accurate. You could cost a lot of people a lot of potency if they believe what you say. 





> Testing this on 11-12 random strains and conducting blind tests where no one could tell a difference tells me enough to make the statements I've made.


And as I have repeatedly said, you have relied strictly on human sensory capabilities rather than on high tech equipment to evaluate what you have tried and of the over 3,000 strains that are known to exist you have only tried your human sensory based experiment on 10 to 12 strains. 

Your sampling size was miniscule. It would be like if you sampled one single bottle of Merlot from one single vineyard/wine maker and based on sampling that single bottle from one single vineyard/wine maker judged every single Merlot that exists. In fact what you did would be worse since at least in the case of wine human senses are only what are used to judge quality. In the case of testing for levels of, percentages of THC gas chromatography and mass spectrometry equipment is relied on, not the capabilities of human senses. 



> Again, refer to my decoction example.


Refer to all my examples. 





> This sounds great on paper but here is where I'm coming from: there are people on this site that I'll look to for growing advice, and then there are people like you who will do a lot of cutting and pasting about resin gland stuff and the history of strains etc, etc, which is helpful in it's own right. Even if you were BushyOlderGrower himself (whom first inspired me to try 72 hours of dark AND _had pictures of his grows_), I'd still be saying the same thing, even after growing his own strains and trying it on the same strains he grew.


Yes I do C&P a lot, but have you ever stopped to consider why? Until my computer failure I had an enormous amount of stored information, some in link form and others in stored files. They were things that I had learned over the many years I have grown and things that often were asked about on sites like this and where most responses were ones like yours, opinion based and most times very short and very vague where things were not explained, where nothing was actually taught. So rather than reply like others I would go to my stored info and use it so people would receive detailed factual information that taught them things and explained things. 

That is an infinitely more precious commodity to have on a site like this than someone who forms a personal opinion based on virtually nothing in relation to actual research findings and then in short vague messages insists that their personally formed opinion is more accurate than actual research performed by people who are very highly educated and whose life work it is to perform such research.

I have only started to rebuild all that I have lost, and some of it I might never find again, but regardless of it being C&Pd each and every piece of it is of infinitely more value to someone in need of information than a short hand typed personal opinion of self created belief from anyone, which of course includes you. 





> Theory and practice differ in a lot areas in both of my hobbies and there is a lot more to be said about brewing science and microbiology than this hobby which is illegal almost everywhere and limited in it's knowledge base.


When you create apples and oranges comparisons that only muddies the water and it proves absolutely nothing. If the topic is horticultural related no information whatsoever about brewing beer will ever come close to applying. Attempting to use an analogy in an attempt to draw a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect or another between two completely different things is ludicrous. If only used in the most broad of ways, say to point out how at times things can be done different and as far as the human sensory capabilities can tell no difference will be noticed would be one thing. But if there is any attempt made to take the analogy beyond that when about two totally different completely unrelated things, then a line of absurdity has been crossed. 




> There are things I do because they make a difference, and there are things I skip because they don't, it's really that simple.



Only referring to plant matters, what might not seem or appear to make a difference to someone in no way means it does not make a difference to plants. I have four family members with degrees in horticulture. Two of them grow and two of them are their wives. I often entertain them with the various personal opinions and personal beliefs that people like you share and claim to be factual and their normal response is basically, why do I waste my time discussing things with people who have absolutely no factual knowledge of plants and plant functions? 

Saturday was my oldest niece's birthday. She is one of the four members f my family with a degree in horticulture. While her husband, also with a degree in horticulture and a damn good grower, was grilling the steaks I was telling him some of the things people say here and he was laughing like I was Rodney Dangerfield delivering my best jokes. He said what I have said many times, that people need to stop spending time on sites like this and put an equal amount of time in taking horticulture courses at a local community college or local community Jr. college or wear out a library card and the Google search engine so they could learn some true facts about plants in general that would then carry over to their growing of cannabis and they would become much, much better growers. 

On another growing site I normally have a tab open to and that I go back and forth between this one and it I made that suggestion some time back. The other day I received a PM from a member saying he did what I suggested and started taking a class in horticulture soon after I suggested that people should do it and he said almost from the very first day he was learning that things he had believed to be true and that people on sites like this always claim to be true are pure bunk.

Most people on sites like this, including growers that would be considered to be very good growers by most members, have no idea of how little they actually know. 




> I've harvested at night and I've harvested during the day. I've even dried my product in my veg room with the MH lights blaring. Again, no one could tell the difference between 'doing it the right way' and doing it how I had to do it a few times. With that being said, I prefer to harvest at night and dry in the dark but if I can't, I know it doesn't make squat worth of difference if I 'do it the wrong way'.



If you are providing others with medication you should care if what you do is done the very best way possible regardless of what anyone else might think or believe. You should be ethical enough and caring enough to do the best you possibly can to find every single detail about growing, drying and curing that has factually been proven to result, even if only in a very minor way, to result in a higher quality final product and you should do them all and you should be on a continual search to learn more, as I am, or else you should not be doing what you are doing because clearly you do not care enough about providing people in need with the very best medication they can possibly get if it means taking a step or doing something you just decided on your own is unnecessary even though it has been proven to be at least to some degree beneficial. 




> I'm not a 'cutter and paster',


Clearly you are not a cuter and paster' of factual information. Instead you ignore any and every fact that is inconvenient to you, proven things that would cause you to need to do just a little bit more than you feel like doing so you are a writer of opinions and self created beliefs and shortcuts.




> I test methods, procedures and practices for the advancement of my own product and to refine the quality going to my patients.



You are so very typical for a high percentage of members of sites like this. You like to believe that what you do are real experiments and real tests, but there is no real true experimentation taking place and there is no real testing being done, and at the same time you reject the findings of professional researchers, highly educated people whose life work it is to research and study and perform actual experiments with and then conduct actual testing on cannabis plants. 

For anyone to actually believe that their playing around with cannabis plants actually equates to or betters the research that is performed by professional researchers, highly educated people whose life work it is to research and study and perform actual experiments with and then conduct actual testing on cannabis plants is the epitome of arrogance. 



> We're going to have to agree to disagree.


I can live with that. Heck, I have to live with that about many things discussed here because so many people have become propagandized by myths and urban legends and misconceptions and half-truths and total inaccuracies and personal opinions and personally created beliefs and old hippie folklore and others want and need to believe they know more than professional researchers do that very often I am left with no other option than to agree to disagree. And while I do HATE the whole +rep system and the like thing I do have to admit that I do enjoy how often a message that comes with one or the other is like the following; "I am sure it gets old, but thanks for being here for folks that really do want to learn."

Just knowing that there are at least a few people here who want to learn is all that keeps me here. 




> Every time this subject comes up, I will continue to voice my experience and no doubt you'll continue to cut and paste.



Yep, you will hand type your personal opinions and your self created beliefs and I will likely still C&P facts. 



> People can decide for themselves if they'd rather believe 'theory' or 'real world experience'.


There you go again, attempting to rely on your worn out tactic of attempting to create a false reality in hopes of bolstering your weak position, while at the very same time out of hand dismissing my personal experience. 

What has been scientifically proven to be a fact is not, as you wish to define it and as you wish others would believe it to be, a; "theory." It is instead just as I called it, proven fact. As as for your alleged personal experience, well if it is supposed to carry any weight than mine should carry equal weight and as I said in an earlier message, I have done the 72-hours of darkness thing many times and in some cases the difference was at best negligible, but then other times the difference was more than just considerable. That fits with the research studies findings that; "SOME" strains will see as much as a 30% increase in levels of THC, which also means others will see a lesser increase and also that possibly some will have an increase that is negligible at best, possibly not enough for the human sensory system to detect but still enough to be detectable if tested using high technology gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. 




> Better yet, they can try it for themselves.


That would be good ... especially if they tried it on more than just 10 or 12 of the over 3,000 strain currently in existence. If so then there would be some people who, like you and your 10 to 12 strain attempts, would say they could not tell any difference at all and some that would say that they could tell was a minor difference and some that would say they could tell there was a fairly considerable difference and others that would say they could tell a tremendous difference.


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 29, 2011)

> *After I first read about the 72-hours of darkness thing I Googled for the study. It literally took days, and days to find the abstract that then had to be paid for to read and download the full research study. It is out there, but you would never have found it in the short period of time you searched.
> 
> If not for a total computer failure in early December where I lost years of collected links and downloaded files and untold numbers of bits of growing information I could post the study for you. But after it being to hard to find the first time I have not attempted to duplicate my efforts to find it again.
> 
> If you would prefer to not accept the findings mentioned in the piece of the abstract that's totally cool and the gang with me, but it is irresponsible and reprehensible for you to attempt to convince others that the findings of a scientific research project are wrong just because you don't believe them to be accurate. *


Lets be clear here, you keep quoting a study that you cannot reproduce the link to, nor can anyone else out of the handful of canna forums that I came across. But everyone seems to post the _exact_ same cut-and-paste about SIMM, a lab and a university and their supposed study with THC and dark periods. It strikes me as odd that with so many quoting this phantom study that no one has a link to it. Whether it exists or not makes no difference if I cannot repeat the results on my own. 



> *You could cost a lot of people a lot of potency if they believe what you say. *


Actually, if growers did exactly what I said, they'd get a hell of a lot more potency out of their product than any dark period would ever give them. 




> *Your sampling size was miniscule. It would be like if you sampled one single bottle of Merlot from one single vineyard/wine maker and based on sampling that single bottle from one single vineyard/wine maker judged every single Merlot that exists. In fact what you did would be worse since at least in the case of wine human senses are only what are used to judge quality. In the case of testing for levels of, percentages of THC gas chromatography and mass spectrometry equipment is relied on, not the capabilities of human senses. *


Actually, what I did was test 11-12 strains from different breeders with different origins around the world. If I sampled 12 merlots from around the world, odds are I'd find at least a few that I found palatable, unlike my results with the 'darkness test' which yielded no perceivable difference. If you're trying to argue that _maybe_ there was an increase in THC and we needed lab equipment to detect it because our senses couldn't, then I'd say what was the point of the increase if it's not perceivable? 



> *That is an infinitely more precious commodity to have on a site like this than someone who forms a personal opinion based on virtually nothing in relation to actual research findings and then in short vague messages insists that their personally formed opinion is more accurate than actual research performed by people who are very highly educated and whose life work it is to perform such research.*


Again, i'm not voicing an _opinion_ if I've actually tried this on a dozen strains. I'm stating my experience. It should be stated again that _you're _quoting a paper that no one seems to possess. 



> *Clearly you are not a cuter and paster' of factual information. Instead you ignore any and every fact that is inconvenient to you, proven things that would cause you to need to do just a little bit more than you feel like doing so you are a writer of opinions and self created beliefs and shortcuts.*


How many times do I have to hammer home the point that I did try this and it yielded no perceivable difference. In the grand scheme of producing an awarding winning product with knockout potency, this dark period deal ranks at the bottom and an experienced grower would agree to that. 



> *You are so very typical for a high percentage of members of sites like this. You like to believe that what you do are real experiments and real tests, but there is no real true experimentation taking place and there is no real testing being done, and at the same time you reject the findings of professional researchers, highly educated people whose life work it is to research and study and perform actual experiments with and then conduct actual testing on cannabis plants.*


You really have no idea what you're talking about here and I find the rest of your post a little insulting, especailly coming from someone who doesn't even post pictures of their current grows. 

How about this Brick: we both grow some product and send it to some members here for testing. You do your dark period deal and whatever else you've learned in your last 60 year of growing. I'll skip it like I've learned to do and we can leave it to the members to decide whose refined their craft. We're talking pure potency here, not taste, not looks, just rocket fuel potency. I'm dead serious Brick, put your herb where your mouth is.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 30, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Lets be clear here, you keep quoting a study that you cannot reproduce the link to, nor can anyone else out of the handful of canna forums that I came across. But everyone seems to post the _exact_ same cut-and-paste about SIMM, a lab and a university and their supposed study with THC and dark periods. It strikes me as odd that with so many quoting this phantom study that no one has a link to it. Whether it exists or not makes no difference if I cannot repeat the results on my own.


As I previously mentioned, if not for a total computer failure where I lost EVERYTHING I HAD, right down to family and friends email addresses, I could post the entire study. I found it some years back on a site where you had to pay to download it, and as I previously mentioned it was on something like page 93 or whatever in a search with about a half million hits. You will not find it looking through 4 or 8 or 15 or even 20 pages of Google hits. 

Just a tip for anyone who wants to learn facts, true scientifically proven facts, be prepared to spend not only hours but DAYS going through page after page after page of hits, but when you do you will eventually run across loads of scientific research findings. 

I find your comment of how you cannot duplicate the results exceedingly amusing. For one, your sampling of the over 3,000 known strains has been miniscule, some 10 to 12, and the research findings clearly stated that; "SOME" strains could have as much as a 30% increase in levels of THC. Which also means others might have a 22% increase or a 13% increase or a 7% increase or a 1.3% increase. If the tiny sampling you are relying on fell into the range of 1% or 2% you would never be able to tell the difference just smoking it and since you did not have any actual testing performed, no high technology gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry testing performed, which is how THC levels are determined, how in the wide, wide world of sports could you ever begin to know if there was some increase or not? Is your brain and or the brains of those who smoke what you grow more high tech and more sensitive and more accurate when it comes to determining levels of THC than gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry tests are? 

You know the only honest answer to that is to reply saying, 'no.' That means your few samples, your 10 to 12 strains, might have fallen into the group where only minimal gains were achieved, ones that your spider senses were incapable of determining, but that would not be proof there was no gain whatsoever nor that with other strains the full 30%, or possibly even more, would be impossible to achieve. 




> Actually, if growers did exactly what I said, they'd get a hell of a lot more potency out of their product than any dark period would ever give them.



If they did what you tell them to do, and I believe Uncle Ben has also advocated numerous times, AND did the 72-hours of darkness before harvest they would do even better than by just doing as you say to do. 




> Actually, what I did was test 11-12 strains from different breeders with different origins around the world. If I sampled 12 merlots from around the world, odds are I'd find at least a few that I found palatable, unlike my results with the 'darkness test' which yielded no perceivable difference. If you're trying to argue that _maybe_ there was an increase in THC and we needed lab equipment to detect it because our senses couldn't, then I'd say what was the point of the increase if it's not perceivable?


The Merlot example was only to point out how miniscule your sampling of strains was in relation to the over 3,000 genetically different strains that exist that you did not perform your home test on. 

And what would be the point of giving crops 72-hours of darkness before harvesting if your 10 to 12 strains had only minor gains that it would take high tech testing equipment to detect a gain in your strains? If your 10 to 12 strains had been tested and did show even a minor increase that would be proof that an extended period of darkness does in fact work. The other thing that would have been proven is that the 10 to 12 strains you grew were ones that fell into the group that saw the lowest gain in THC. Then all you would have to do it work your way through the other 3,000 plus strains and find which ones fell into the group with the highest amount of gains. 



> Again, i'm not voicing an _opinion_ if I've actually tried this on a dozen strains. I'm stating my experience. It should be stated again that _you're _quoting a paper that no one seems to possess.


No, you are voicing an opinion because you did not have any actual scientific testing performed and it is only your personal opinion that you are rely on on and want people to believe is factual. 

If you want to see the actual research study then do what I did. Spend DAYS and DAYS searching for it and when you find it pay so you can download it. It is out there, it is on the net, I found it, I had a copy of it, I read it, I know it is real. If I am ever lucky enough to be able to locate it it again I can assure you that once again I will have a copy of it and I will cut and paste it over and over and over again so finally people like you will stop claiming their personal opinion is factual. But I am not ready to sit here for DAYS and DAYS doing almost nothing everyday all day but searching like I did in the past just to placate you. If I do run across it again I will post it and I will crow about it and I will rub the noses of everyone who has claimed it to not be true in the facts. You can bet on that!



> How many times do I have to hammer home the point that I did try this and it yielded no perceivable difference.


Once was enough. The rest of the times you did it you only wasted your time because as you said you could sense; "no perceivable difference." But once again, you never had any actual testing performed and you only tried it on 10 to 12 strains our of the over 3,000 genetically different strains .... and on that tiny totally unscientific sampling and human sensory test and that alone you want to believe that there are no strains that will have an appreciable and perceivable difference let along a major difference. 

Plus you absolutely refuse to acknowledge and accept that I have used the 72-hours of darkness before harvesting thing a goodly number of times and while in some cases the results were like yours, as in if there was a gain it would have taken high tech equipment to detect it, but in other cases there clearly was an appreciable gain. 

Why is it that you like, want and need to believe that your personal experience and only your personal experience carries any weight? Over the years since I first learned about giving plants an extended period of darkness I have read messages that were like yours that said the person could not tell a difference and I have read others that said they clearly could tell there was an appreciable difference.

Why is it that you are incapable of understanding and accepting that the research findings clearly stated that; "SOME STRAINS" will see increased levels of THC up to 30%? "SOME," do you get that? Do you understand what the word; "SOME' actually means? Possibly your 10 to 12 strains did not see any increase at all, which would be virtually impossible, but for the discussion lets say they didn't. If so would your 10 to 12 strains be a large enough sampling of the over 3,000 genetically different strains to be proof positive that the scientific research findings were flawed? 

You seem to want to totally ignore the word; "SOME" and replace it with the word 'every' and because you could not physically sense any difference in your 10 to 12 strains you allegedly gave a 72-hour period of darkness to prior to harvesting you want your personal opinion to become more factual than a scientific research study. 

All I can say to that is .... WOW! 





> In the grand scheme of producing an awarding winning product with knockout potency, this dark period deal ranks at the bottom and an experienced grower would agree to that.


I would not describe it in the same way. I would describe it as being the cherry on the top that is only put there after everything else has been done and done correctly. It is only the topper, the additional treat and not something to make up for lack of skill and or poor growing habits or a shoddy growing setup. 

And as for what a truly experienced grower would actually know is that an extended period of darkness will make some difference, even if only so minor that someone like yourself would be incapable of sensing it, and it could in some cases make a very big difference. Only someone who wants, likes and needs to believe themselves to be more intelligent, more highly educated and more experienced than extremely educated professional researchers with PhDs and Masters Degrees and whose life work it is to research cannabis would ever have the unmitigated audacity to claim that their personal opinion is more accurate than the scientific research findings of extremely educated professional researchers with PhDs and Masters Degrees and whose life work it is to research cannabis. 




> You really have no idea what you're talking about here and I find the rest of your post a little insulting, especailly coming from someone who doesn't even post pictures of their current grows.


Now you have gone far beyond laughable. You are relying totally on your personal opinion and your personal opinion alone that was based on an extremely small sampling. At the same time you refuse to acknowledge and accept that my personal experience has been very different from yours. You only want your personal experience to be allowed to be factored into this. 

You also refuse to accept that while I no longer have the full research study to post that I did have it and I did read it, a number of times, and what the very short piece I posted is a piece from the abstract, it told of the key findings without going into all the long winded details, that you would mock me for posting if I did post them because it was a LONG piece and I would C&P it rather than attempt to retype it. 

Now I know that you can, and likely will, claim that my saying I used to have the full research study is like a kid saying I did my homework but my dog ate it. Well if you are thinking of going that route, keep in mind that you only have claims that you did try giving 10 to 12 different strains an extended period of darkness and could sense no increase. You can no more prove that you have ever tried it one single time on one single strain let alone on 10 to 12 strains. 

You cannot even prove that you grow cannabis. Posting pictures is not proof. It is only posting pictures. There are possibly a million or millions of pictures of cannabis plants online. There are entire grow threads from seedling to cured product that anyone could copy and use and claim to be their own. I could do it, you could do it, anyone could do it. So do not be so foolish as to believe that pictures are proof positive of anything. 

And considering how I have already explained why I stopped posting pictures some years back I can see why you now ask to see pictures from me, because you know I will not provide them and then you can create yet another false reality and claim I do not even grow or I grow but I am terrible at it. 

I have explained why I will not post pictures and I clearly stated that unless I move to a med state and become legal, at state level anyway, I will not be posting any pictures of what I grow. I don't even mention if I happen to have anything growing as any given time. Now and then I will tell about something that once happened, maybe last year or maybe two or three years ago, but it might have happened last week or it might currently be happening. But I see no reason to even let on that something might be going on here. I would rather leave anyone sniffing around thinking that if they paid a visit they would likely find the cookie jar empty rather than full. I am now into my 39th year of growing without ever having been busted and I have no intentions of having that streak broken. I plan on telling stories of growing in an old folks home some day, but not in some prison. 



> How about this Brick: we both grow some product and send it to some members here for testing.



First we would have to find out what members here have gas chromatography and mass spectrometry equipment because no physical senses testing would accurate and possibly not at all reliable, as in the case with your personal opinion based sensory testing results. 

Next, even if someone here had access to such equipment there would be a total lack of control over the process from day one until the herb was received for testing. Call me insulting if you care to but after as much of a baseless argument as you have put up I wouldn't trust you any farther than I could comfortably spit out a rat. 

To have any chance of having any results that could be considered to be definitive we would each need to grow a number of different plants and a number of different strains and then give half of each crop an extended period of darkness. There is no way anyone would know if just to make sure your baseless argument managed to seem more feasible would be for you to skip the period of darkness thus assuring no difference be found among your various strains. 

In my case you could not feel positive that I did not have concerns that my crops might not show as much of an increase and desired so for all you would know I could treat the half of the crops not getting the extended period of darkness different than the other half. I could cut back on a few things assuring they would be somewhat less potent than they otherwise would be and then after the other half of the crops were given an extended period of darkness, if real test equipment, were available my crop that was given an extended period of darkness could show an even greater increase than in the study we have been discussing. 

Lacking the proper testing equipment and all the plants grown at the same location at the same time with each having access to each others crops and watching each other to make sure no shenanigans went on, the test you proposed would not be one that anyone could put any true faith in the results. 

An intelligent person would have thought of that instantly so frankly I am stunned that you even suggested such a thing. I suppose I could be kind and say that I will just chalk up your lack of thinking things through on your being overtired at the moment. But frankly I have to believe that you thought all that through and knew it was all true but like the pictures you were looking for something you could offer knowing I would say no so you could then attempt to spin that into meaning I do not have faith in what I know to be true and that I do not have faith in my being as skilled of a grower as you and hope to regain your totally lost credibility through challenges you knew I would not accept and all the spin you could then create from my refusals. 




> You do your dark period deal and whatever else you've learned in your last 60 year of growing.


Funny ... just like so much else I have said that you decided to now absorb and accept, I clearly stated that I am now into my 39th year of growing.




> I'll skip it like I've learned to do and we can leave it to the members to decide whose refined their craft.


That would be an inane sort of test to perform even if it could be performed under a controlled environment and tested with high tech equipment. The whole exchange has been about an extended period of darkness before harvesting increasing levels of THC. If you skipped that part there would be no evidence or proof from your crop to support your personal beliefs. 

What you would be hoping for would simply be to see who can grow pot that the selected test smokers would declare the most potent, and that is not what this has been about, or did you somehow totally fail to catch on to that fact? What if I were to use lesser genetics that if properly tested would show an appreciable increase in levels of THC and you grew some killer weed? What I grew could still turn out to not be as potent as what you grew strictly due to genetics we each grew and lacking proper testing nothing would be factually resolved. You would not have proven anything in regards to the extended period of darkness thing and lacking proper testing equipment I would not have proven anything either. 

I could tell some time back that you were on the ropes and the referee needed to step in and call the fight but I had no idea that you would be do desperate to attempt to regain some slight degree of credibility as to suggest a series of things that would in no way come anywhere even half close to proving anything at all about an extended period of darkness and THC levels increasing. 

You have gone from discussing the facts, by responding with your personal opinion, to creating one false reality after another in an attempt to get yourself off the ropes and now you are suggesting absurdities that would in no way be controllable and are in some ways are not in any way related to the proven results of an extended period of darkness.

What will you do next, point to the sky and say, look, it's Halley's Comet and when I turn and look you will run away? That is about the only trick you have left to pull so should I be expecting it? 




> We're talking pure potency here, not taste, not looks, just rocket fuel potency. I'm dead serious Brick, put your herb where your mouth is.



No, that is another case of creating a false reality. It has never been about; "pure potency: or; "just rocket fuel potency." It has always been about how an extended period of darkness can in; "some strain" increase levels of THC as much as 30% without any increase in CBD or CBN. 

If I were to grow a strain that I know would show an appreciable increase in levels of THC, and lets say it turned out to be 10% or 12%, but it was a low THC strain and it was picked just because it was reliable to show an increase and you grew something with a THC level of 25%, with the sort of testing you suggest, a which is more potent contest, yours would almost certainly win. But that would not be proof that mine did not see a 10% to 12% increase in THC levels due to an extended period of darkness. The results based on what you consider to be testing would be totally bogus and 100% unreliable. 

Also, even if we did what you so absurdly suggest, absurd because it would in no way address or answer the question of an extended period of darkness working or not, we would have to grow the same strain and all from clones from the same mother. 

The reason that would be needed is I know people like myself who are lovers of pure sativas and no matter how good a hybrid or pure indica is they, like me, would not see it as being as potent as a strain that provides us with the type of high we like. The opposite would equally apply to lovers of pure indicas or lovers of hybrids that are either predominantly indica or sativa. The high from a strain that is different, possibly radically different, from what they like and consider to be potent could never be declared the more potent because it would in their minds, in their tastes, be lacking in some way or ways. 

Your challenge is as absurd as anything I have ever heard. It would totally lack any and all control, performed as you described it, in part it would not in any way address the issue of an extended period of darkness, which was the topic until you totally ran out of ammunition and attempted to change the topic, and there would be no real true testing done. 

How did you ever even begin to believe that what you came up with could ever come half close to answering the question that was the topic?

Gee, I feel really silly. Now I realize the singular reason why you came up with it. You never intended for the question of if an extended period of darkness will increase levels of THC. You only hoped to make a challenge you knew I would not accept, a series of them actually when you add the pictures, so you could then spin that into as much as you possibly could out of sheer desperation to attempt to regain even the slightest shred of credibility. 

You knew I would not post any pictures, because I clearly stated so, and you devised a challenge that was so totally absurd in that it would never come close to answering the question that this has always and only been all about, so you knew I would say no. And you felt that would then give you the ability to call me a chicken and say that I am all talk but when challenged I backed down in a second. You could of course claim those things, and more, if you first yet once again create a false reality and claim that your challenge would have shown accurate results and that all this was always only about; "pure potency" and only about; "just rocket fuel potency." If you could pull off that false reality then you could crow up a storm. 

But if anyone remembered that it was all actually about the affects of an extended period of darkness and nothing more you would rather than being able to crow end up eating humble pie.


----------



## growone (Mar 30, 2011)

interesting back and forth here, i can't really add to the detailed information, but i do see 'science' and 'fact' mentioned
the 2 don't really go together, though it's understandable that they do get tangled together
the scientific method does not produce fact, it tests theories, there is no such thing as a scientific fact
experiments may refute a theory(when negative results are observed), or may given credence to a theory(when confirming results are observed)
now a theory may become very well accepted, and may be thought of as a 'fact'


----------



## Illumination (Mar 30, 2011)

growone said:


> interesting back and forth here, i can't really add to the detailed information, but i do see 'science' and 'fact' mentioned
> the 2 don't really go together, though it's understandable that they do get tangled together
> the scientific method does not produce fact, it tests theories, there is no such thing as a scientific fact
> experiments may refute a theory(when negative results are observed), or may given credence to a theory(when confirming results are observed)
> now a theory may become very well accepted, and may be thought of as a 'fact'


An accepted and repeatable result does in fact prove theory and once peer reviewed and replicated it does become fact....the way you present it seems as though science only aims to disprove hypothetical theory when it is actually just conducted to validate theory then duplicable by peers becomes fact..while in some instances results in accepted theory unless enough empirical data derived from many sources indeed proves the theory then it does indeed become scientific fact....ie- the Earth is round...proven *fact* 


Namaste'


----------



## DrFever (Mar 30, 2011)

well i have done 72 hrs off and 24 hrs off two grows side by side and i can tell anyone from trimming both grows that the 72 hr off grow my scissors were gummed with THC i am saying sticky as a glue with the other grow there was no where as near the amount showing as i could trim 3 plants with out even dipping in alcohol 
72 hrs lights off works With afganistan Kush and i am not talkin 10 plant grows i am talkin 164 man hrs of trimming


----------



## growone (Mar 30, 2011)

Illumination said:


> An accepted and repeatable result does in fact prove theory and one peer reviewed and replicated it does become fact....the way you present it seems as though science only aims to disprove hypothetical theory when it is actually just conducted to validate theory then duplicable by peers becomes fact..while in some instances results in accepted theory unless enough empirical data derived from many sources indeed proves the theory then it does indeed become scientific fact....ie- the Earth is round...proven *fact*
> 
> 
> Namamte'


i did not mean 'science only aims to disprove hypothetical theory', that is your interpretation
this is a very slippery slope of semantics
and i will agree with you that is accepted that the earth is round is a 'fact'
but go to the commonly accepted definitions of the scientific method, and you will not see 'fact' included in it
you will see 'observations', and similar phrasing
it can be a bit confusing, because we all want certainty, the scientific method does not provide that certainty - it is(in fact) a limitation of the method


----------



## Illumination (Mar 30, 2011)

growone said:


> i did not mean 'science only aims to disprove hypothetical theory', that is your interpretation
> this is a very slippery slope of semantics
> and i will agree with you that is accepted that the earth is round is a 'fact'
> but go to the commonly accepted definitions of the scientific method, and you will not see 'fact' included in it
> ...



It is only semantics..different words attempting to express similar ideas...the limits of language are innumerable..

As to scientific methodology...it is all we have as a gauge and it has been detected that even the attempted measurements alter results...but it is more productive to use accepted conclusions of science in furtherance of this hobby in particular than by the supposed observations of ones who are emotionally involved in the hobby which will always skew the observation...

Namaste'

I love productive banter...lol


----------



## growone (Mar 30, 2011)

Illumination said:


> It is only semantics..different words attempting to express similar ideas...the limits of language are innumerable..
> 
> As to scientific methodology...it is all we have as a gauge and it has been detected that even the attempted measurements alter results...but it is more productive to use accepted conclusions of science in furtherance of this hobby in particular than by the supposed observations of ones who are emotionally involved in the hobby which will always skew the observation...
> 
> ...


amen - better living through science, and its sub branch, cannabis biology


----------



## homebrewer (Mar 30, 2011)

Brick  the overall theme of my posts is that I do things that make a perceivable difference. It doesnt matter that we dont have access to high tech lab equipment and even if said lab equipment showed slight or even decent increases in THC, if my patients cant tell a difference then I wont waste my time. 

Furthermore, Im not supplying tech equipment with medication, Im donating to humans with ailments and if dark periods provide no additional relief from chemo, what's the point? You dont have to believe me when I say I strive for the best quality, just like I dont have to believe you when you say this study actually exists or that youve actually grown and are more than just someone with access to google.

I also do not need to test all 3000 strains to determine if this works or not, hence the _sampling_. Ive grown product with origins from six different continents so when I try these cherry on top methods and cant tell a difference either way, I move on. 

Ive appreciate this discussion as Im sure a few can benefit from this who are at the point in their growing where they are doing everything correctly and can test this dark period deal themselves. But well continue to go in circles here where you continue to quote a study no one possess and Ive actually tried it with no discernible difference in quality. 



> You cannot even prove that you grow cannabis.


You're right, and you cannot even prove this study exists. 

**

**


----------



## Illumination (Mar 30, 2011)

and I must say this is quite beautiful..these plants you did NOT grow

Namaste'


----------



## DrFever (Mar 30, 2011)

here i will make a note when lights go on tonight on my plants for you saying lights out for 72 hrs on fri ) the pic is from week 3 / 4 i think ) my beside grow ending week 2


----------



## Illumination (Mar 30, 2011)

DrFever said:


> here i will make a note when lights go on tonight on my plants for you saying lights out for 72 hrs on fri ) the pic is from week 3 / 4 i think ) my beside grow ending week 2


absolutely gorgeous there!!!

Namaste'


----------



## DrFever (Mar 30, 2011)

Illumination said:


> absolutely gorgeous there!!!
> 
> Namaste'


Thank you sir i will post a pic tonight flushing tonight and lights off on next tues i can honestly swear that turning your lights off 72 hrs before harvest is a grand idea how i know this is that 72 hrs off harvest i got 1800 a pound lights off for 24 hrs i got 1300 so obviously the buyer seen the difference in the 2 
i hurt my plants with faulty CO2 regulater/ sniffers so not sure what i nailed them with but they got hurt at around 4th causing some leaf issues c02 has since stopped and corrected 
i have tryed a few different ways from having temps lights off as low as 50 i found for best results with 72 hrs off is 60 degrees and low low humidity 
Its common sense when your lights go on the THC is all over the plant as you head to morning there not there once lights go back on there there so having them 72 hrs makes total sense to me and i will continue to do this
its not about having a pretty green plant at the end its about having a pretty big yield thats kick ass


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 30, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Brick &#8211; the overall theme of my posts is that I do things that make a perceivable difference.
> 
> **
> 
> **


Beautiful plants. 

The overall theme of my posts have been that since you attempted an extended period of darkness on only 10 to 12 of the over 3,000 existing strains and with your physical senses could not sense any improvement that you went way overboard saying that an extended period of darkness does not work at all since the study did clearly state; "SOME STRAINS" and given your miniscule sampling and lack of true testing.

Had you said something like you tried it on 10 to 12 strains and you could not tell any difference but it might work on others I would never have said anything about it. But you flat out said it is a waste of time and it does not work and considering your tiny sampling and lack of testing that was just wrong of you to do. Someone out there is growing a strain that could have a very appreciable gain in levels of THC and if they believe you, you will have cost them that gain, you will have kept them from having much better results than they will end up with. 

That's the main problem I have with things you have said.


----------



## dajosh42069 (Mar 31, 2011)

Sang it Brick!!!!

You can't disprove ANYTHING. Laws of nature 
You can focus on trying to prove something, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to DISPROVE ANYTHING!!


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 31, 2011)

dajosh42069 said:


> Sang it Brick!!!!
> 
> You can't disprove ANYTHING. Laws of nature
> You can focus on trying to prove something, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to DISPROVE ANYTHING!!


Why do they have words and definitions for it then?

Definitions of *disprove* on the Web:
prove to be false; "The physicist disproved his colleagues' theories"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You do not have to prove one thing to be correct to prove something else to be incorrect, so nothing was proven unless you would say the initial belief was proven to be incorrect and there are actual words for that, disprove, disproved. Call it a matter of semantics if you wish to but the words are part of the English language and their definitions explain them and their usage.


----------



## stillgamble (Mar 31, 2011)

DrFever said:


> Thank you sir i will post a pic tonight flushing tonight and lights off on next tues i can honestly swear that turning your lights off 72 hrs before harvest is a grand idea how i know this is that 72 hrs off harvest i got 1800 a pound lights off for 24 hrs i got 1300 so obviously the buyer seen the difference in the 2
> i hurt my plants with faulty CO2 regulater/ sniffers so not sure what i nailed them with but they got hurt at around 4th causing some leaf issues c02 has since stopped and corrected
> i have tryed a few different ways from having temps lights off as low as 50 i found for best results with 72 hrs off is 60 degrees and low low humidity
> Its common sense when your lights go on the THC is all over the plant as you head to morning there not there once lights go back on there there so having them 72 hrs makes total sense to me and i will continue to do this
> its not about having a pretty green plant at the end its about having a pretty big yield thats kick ass


i might have to give this lights out thing a try im not sure if i have the 1 out of 3000 plus strains out there that this works on but if u went from 1300 to 1800 for outdoor thats great must be a big difference in the final product, assuming it was the same buyer who bought it. keep up the good work and maybe try leaving in darkness for a few more days and tell us what happens


----------



## mccumcumber (Mar 31, 2011)

Not trying to get anyone pissed, but I'm pretty sure that 72 hours dark before harvest makes sense.
DISCLAIMER: Overtime this is what I have gathered about THC production. I put up the disclaimer so the butthurt crowd won't start flaming me.
From what I've gathered about THC is that it acts as a "sunscreen," I think bricktop was the first to mention this actually and it makes very good sense.
Since light degrades THC, your plant reacts to the light that took down the THC in light period by pumping more out in the dark period, acting like a "sunscreen" for the plant for the oncoming light period. So, if one were to give their plant 72 hours of being able to apply sunscreen as opposed to the normal 12 hours, the plant has 6 repeated cycles to put on its sunscreen. Obviously doing this multiple times probably wouldn't be good for the plant, you are indeed stressing it doing this. But at the end of the harvest doesn't this make sense?


----------



## mccumcumber (Mar 31, 2011)

You can't disprove anything? Do you know what the meaning of proof is?
It's a mathematical term, as logic, at the college level and above, is no longer contained in philosophy, but in mathematics.
In order to prove a proposition, it is necessary to use a method of proof. The three most common methods are contradiction, direct, and contra-positive.
We're gonna focus on contradiction specifically.
Given the proposition, one can use the contradiction to DISPROVE the opposite of the proposition, which PROVES the original proposition.
Disproving is actually much easier than proving, because there is so much bullshit out there that's easy to point out.
Example:
Prove 2+2=4
Suppose 2+2 != 4 (!= means does not)
By the law of addition we know that 2+2=4, which means:
4 != 4
This is not true, obviously, so we have reached a contradiction. Which means:
2+2=4
QED.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 31, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> You can't disprove anything? Do you know what the meaning of proof is?
> It's a mathematical term, as logic, at the college level and above, is no longer contained in philosophy, but in mathematics.
> In order to prove a proposition, it is necessary to use a method of proof. The three most common methods are contradiction, direct, and contra-positive.
> We're gonna focus on contradiction specifically.
> ...




If something cannot be disproved why is the term used in science? This is from a USC website.


*Towards the Future: Quantum Gravity*
*Einstein's theory of gravity has never been disproved until now* (2004). Soon after it's completion, the theory of quantum mechanics was developed, a description of the world in very small scales. However general relativity seems to be incompatible with quantum mechanics and breaks down (theoretically). In most of the cases gravity is so weak that in so small scales it is ignored. However in the interior of a black hole, the huge amount of mass is not negligible. Also, this is the case at the early stages of the universe: ultra-condensed matter, lots of mass suppressed into quantum distances. At these cases a quantum treatment of gravity will be needed, although there is no way right now to test how exactly general relativity must be modified.
The other 3 forces of nature have been modified and work well under the quantum regime, and only gravity escapes for the moment. The complete theory of gravity will include eventually somehow the quantum principles; this theory of quantum gravity is the greatest challenge of our understanding of the world today.
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/gravity.htm

Maybe you would say that what was done was not that something was disproved but instead proved to be wrong ... but that is just a matter of semantics, isn't it?


----------



## growone (Mar 31, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> If something cannot be disproved why is the term used in science? This is from a USC website.
> ...


many scientific theories have been dis-proven, you simply demonstrate by experiment where the theory fails to predict correct results


----------



## mccumcumber (Mar 31, 2011)

Sorry that I made it unclear, but I was agreeing with you Brick top. I was saying that you can't disprove anything is a ridiculous statement.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 31, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Sorry that I made it unclear, but I was agreeing with you Brick top. I was saying that you can't disprove anything is a ridiculous statement.


I apologize, it was my error for not being capable of understanding you. DAMN MARIJUANA! It make clear thinking difficult at times. The stuff should be outlawed.


----------



## OhioMediGrower (Apr 1, 2011)

Hello everyone great thread for information, But the whole concept here is shock ripening right? then you all have pointed out one part of shock ripening (total darkness b4 harvest), now there is also another of getting more resin out of your plants. The method entails, replicating what mother nature does every fall and into winter. Which is the nights keep getting cooler and the hours of daylight decreases. These colder night and day temps trigger the plants to develop a coat of resin armor, to help protect the plant from the cold! So combine the three, cooler nights, decreasing daylight hours, and total darkness for the last 2-5 days, and you'll have some superbly encrusted flowers.

This is just my take on all this, not trying at all to stir anything up, just looking to maybe spark some light bulbs lol grusfraba to all 

Watch This In HD, roll on up or pack your bowl and enjoy some pretty organic flowers!
[video=youtube;KhjbcOvnkhY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhjbcOvnkhY[/video]


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

OhioMediGrower said:


> Hello everyone great thread for information, But the whole concept here is shock ripening right? then you all have pointed out one part of shock ripening (total darkness b4 harvest), now there is also another of getting more resin out of your plants. The method entails, replicating what mother nature does every fall and into winter. Which is the nights keep getting cooler and the hours of daylight decreases. These colder night and day temps trigger the plants to develop a coat of resin armor, to help protect the plant from the cold! So combine the three, cooler nights, decreasing daylight hours, and total darkness for the last 2-5 days, and you'll have some superbly encrusted flowers.
> 
> This is just my take on all this, not trying at all to stir anything up, just looking to maybe spark some light bulbs lol grusfraba to all
> 
> ...


exactly what i do as heading towards flowering stage i lower my temps to trigger 
58 - 60 degrees this giving me flowers in less then a week as we all try to replicate mother nature it also makes common sense as you head further into fall you lose 1 min per day of sunlight so what i came up with is running 12 /12 up to 4th week and from there i slowly lower my light cycle and by the end week 7 - 8 i am running 11 hrs light 13 off this is pretty straight foward stuff IMO in reality how much light can a plant really up take before it becomes wasted power 
in a day


----------



## OhioMediGrower (Apr 1, 2011)

DrFever said:


> exactly what i do as heading towards flowering stage i lower my temps to trigger
> 58 - 60 degrees this giving me flowers in less then a week as we all try to replicate mother nature it also makes common sense as you head further into fall you lose 1 min per day of sunlight so what i came up with is running 12 /12 up to 4th week and from there i slowly lower my light cycle and by the end week 7 - 8 i am running 11 hrs light 13 off this is pretty straight foward stuff IMO in reality how much light can a plant really up take before it becomes wasted power
> in a day


now thats the method! growing MJ is fairly simple just follow what mother nature does.

great post man you described my method too a tee, great in depth!

+rep for sure!


----------



## intensive (Apr 1, 2011)

i just tried 48 hours of darkness for the first time. i had just harvested acapulco gold,then took two other plants and put them in the dark after they had 12 weeks too. the trichs came out milkier looking all over and it once it was dry enough to smoke the plants in the dark were already as potent if not better, then the buds chopped first and already had two weeks to cure.


ill do it again, seemed to help, just make sure they still have airflow


----------



## OhioMediGrower (Apr 1, 2011)

intensive said:


> i just tried 48 hours of darkness for the first time. i had just harvested acapulco gold,then took two other plants and put them in the dark after they had 12 weeks too. the trichs came out milkier looking all over and it once it was dry enough to smoke the plants in the dark were already as potent if not better, then the buds chopped first and already had two weeks to cure.
> 
> 
> ill do it again, seemed to help, just make sure they still have airflow


killer strain! was it from barneys? you got some pics?


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 1, 2011)

intensive said:


> i just tried 48 hours of darkness for the first time. i had just harvested acapulco gold,then took two other plants and put them in the dark after they had 12 weeks too. the trichs came out milkier looking all over and it once it was dry enough to smoke the plants in the dark were already as potent if not better, then the buds chopped first and already had two weeks to cure.
> 
> 
> ill do it again, seemed to help, just make sure they still have airflow


Next time give them the full 72-hours that the research study found works best and you will see even better results.


----------



## bulla (Apr 1, 2011)

colonuggs said:


> Where do I live in Colorado... no
> 
> Do you know where I live ...No
> 
> ...


 fuck spelling guy that mofo can grow look at his pics lol i been looking at pics on hear for awhile and think fuck these guys go small and i know most have to go small but finaly i see someone that grows like i do NICE PICS. oh and i have not tryed the dark thing so no disrespect to either poster but i do think maybe 3 days of dark may work ill try my own test


----------



## bulla (Apr 1, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> *"The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana (SIMM), the first company to sell marijuana through the pharmacies of Holland, has been investigating the medical possibilities of cannabis, together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden.
> 
> One of their discoveries has been that to keep the ripe plants in the dark before harvesting could increase their potency.SIMMs growers separated a crop of mature plants, harvested half of them and kept the other half in absolute darkness for 72 hours before cutting and drying. Analysis of the resulting dried buds showed that some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same."*


that post is enough to make me do my own test


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 1, 2011)

DrFever said:


> exactly what i do as heading towards flowering stage i lower my temps to trigger
> 58 - 60 degrees ....... we all try to replicate mother nature it also makes common sense as you head further into fall you lose 1 min per day of sunlight


Do you attempt to replicate the temperature and hours of daylight/darkness in the area you live or the area a stain would be from or the area where the majority of the genetics in a strain would be from?

For a general example, take a strain that is equatorial , or predominantly equatorial genetics, wouldn't it's natural environment be rather different that that of the climate and number of hours of daylight and darkness in Ohio or Michigan.

So from what part of the world do you attempt to replicate Mother Nature's conditions and is it strain/genetics based or based on the climate of your area regardless of strain genetics?

What you are saying is something I always said made sense but if you were growing a strain that in nature would be grow around roughly 4 degree North latitude would you attempt to replicate those conditions or replicate Mother Natures conditions at 39 degrees or 42 degrees North latitude because that is where the grower lived?


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

what i did is got a strain rather then just grow it like most would i studied the gelogical area HIND Kush mountains and decided to ty to replicate it as best i could 

Taking the highlands of the country as a whole, there is no great difference between the mean temperature of Afghanistan and that of the lower Himalaya. Each may be placed at a point between . However, the remarkable feature of Afghan climate is its extreme range of temperature within limited periods. The smallest daily range in the north is when the weather is cold; the greatest is when it is hot. For seven months of the year (from May to November) this range exceeds 17 K (30.6 °R) daily. Waves of intense cold occur, lasting for several days, and one may have to endure a cold of &#8722;24 °C (&#8722;11.2 °F), rising to a maximum of &#8722;8 °C (17.6 °F). On the other hand, the summer temperature is exceedingly high, especially in the Oxus regions, where a shade maximum of 45&#8211;50 °C (113&#8211;122 °F) is not uncommon. At Kabul, and over all the northern part of the country to the descent at Gandamak, winter is rigorous, but especially so on the high Arachosian plateau. In Kabul the snow lies for two or three months; the people seldom leave their houses, and sleep close to stoves. At Ghazni the snow has been known to lie long beyond the vernal equinox; the thermometer sinks as low as &#8722;25 °C (&#8722;13 °F), and tradition relates the destruction of the entire population of Ghazni by snowstorms more than once.
 
Topography


The summer heat is great in the Sistan Basin, Jalalabad and Turkestan, especially Sistan. All over Kandahar province the summer heat is intense, and the simoom is not unknown. The hot season throughout this part of the country is rendered more trying by frequent dust storms and fiery winds; whilst the bare rocky ridges that traverse the country, absorbing heat by day and radiating it by night, render th
Taking the highlands of the country as a whole, there is no great difference between the mean temperature of Afghanistan and that of the lower Himalaya. Each may be placed at a point between . However, the remarkable feature of Afghan climate is its extreme range of temperature within limited periods. The smallest daily range in the north is when the weather is cold; the greatest is when it is hot. For seven months of the year (from May to November) this range exceeds 17 K (30.6 °R) daily. Waves of intense cold occur, lasting for several days, and one may have to endure a cold of &#8722;24 °C (&#8722;11.2 °F), rising to a maximum of &#8722;8 °C (17.6 °F). On the other hand, the summer temperature is exceedingly high, especially in the Oxus regions, where a shade maximum of 45&#8211;50 °C (113&#8211;122 °F) is not uncommon. At Kabul, and over all the northern part of the country to the descent at Gandamak, winter is rigorous, but especially so on the high Arachosian plateau. In Kabul the snow lies for two or three months; the people seldom leave their houses, and sleep close to stoves. At Ghazni the snow has been known to lie long beyond the vernal equinox; the thermometer sinks as low as &#8722;25 °C (&#8722;13 °F), and tradition relates the destruction of the entire population of Ghazni by snowstorms more than once.
 
Topography


The summer heat is great in the Sistan Basin, Jalalabad and Turkestan, especially Sistan. All over Kandahar province the summer heat is intense, and the simoom is not unknown. The hot season throughout this part of the country is rendered more trying by frequent dust storms and fiery winds; whilst the bare rocky ridges that traverse the country, absorbing heat by day and radiating it by night, render the summer nights most oppressive. At Kabul the summer sun has great power, though the heat is tempered occasionally by cool breezes from the Hindu Kush, and the nights are usually cool. At Kandahar snow seldom falls on the plains or lower hills; when it does, it melts at once.
e summer nights most oppressive. At Kabul the summer sun has great power, though the heat is tempered occasionally by cool breezes from the Hindu Kush, and the nights are usually cool. At Kandahar snow seldom falls on the plains or lower hills; when it does, it melts at once.


----------



## hoagtech (Apr 1, 2011)

DrFever said:


> what i did is got a strain rather then just grow it like most would i studied the gelogical area HIND Kush mountains and decided to ty to replicate it as best i could
> 
> Taking the highlands of the country as a whole, there is no great difference between the mean temperature of Afghanistan and that of the lower Himalaya. Each may be placed at a point between . However, the remarkable feature of Afghan climate is its extreme range of temperature within limited periods. The smallest daily range in the north is when the weather is cold; the greatest is when it is hot. For seven months of the year (from May to November) this range exceeds 17 K (30.6 °R) daily. Waves of intense cold occur, lasting for several days, and one may have to endure a cold of &#8722;24 °C (&#8722;11.2 °F), rising to a maximum of &#8722;8 °C (17.6 °F). On the other hand, the summer temperature is exceedingly high, especially in the Oxus regions, where a shade maximum of 45&#8211;50 °C (113&#8211;122 °F) is not uncommon. At Kabul, and over all the northern part of the country to the descent at Gandamak, winter is rigorous, but especially so on the high Arachosian plateau. In Kabul the snow lies for two or three months; the people seldom leave their houses, and sleep close to stoves. At Ghazni the snow has been known to lie long beyond the vernal equinox; the thermometer sinks as low as &#8722;25 °C (&#8722;13 °F), and tradition relates the destruction of the entire population of Ghazni by snowstorms more than once.
> 
> ...


I love doing that. Finding an areas export and dialing in the conditions.
This is how im gonna get my pineapple plants going. 

You just replicate the humidity, temperature, and weather variances, and adjust a little for atmospheric pressure and elevation and your good. 

I wonder what grows in zimbabwe and madagascar? cool stuff

As far as the topic is concerned. Using dark periods in a large grow could save you a lot of money in electricity. Calculate a few years worth of grows and your saving thousands. Its very appealing


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 1, 2011)

DrFever said:


> what i did is got a strain rather then just grow it like most would i studied the gelogical area HIND Kush mountains and decided to ty to replicate it as best i could



So if it were a Thai strain you would best attempt to replicate the climatic conditions and lengths of day of Thailand and the same if it were from Panama. 

That is how I always figured if someone were to try to mimic nature the thing to do would be try to come as close as possible to mimic the conditions the genetics came from, or where the predominant percentage of genetics came from. 

The reason I asked is I have seen people attempt to mimic nature, temperatures and the length of day, but they would be mimicking their own conditions, their own area, like they were growing outdoors where they live, and it always made more sense to me if someone were to attempt to replicate conditions it should be what would be more natural for a strain.

But then I always wondered if any mimicking really made much if any difference because so many times I have read where a breeder would get some strain from some part of the world and the first thing they would do is acclimatize it making it used to their area or even indoor growing and I wondered if once that was done any mimicking of conditions of where the strain had originally come from would help or not or make things better or not.


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

yup thats what i do i have dropped temps almost freezing and excessive fans blowing hard i run temps sometimes as hot as 90 degrees and fluctuate i dont care what people say about stressing once you start to learn where your plant comes, from humidity levels weather fluctuations and what ever its no different then you and I your from the great white north and all of a sudden you moved to a humid dry and hot place my friend it would be aweful 
no different to a plant i am talking a pure genetic plant with all the crosssing thats out there now it can be difficult and you try to stay inbetween all there paramaters thats why the norm now is to keep plants in the 72 to 80 degree temps 40 percent humidity and no less then 60 degrees lights off to all thats a safe area to stay in 
i hope you agree on me with this as when your crossing sativa with indica dominent plant what might be good for the sativa may harm the indica side of the strain and vice versa 
it all comes down to how breeders have really messed up in reality


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

here i just took some pics of my room temps etc


----------



## dajosh42069 (Apr 1, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> I apologize, it was my error for not being capable of understanding you. DAMN MARIJUANA! It make clear thinking difficult at times. The stuff should be outlawed.


Since everyone seems to think they're the next fucking mr wizard....

Brick, can you PROVE to me, that you can't fly?
You CAN prove that you CAN fly, but you can NEVER prove to me that you CANNOT.

I mean, you can jump off a cliff and NOT take to the air, but I could argue that you died to protect your secret.
There is no way to prove what things AREN'T, you can prove what they are.
(And before anyone tried to tear that apart, i know he can't fucking fly, it's an example)


So I guess what I SHOULD HAVE SAID, was that you can not prove a negative...
Feel free to argue if you desire, but I don't think i'll be arguing back...since it's really not worth my time.


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

dajosh42069 said:


> Since everyone seems to think they're the next fucking mr wizard....
> 
> Brick, can you PROVE to me, that you can't fly?
> You CAN prove that you CAN fly, but you can NEVER prove to me that you CANNOT.
> ...


dude your a idiot Brick top is probably if not one of the most knowledgeable people on this site and your talkin smck to him guys like you make this site what it is today what he suggested 72 hrs off lights and you think its false just keep growin with your CFL's and STFU and smoking your popcorn nuggets 


well i can i trim 2 plants and get a pound + so does lights off really work


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

Originally Posted by *dajosh42069*  
Alright, was debating posting one of these, but I'm finally caving and doing it anyway.

As the title says, i'm growing;
4x Master Kush (Clones) [100% Indica]
1x Purp Strain (Bagseed) [Unknown]


I'm using Fox Farms Ocean Forest, and they're currently vegging out under 13x 26W CFL's
4x 5000K 1660L, 9x 6500K 1600L (So it rounds out to just under 25000 Lumens in a 4 sq ft area. (The lights themselves are an inch (in some cases less) from the lights,

hahaha i was right fckin noob try 10,000 watts fckn clown like you is what gets me

PS : i forgot to say doesnt matter what you do just doesnt matter just make sure mom doesnt get mad her bill went up 20.00


----------



## DrFever (Apr 1, 2011)

DrFever said:


> Originally Posted by *dajosh42069*
> Alright, was debating posting one of these, but I'm finally caving and doing it anyway.
> 
> As the title says, i'm growing;
> ...


dam i forgot i got more power in my clone room


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 2, 2011)

dajosh42069 said:


> *Since everyone seems to think they're the next fucking mr wizard....
> *
> 
> Brick, can you PROVE to me, that you can't fly?
> ...



If a scientist, an inventor one day says he developed an engine that can run off of water, any water, saltwater, freshwater, well water, city water, scummy pond water, swamp water, rainwater, toxic water, polluted water, martian water (if it exists) absolutely any kind of water that exists ... so you fill the tank with water and it doesn't work. The engine is torn down and every single piece of it, electronics and all are checked and in perfect condition so it is reassembled flawlessly and the water tank, which had been emptied and inspected, is filled with water again and once again it does not work. Once again everything is checked .... all is in perfect condition, there are no flaws in anything, including assembly, and no matter how many times it is tried, it does not work.

You disproved what the inventor's design was claimed to be capable of doing. You proved his design/invention does not work. 

Also, maybe you missed the message from USC where the word disproved was used. I guess you are more of a Mr. Wizard than the science department at USC. 



> *Towards the Future: Quantum Gravity*
> *Einstein's theory of gravity has never been disproved until now (2004).*
> 
> http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/gravity.htm





Now what you likely did prove with your message was that your father and mother are also brother and sister.


----------



## dajosh42069 (Apr 2, 2011)

DrFever-

You make me sick. You have no fucking idea what your talking about. I was agreeing with Brick in my first post. And was irritated by the rude comments that followed in my second. I agree with him 100% on the 72 hour thing you fucking dolt.

And your obviously one of those people who's so full of themselves, they don't remember what it was to not have a setup completed. 
YOU are truly whats wrong with not only this site, but society in general. Without understanding a situation, you've proceeded to butt in, and start saying the worst things you can.

You seem like the kinda person to hear a women say "He hit me!" and run over and start talking shit to whatever guy she's with "Oh what! Try that on me!"
Which SOUNDS noble, except that you have NO FUCKING CLUE whats going on, and if what's being said is even that you thought it to be.
I honestly hope you die in a fire, or in prison, either is likely with the kind of person you are.


Brick Top-
I truly expected more from you. If you disagree with something i've said, please do so in a respectful manner...maybe your used to arguing with people in forums, and brow bashing anyone who says something you believe to be incorrect. But with your "40+ years of experience" I'd certainly hope you learned a little fucking decency.

Shit like....


Brick Top said:


> *Now what you likely did prove with your message was that your father and mother are also brother and sister. *


...is wholly unnecessary.
And reminds me of something my 18 year old sister might say to someone whom she truly despised.

I retract my statement about disproving negatives, simply because i've no interest in discussing things with people who know can't make their points in a decent manner...My "Mr Wizard" comment was in no way comparable to the statements made by you two in your attempts to insult me.

DrFever - Your less then a person to me I've nothing more to say on the matter.

Brick Top - You truly shame yourself in the way you've come to start talking to people. But, have fun picking my post apart into quotes and explaining 1 by 1 why everything I said was wrong and why *I'm *the bad person.

But I certainly won't be reading it.


----------



## sso (Apr 2, 2011)

dont feed the troll, its a good line.
why? troll comes in anger, trying to start a fight. because hes angry and anger makes you stupid.
you get angry back and the stupidity doubles.
better to let the troll calm down, it can be polite or fuck off.


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 2, 2011)

dajosh42069 said:


> Brick Top-
> I truly expected more from you. If you disagree with something i've said, please do so in a respectful manner...maybe your used to arguing with people in forums, and brow bashing anyone who says something you believe to be incorrect. But with your "40+ years of experience" I'd certainly hope you learned a little fucking decency.


I do need to correct you on something you said before I go on. I am now into my 39th year of growing so if that is the "experience" you were referring too, you were incorrect. If you were talking about toking experience, you're; "40+ years of experience" is close enough since I now have 43 years of that. 

As to what you defined as; brow beating." Welcome to the real world sonny Jim. If you're expecting life too be like an episode of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood you're in for a very rude awakening. 

Now if I misunderstood your earlier message, I apologize because evidently that was my error. Evidently I missed something in your phraseology because it did not come across as being in agreement. When you finished by saying; "*Feel free to argue if you desire, but I don't think i'll be arguing back...since it's really not worth my time*" that made what you said appear too be even less in agreement with me because why would I have any reason to argue with you had you just made it clear that you were in agreement with me?

As for decency, I cannot remember the last time I ever heard anyone complain about someone's decency, or lack thereof, and call it; "fucking decency." Since decency means the quality of conforming to standards of propriety and morality tossing in a; "fucking" while on a rant about a lack of decency is rather the opposite of decency, it is somewhat hypocritical, so, which would you prefer too be, the pot or the kettle? 

If you don't mind I would like too be the pot. I just like the word better than kettle. 




> Shit like...





> Originally Posted by *Brick Top*
> *Now what you likely did prove with your message was that your father and mother are also brother and sister.*






> ...is wholly unnecessary.


Since you showed such incredibly munificent decency towards me by prefacing your message to me with: "*Since everyone seems to think they're the next fucking mr wizard...."*I thought what I said was fitting. Not necessarily kind, but still fitting. Frankly you were lucky that I was in a good mood at the time or else I likely would have said something very rude rather than just humorously rude. 



> And reminds me of something my 18 year old sister might say to someone whom she truly despised.


Something tells me that your 18 year old sister and I would hit it off famously. 



> I retract my statement about disproving negatives, simply because i've no interest in discussing things with people who know can't make their points in a decent manner...My "Mr Wizard" comment was in no way comparable to the statements made by you two in your attempts to insult me.


First, since you seem to be the decency Nazi you should at least had the decency to separate what each of us said from the other and responded to each separately rather than lumping us together. Second, your comment about how you see your; "Mr. Wizard comment" is only your opinion based on how you want it to be seen and how you would like too believe it should have been received by me. Not being on this end of the internet you have no way of knowing how it was received. You give your comment far too little weight, but that could only be expected because after starting out rude and my returning your degree of kindness you now wish to appear to be the injured party. 



> Brick Top - You truly shame yourself in the way you've come to start talking to people. But, have fun picking my post apart into quotes and explaining 1 by 1 why everything I said was wrong and why *I'm *the bad person.


Since you have only been here roughly three months I can see why you would not have known that I have not just begun to talk to people like this. I have always talked to people like this if and when they gave me just cause. I have and do here and I do on the other sites I am a member of and I did at sites I used to be a member of that are now defunct. That is one reason why I chose the username Brick Top. Because the character was a straight talking rough old cob who did not mince words and who did not give a damn if he offended someone he did not give a damn about. 

If someone treats me well I will be so sweet that I will make sugar taste like salt. But if someone does not treat me well ..... well ... they will not find much pleasure in what I say.



> But I certainly won't be reading it.


Do you promise? Will you pinky swear on it? Because in your last message you said; "*Feel free to argue if you desire, but I don't think i'll be arguing back...since it's really not worth my time.*" but I'll be darned .... here you are again ... after saying that it's not worth your time you went ahead and wasted your time and argued anyway. 

"Since everyone seems to think they're the next fucking Mr. Wizard," which you proved includes you.


----------



## OhioMediGrower (Apr 2, 2011)

this is when i butt out lol have fun arguing


----------



## mccumcumber (Apr 2, 2011)

> *
> Brick, can you PROVE to me, that you can't fly?
> You CAN prove that you CAN fly, but you can NEVER prove to me that you CANNOT.
> 
> ...


The way you are defining proof is totally incorrect. Yes he can prove that he can't fly because he is a human, humans cannot fly they don't have that capability QED. Magic does not apply to the real world, and it most certainly does not apply to proofs.


> * (And before anyone tried to tear that apart, i know he can't fucking fly, it's an example)
> *


The fact that you would use that as an example is setting yourself up for failure. You are proving that you have no idea what the word proof means.


> * So I guess what I SHOULD HAVE SAID, was that you can not prove a negative...*


Yes you can prove a negative. I will use my addition example again.
Theorem: 2 + 2 != 5 (!= means does not equal)
Definition: A number *N*'s value is defined by the collection of elements in its set, e.g. 2 is the set containing the empty set and two unique elements. (The empty set's numerical equivalent is 0, every set contains the empty set, this is an axiom. For future reference, assume that the empty set is contained in each set.)
Definition: *Addition* of numbers *N *and* M* will give a set *R* that has all the elements of each set *N *and *M *in it. e.g. The sum of 3, the set containing three unique elements, and 2, the set containing two unique elements, is a set with five unique elements, or the number 5.
Proof: This proof will be done by contradiction. Assume 2+2=5
From the definition above we know that 2+2 is equal to the set with 4 unique elements or 4, which gives:
4=5
Using the definitions above we can state that the set containing 4 unique elements is equal to the set containing 5 unique elements. This is a contradiction, therefor 2+2!=5 QED. We have proven that 2+2!=5, OR, if you would like to phrase it differently, we have disproved, through contradiction, that 4=5. 

That is the proper way to prove something. You can't just pull shit out of your ass like bricktop can fly, he maybe holding back some secret. That's an incredibly stupid example. There are axioms, undeniable truths, that apply to everything in our Universe. You use these axioms to prove other truths about occurrences that happen in our Universe. Using axioms is also how you disprove a credited theory in our universe. If a theory violates a newly discovered axiom, then the theory must be altered to work with all of the known axioms. Look at gravity, it went from Newtonian gravity to General Relativity because Einstein discovered that time is a dimension and that the fastest anything could travel is the speed of light. Newton's idea that gravity is instant was found to be untrue, so Einstein disproved Newtonian gravity and proved his theory of General Relativity, which is now found to violate another newly found axiom. It's how we develop theories, if you're not following the correct manner in which to prove something, then you aren't saying anything.

If you try to prove something without use of an axiom, like humans can fly, you're already barking up the wrong tree. Lots of teenage "philosophers" have a tendency to do this. Try to prove something while ignoring axioms completely, saying something like: "you never know, it could happen." Problem is, we do know. It's fine to voice an opinion, but you should know what you're talking about before starting an argument.


----------



## Illumination (Apr 2, 2011)

Well BT all I can say is every time I asked you for help you helped and never steered me wrong....

Namaste'


----------



## Justin00 (Apr 7, 2011)

i will also give BrickTop props, all info he game me when i started growing and having probs was spot on. thats not to say i would folo his every command, but you can bet if he say it it will work to some degree. his statements on here do not seem at all over the top and he offers fairly reasonable proof to support his methods. It also seems like there is little to no down side to this even if there is no benefit. Am i going to expierment with it on this grow? most likely not since i don't have a control room set up to personally validate my results but will i try eventually ... For SURE. 

Im also messing around with some UVB CFLs this round and interested in what effects UVB + 72 hours dark could lead to.


----------



## Jack Larson (Apr 7, 2011)

Well, after an exhaustive search, I have found several quotes about this study that the Stitching Institute did. However, after being unable to procure the actual study itself and the results, I decided to contact the institute directly and was told all postings of this study and its findings had been completely removed from the internet as the result of a lawsuit. And that they could not elaborate. Well, this has peaked my interest even more. Why would anyone sue over the results of a study? In the end, just because the study isn't available, doesn't mean that the findings are any less valid.


----------



## DrFever (Apr 7, 2011)

well i just finished with 3 days lights off and i am very pleased with it all buds were tight as hell and sticky wish i had a decent camera to take close-ups but i believe it works and if it doesnt whats three more days waiting for the dreaded trim which i cant stand anyways )


----------



## Jack Larson (Apr 7, 2011)

Turns out the specific study may have had nothing to do with the lawsuit, per se, but rather money as usual...
*Holland**: Lawsuit*
The Stichting Institute of Medical Marijuana (SIMM) announced on 3 February that it has filed a lawsuit against the Office of Medical Cannabis of the Health Ministry. The SIMM was one of the two legal providers of medical cannabis for the Office and now believes that the Office of Medical Cannabis has acted unfairly in terminating the contract with the SIMM, leaving Bedrocan the only supplier. SIMM said it made a very large financial investment in order to comply with government standards of producing medicinal cannabis and now has suffered tremendous financial loss. (Source: Press release by SIMM of 3 February 2005)


----------



## Wolverine97 (Apr 7, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> Turns out the specific study may have had nothing to do with the lawsuit, per se, but rather money as usual...
> *Holland**: Lawsuit*
> The Stichting Institute of Medical Marijuana (SIMM) announced on 3 February that it has filed a lawsuit against the Office of Medical Cannabis of the Health Ministry. The SIMM was one of the two legal providers of medical cannabis for the Office and now believes that the Office of Medical Cannabis has acted unfairly in terminating the contract with the SIMM, leaving Bedrocan the only supplier. SIMM said it made a very large financial investment in order to comply with government standards of producing medicinal cannabis and now has suffered tremendous financial loss. (Source: Press release by SIMM of 3 February 2005)


Got a link?


----------



## Jack Larson (Apr 7, 2011)

Wolverine97 said:


> Got a link?


http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/Press_release_February_2005.doc

This time the google search took me to a different doc. which goes into a bit more detail. Pretty interesting...I imagine the study we have been discussing was costly and that's why the study is no longer available on the web, as it is part of the litigation.


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 8, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> http://www.medicalmarijuana.org/Press_release_February_2005.doc
> 
> This time the google search took me to a different doc. which goes into a bit more detail. Pretty interesting...I imagine the study we have been discussing was costly and that's why the study is no longer available on the web, as it is part of the litigation.


That would explain why I have never been able to find it again. I used to have the entire study findings, years back. I found it some time before the original Cannabis World went down and that was, if I remember right, in Jan. of 2006, and I found it over a year before that. 

I had heard there was a lawsuit but I never read any details about it and never put two and two together as the one was the reason for the other to be impossible to find again.


----------



## Jack Larson (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm sure there must be a copy of this study Somewhere...whether on disc or on paper. I'm gonna keep looking. I'll probably start by going over the old Over Grow archives. Any other suggestion? I'm on a Mission from God just like Elwood!


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 9, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> I'm sure there must be a copy of this study Somewhere...whether on disc or on paper. I'm gonna keep looking. I'll probably start by going over the old Over Grow archives. Any other suggestion? I'm on a Mission from God just like Elwood!


And Jake ... don't forget Elwood's brother 'Joliet' Jake. 

I am positive the full study exists, but I have searched and searched and searched to find it again and I have been unable to. When I found it the first time it took FOREVER and was finally found on something like page 80 of a Google search .. and then it was one of those sites where they show an abstract and I had to pay something like $20.00 to be able to download the full study. 

I doubt it is on the net any longer. Someone somewhere might have it on disc, but if anyone here had it on disc, or on any other site like this that I used to or now do hang out on where the topic has come up NUMEROUS TIMES, someone would have posted it long before now. 

In my case it is one of those wanting to kick myself in the ass for not saving it to disc things. Just like when I lost YEARS of collected information and research and links all about growing when my computer died last December I lost the study when I ended up with a virus I could not remove and the local techies could not remove and nothing on my drive could be salvaged and the only thing to do was to reformat my drive ... and poof ... it was gone. Like my computer dying last December I wrongly had faith that I would not have a major problem and lose everything .... but I did and I have tried repeatedly, spending hours at a time searching, and I have not been able to find the information again. 

But if I ever do ... I will post it in a split second and put an end to all the claims that say it's all bull .. an likely crow a bit while doing so.


----------



## homebrewer (Apr 9, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> But if I ever do ... I will post it in a split second and put an end to all the claims that say it's all bull .. an likely crow a bit while doing so.


That would be great. But in the meantime, you should put an end to your claims that it actually does work .


----------



## Wolverine97 (Apr 9, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> That would be great. But in the meantime, you should put an end to your claims that it actually does work .


Oh come on.


----------



## Jack Larson (Apr 9, 2011)

I tried it on "The Purps" + it worked = FACT! A "claim" to you , a fact to me , at this point I think it's more about you taking on Brick than weather or not the method works . "WHY?"


----------



## Brick Top (Apr 10, 2011)

Jack Larson said:


> I tried it on "The Purps" + it worked = FACT! A "claim" to you , a fact to me , at this point I think it's more about you taking on Brick than weather or not the method works . "WHY?"


I am glad to hear that you had a strain it worked and worked well on. 

What I keep saying about the extended period of darkness thing, and MANY try very hard to ignore, is that the study found that; "SOME strains" would see as much as a 30% increase. 

That means that; "SOME strains" might see a 22% increase or an 18% or a 11% increase or maybe a 4% increase or maybe a .2% increase and maybe; "SOME strains" might not see any increase, thought that is almost a virtual impossibility, but the point is just because someone tries it on 'the strain they grow or on a small handful of the over 3000 known strains' and they are unable with their physical sense able to tell a difference that is in absolutely no way evidence, let alone actual proof, that an extended period of darkness will not result in some gains and that in; "SOME strains" it could be as high as 30%. 

"SOME strains" does NOT mean ALL STRAINS and; "SOME strains" might only see minimal gains. I do admit that. Others who love to claim it all to be a farce and that it does not work at all NEED to admit that it WILL cause increases in at least; 'SOME strains" and in some cases the increases could be very appreciable. Between it having been scientifically proven and so many people having tried it on their own over the years and were capable of clearly telling there was an increase, those combined should be acknowledged rather than ignored and only the opinion of the individual considered to be proof and all important and the singular deciding factor.


----------



## homebrewer (Apr 10, 2011)

Personally, I would really like someone to find this 'study' because I'm hoping they explain why this method only worked on _some_ strains. Did they say it was more likely to work on sativa dominant strains or indica dominant strains or strains that were from a certain region? How many strains did they actually test? If there isn't some sort of parallel that can be drawn at the end of the study explaining why it worked on certain strains and didn't on others, then that 'study' was really a waste of money (which is probably the reason why they're charging for the results). 

I'm subscribed to this thread in hopes this paper pops up somewhere....


----------



## cassinfo (Apr 16, 2011)

I give my gals plenty of TLC and less stress as possble. They reward me with donkly dicks and i love it. no homo.


----------



## gish grower (Jun 21, 2011)

i did the 72hr thing but wha do i know???


----------



## hoagtech (Jun 22, 2011)

I haven't kept score lately. Who is actualy doing and has it worked effectively?


----------



## Jack Larson (Jun 22, 2011)

hoagtech said:


> I haven't kept score lately. Who is actualy doing and has it worked effectively?


I still do it with The Purps but I havent seen a differance in any other strains, Cheese is the only one I haven't tried it on yet.Last time I did it with Purps I saw a little White Powdery Milldew, next time I will increase air circulation.I flush, so soil was very wet.


----------



## Alex Kelly (Jun 23, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Personally, I would really like someone to find this 'study' because I'm hoping they explain why this method only worked on _some_ strains. Did they say it was more likely to work on sativa dominant strains or indica dominant strains or strains that were from a certain region? How many strains did they actually test? If there isn't some sort of parallel that can be drawn at the end of the study explaining why it worked on certain strains and didn't on others, then that 'study' was really a waste of money (which is probably the reason why they're charging for the results).
> 
> I'm subscribed to this thread in hopes this paper pops up somewhere....


I know that you are very against this method HB but have you ever seen anything to make you believe that a couple days of darkness would be detrimental to your plants in any way?

Another thought: I have a hard time understanding how this proccess would only effect certain strains... From what I have seen and read, IF this proccess of extended periods of darkness before chop works, than this would be due to the Trichromes upping their THC content and size during the dark cycle, as they would every night, in order to protect the plant from the harmful rays of the sun during the daytime (through reflection). If this is the case, than there would be some sort of noticeable increase in THC in any cannabis plant that was left in darkness for 2-3 days before harvest. I see this theory either working on every cannabis plant or none of them.

I have to agree that there is *STILL* no correct answer to this question because no real scientific evidence has ever been provided, but even if this magical study ever is dug up I don't think that I could take it as the holy gail that answers all of our questions. No one's been able to find this for at least a year (that's how long ago I first heard about it from BT), and it has seemed to disappear because of a "lawsuit" or something, I would not be able to accept it as an accurate study of the cannabis plant and how extended periods of darkness effect daily THC production. Just my .02. Cheers.


----------



## homebrewer (Jun 23, 2011)

Alex Kelly said:


> I know that you are very against this method HB but have you ever seen anything to make you believe that a couple days of darkness would be detrimental to your plants in any way?


Assuming you're not missing the 'harvest window' and you're not subjecting your plants to a situation where mold may take over, this so called method wont hurt plants. But just like the nail-through-the-stalk, feeding plants sugar and other such fallacies I've come across, I've tried to make a habit of only doing things that improve yield and quality. I'd recommend everyone try it, but are you growers out there skilled enough to be consistent in your daily, larger scale perpetual harvests to tell a difference between the dark cycle plant and every other one you take down? Lack of consistency is the reason why so many growers out there are using rip-off products because they attribute one decent harvest to the $100/litre bottle of junk they were sold.


----------



## Wolverine97 (Jun 26, 2011)

homebrewer said:


> Assuming you're not missing the 'harvest window' and you're not subjecting your plants to a situation where mold may take over, this so called method wont hurt plants. But just like the nail-through-the-stalk, feeding plants sugar and other such fallacies I've come across, I've tried to make a habit of only doing things that improve yield and quality. I'd recommend everyone try it, but are you growers out there skilled enough to be consistent in your daily, larger scale perpetual harvests to tell a difference between the dark cycle plant and every other one you take down? Lack of consistency is the reason why so many growers out there are using rip-off products because they attribute one decent harvest to the $100/litre bottle of junk they were sold.


I agree with you that most growers aren't astute enough to be able to determine on their own whether the 72 hours of dark makes a difference in potency, but it does seem to reduce chlorophyll levels somewhat. That, in and of itself is reason enough for me.


----------

