# light and airy buds??



## seaniken (Sep 8, 2008)

I have harvested, and dried one of my plants (a little early but trichs were cloudy). Why are they SO light? All the bud I have bought in the past is usually somewhat dense-very dense. Could it be because I harvested somewhat early? It still delivers a nice high but I wish they were more dense. I have 3 more plants that are late bloomers so Im asking to see if I can do anything to make those more dense. PLEASE HELP! Any suggestions would be GREAT!


----------



## GrowingPA (Sep 8, 2008)

The more light that get to the buds the denser they are going to get. I would try to water with molasses to help densin the buds.But one of the main factors is light describe the area around your plants, this maybe the main factor. Im not sure but i believe soil also plays a factor in the density of the bud.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 8, 2008)

hmmm... I guess that could be. Im growing with CFL's but I have 3 plants right now with 15 - 46w bulbs. So light shouldnt affect it right? Im growing in store bought soil but currently Im feeding it Green Light Super Bloom once every 10 days or so. Two teaspoons per gallon. The plants are healthy otherwise. How do I feed molasses? Like just regular store bought molasses?


----------



## seaniken (Sep 8, 2008)

Someone please help!!!


----------



## Phinxter (Sep 8, 2008)

thats the reason ... cfls will always give you fluffy buds
hps will deliver the dense nugs you are after


----------



## seaniken (Sep 9, 2008)

i disagree. Only because of the CFL journals Ive seen on this site and some of the incredible buds they have produced. If they can grow great buds with CFL's shouldnt I be able to do the same? Do any CFL growers wanna chime in on what this could possibly be?


----------



## Dirtyboy (Sep 9, 2008)

It could be that they were not finished. The last 2 weeks is when they put on the weight. They should be thick with your light just maybe not that big.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 10, 2008)

Thats definitely understandable. They may not have been finished. I have 3 more growing and I WILL NOT pull them early. Any tips on the final stages? What's this I hear about molasses? Is it just regular store bought molasses? How is it fed?


----------



## KushKing949 (Sep 10, 2008)

molasses is a flowering ladies best friend haha 1 tbl spn per gallon 
the brand to get is "grandmas all natural unsulphured molasses" hope this helps.


----------



## husalife (Sep 10, 2008)

Almost same problem here seaniken, my plants are growing strong and are nice and thick and covered with crystals, BUT, I clipped one big bud and hung it to dry after two days it had shrank sooo much and has air spots all in it instead of being spongy like the nugs i buy, my light is the Sun though.


----------



## ThaGreenBandit (Sep 10, 2008)

Just a noobie myself, but from everything I've read, and I have been doing soooo much reading, and from all the questions I've asked, I can say that the general opinion is gonna be that cfl's are gonna give you lighter, fluffier buds...


----------



## Rocky Top High (Sep 10, 2008)

I also agree, CFL's will not give you the density that HPS or the sun will give you. I don't care what others say or what is written in a book. CFL's from my experience have always been smaller aand fluffier. High temps will also make your buds fluffy.


----------



## Thundercat (Sep 10, 2008)

Ok so I don't have too many grows under my belt, but I've been around it for several years now, and reading anything I can get my hands on, to make each next grow better. I know that some people grow with cfls, and the question is nessecarly about the type of lights, but rather the wattage! The amount of useable lumens that your plants get makes all the differance in the world! I have grown with florescents until the bloom cycle of my last grow. The buds were fluffy, thats when I said ok time for HPS! My last grow was 60-90 days veg on florescents, the internodes on the plant were stretched. I bloomed with a 1000k HPS, for 50-60 days, and the buds ended up fairly tight in the long run, much better then with florescent. I really think that the light is the biggest prob. if you don't want to go to HPS, then get like 10 more high watt cfls, and make yourself a light board or something to maximize plant exposure. 

To the fellow that said that he has the same problem, but he grows outdoors. Outdoors buds are always fluffier!!!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 10, 2008)

Phinxter said:


> thats the reason ... cfls will always give you fluffy buds
> hps will deliver the dense nugs you are after


Correct. Flowering with CFLs is the main cause of poor density. It is high light intensity which makes dense buds. CFLs produce low intensity light, even the very large 125W types recently introduced. More dim lights does not make bright light, so it doesn't really matter how many you have over a given area- it's still just more point sources of low intensity light. 

A secondary cause can be excessive air temp in the flowering room. Normal range is 24-26C. 

If you absolutely have to use CFLs for flowering, you can maximise density if you put a CFL literally next to each bud on the plant, within 2". Mind you, if you want to grow enough dense buds to get you through to the next harvest (figuring on smoking about 1/4z per wk), you need either impractical numbers of CFLs or a single, small HPS. A 250HPS is a good personal smoke flowering light. Not hard to get an oz of quality buds a month in a small SoG op with a 250. 

Neither molasses nor any other sugar are useful as a plant food and will not in any way increase bud density. This is pure urban myth. There's commercial interests who have picked up on this myth and sell products like 'Carbo Load' to fill the demand.


----------



## GrowingPA (Sep 10, 2008)

i personally think molasses works. So


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 10, 2008)

I personally think Bigfoot stole my cabbage plants last summer, but I can't prove it. 

Do what I did. Head to the web and search for information about sugars as plant food, fertiliser, nutrient, etc. Exclude any anecdotal information from growers or sellers of sugar sauces. The information you want is peer-reviewed writings from the botanical or horticultural colleges of a well known university, information which has been used by independent others to replicate certain claimed results. 

Don't tell me I'm wrong, prove me wrong. Bet you can't. I've tried to prove or disprove the benefits.The very closest I've ever found to quality evidence of the utility sugars in growing plants is the incorporation of sugar beet processing wastes in agricultural soils as a conditioner... and you may as well have used any compost for that purpose. 

With specific regard to hydroponics, sugars are food for pathogens and nothing else. I can't tell you how many people who have come to me over time with compounded root rot and fungal problems advanced by molasses and/or other sugar solutions.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 10, 2008)

Thank you for all the input. I dont disagree (anymore) but I've seen many buds on this site grown under CFL's and they have turned up some great buds. I dont know... To be honest, when and if I ever do another grow I will likely get a 400W HPS. Simply because it's easier (no light adjustments daily, no worry about light falling on the plants... etc) We will see if that makes a difference. In the mean time, my fluffy buds still get me feeling like a million bucks and, with 3 still going, Ill be SURE to let them mature fully. Maybe that makes a BIG difference. I'll keep you updated. We're looking at 2 weeks. Im flushing.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 10, 2008)

Sure, you might be able to raise a (very) few nice looking buds with CFLs in very close proximity to the plants, which requires frequent adjustment as you note. However, anything more than a few inches away from the CFL tube will give you the dreaded popcorn fluff. 

Yep, speed is the second benefit to high light intensity, beyond density. Flower this CFL grow for as long as you can. 

CFLs absolutely have a place in a productive grow op. They're great for clones and even vegging mums when speed of regenerating veg matter on the mums is not of critical importance, as it might be in a continuous harvest SoG op, where you need high quality, thick stemmed cuts every couple of weeks. Flowering is simply not their strong suit. 

Many new growers use CFLs because they're now widely available and very cheap, but it's actually more economical to buy a small HPS and do it right going in. A 400HPS is a terrific small flowering light. Should easily be able to grow more rock-solid frosties than you can smoke with one.


----------



## Dr.X (Sep 11, 2008)

In the long run its cheaper to run a cfl for 12 or 18 hours a day than it is to run a 400watt HPS for the same amount time isnt it? Making it the more economical choice, i think cfl's are fine to use throughout the grow, less heat and risk of burning your plant and cheaper to run and purchase in the first place.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 11, 2008)

It's also cheaper to ride a moped than a Fireblade. 

Apples/oranges. 

If you flower with CFLs you'll get fluffy buds. If you just LIKE fluffy buds, more power to ya.


----------



## Phinxter (Sep 11, 2008)

well Al B. they took the news from you a lot better than they took it from me. LOL


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 11, 2008)

Phinx, it's rough when there's so many misconceptions and so many people hearing & repeating them. Just because 100 people have repeated the same myth doesn't make it true. The internet could be the greatest rumour mill ever invented.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 11, 2008)

no... not 'could be'... _*IS.*_


----------



## Dr.X (Sep 11, 2008)

Im using cfl's for vegging and flowering, i dont have any other choice lol, if molasses doesnt cure ''popcorn bud'' and fatten/make the buds more dense what does? This is my first grow lol (Big bud northern lights) does anyone know the characteristics of this strain, like does it produce big dense buds etc, cheers


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 11, 2008)

Dr.X said:


> Im using cfl's for vegging and flowering, i dont have any other choice lol,


Oh, are HPS lights unavailable in your area? 



> if molasses doesnt cure ''popcorn bud'' and fatten/make the buds more dense what does?


High intensity light!



> This is my first grow lol (Big bud northern lights) does anyone know the characteristics of this strain, like does it produce big dense buds etc, cheers


BB & NL are indica dominant hybrids. They will produce great honking thick, dense buds- with _*sufficient light intensity*_. However, they'll produce thin weedy popcorn just like any other strain when flowered with CFLs.


----------



## Dr.X (Sep 11, 2008)

ok thanks for the info  i cant afford to run an HPS light i dont pay for the electricity so im using a 250watt CFL envirolight.


----------



## drgreenGMX (Sep 11, 2008)

the problem showed up in this thread, youve got somebody who it turns out has zero grows under his built presenting the idea that they were ok. On the other side you have a 1 man bud factory saying they are not, but other than a rep bar, or youve seen him post before how do you know whos correct?


no offense to dr x(im inexperienced aswell), but just saying thats how easy rumours can get spread.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 11, 2008)

Dr.X said:


> ok thanks for the info  i cant afford to run an HPS light i dont pay for the electricity so im using a 250watt CFL envirolight.


WTF do you _*mean*_ you can't afford to run an HPS? Watts out of the power socket is watts! Replace the 250W worth of fluoros with a 250W HPS and you solve your problem for zero change in power cost! 



drgreenGMX said:


> the problem showed up in this thread, youve got somebody who it turns out has zero grows under his built presenting the idea that they were ok. On the other side you have a 1 man bud factory saying they are not,


The answer to that query is implicit in the query!


----------



## cannabitch (Sep 13, 2008)

Hey man take a look at my pic. It was done with cfls. I think some strains may just be airy. I'm sure light does have alot to do with it but it's not impossible to have a dense cfl grow. 

the molasses can be any brand..just make sure you get the blackstrap unsulphured. it's usually next to the pancake syrup at your local grocery store.


----------



## Zhu (Sep 13, 2008)

I really like my cfls for veg like alots but for flowering I use 3 150w hps and 10-15 cfls (mostly use cfls for the sides) and it gives me a nice variety. fluffier easy to dry buds down low and the stuff for the 2 month cure in mason jars on the top. Eases the wait for the good stuff.


----------



## Zhu (Sep 13, 2008)

Also I thought I would mention that for those people who have a hard time getting their hands on hps lights to check with electricians in their area, most of the time you can pick up old ballasts and bulbs for free or very cheap from warehouses and such switching to t5's.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 13, 2008)

cannabitch said:


> Hey man take a look at my pic. It was done with cfls. I think some strains may just be airy. I'm sure light does have alot to do with it but it's not impossible to have a dense cfl grow.


With all due respect... I'm quite sure you put a lot of work into that... but that's a small, thin bud. 

If you would have used HPS, they would have looked like this...


...and you could get about 23 of these every 2 weeks if that was a 1000HPS.



> it's usually next to the pancake syrup at your local grocery store.


And that's a very good place for molasses. You sure don't want any near your cannabis plants. 

Vascular plants can't use complex carbohydrates as food, simple as that. All molasses will do in your grow is feed mould & fungi.


----------



## cannabitch (Sep 13, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> With all due respect... I'm quite sure you put a lot of work into that... but that's a small, thin bud.
> 
> If you would have used HPS, they would have looked like this...
> 
> ...




your bud doesn't look any bigger than mine. 

you should talk to more people who has had great results with molasses. i used it and i don't have mold and fungi. how many people have had problems with it?


----------



## Fman (Sep 13, 2008)

Al -- Great looking bud 
I used to use cfl's . A 150 and 6 42's thats 402 watts, my buds were light and airy. Now I got a 400hps and my buds are much bigger and fatter. Same amount of watts but much more light. This bud is only 24 days into flower, and is already biger than what I got with cfl's.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 13, 2008)

cannabitch said:


> your bud doesn't look any bigger than mine.


Could be the perspective of your lighter in the b/g that makes it look smaller than I'm thinking it is. The bucket that the budstalk is sitting on in my pic is your typical 9L bucket, about 300mm dia. The stalk is about 450 or 500mm long. Ones that size usually yield about 1-1.25 oz for me. 


> you should talk to more people who has had great results with molasses. i used it and i don't have mold and fungi. how many people have had problems with it?


Do a parallel test, running several with and several without molasses in the same crop. If you're lucky, there'll be no difference, simply because vascular plants (not just cannabis) can't use complex carbohydrates as a nutrient and simply will ignore the stuff. The downside is the potential to feed pathogens. 

Do what I did- head for the web, search for peer-reviewed data from the horticultural or botanical college of a large university that substantiates any claim that sugars are useful as a plant food. Ignore all data from growers and sellers of sugar sauces. You will find what I did, which is a whole not of nothing in support of use of sugars as a nutrient. 

If you don't get mould & fungi, whatever you're using for pathogen control is working.


----------



## voltaire64 (Sep 13, 2008)

seaniken said:


> Thats definitely understandable. They may not have been finished. I have 3 more growing and I WILL NOT pull them early. Any tips on the final stages? What's this I hear about molasses? Is it just regular store bought molasses? How is it fed?


I feed my outdoors a tablespoon per gallon every watering.


----------



## wyteberrywidow (Sep 14, 2008)

i wouldnt go against al.b words that guy is a ganja guru


----------



## Antman (Sep 14, 2008)

I don't know why your buds are "Airy" and not dense, but I don't think it's the light. Granted you will definately get bigger, thicker buds with the more light you use. But I've done some outdoor grows, and no one has a light stronger than the one up in the sky, and the buds on some of the plants just came out "Airy" like yours. They were GIGANTIC in size, but very lightweight. Others were heavier and more dense. Maybe it's the strain you grew. As for the molasses, I'm trying it for the first time now, so I'll have to get back to on that one. I don't see any negitive effects from it yet. Good Luck!


----------



## NoDrama (Sep 14, 2008)

CFL does grow light and airy buds, i have 4 shitty CFL grows to prove it. HPS is king!!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 14, 2008)

Antman said:


> But I've done some outdoor grows, and no one has a light stronger than the one up in the sky, and the buds on some of the plants just came out "Airy" like yours. They were GIGANTIC in size, but very lightweight. Others were heavier and more dense.


High air temps will give you stretchy, fluffy buds, too. I can certainly see a hot summer producing fluffy buds in an outdoor grow. You can control that in an indoor op.



> As for the molasses, I'm trying it for the first time now, so I'll have to get back to on that one. I don't see any negitive effects from it yet.


Last time, folks- cannabis plants can NOT use sugars as a nutrient. 

If you're going to put something on your plants, you should find good botanical science that supports the use of that material. 'Not hurting anything' is neither a good reason nor good science.


----------



## Antman (Sep 14, 2008)

I'm no botanist or horticulturist, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who know more about growing things than me, so I went looking and here is some info I found. I think it's "good botanical science that supports the use of sugary supplements." What do you all think? 

Why Use Sugary Supplements?
Matt LeBannister

People feed their plants sugars all the time without knowing it and not always understanding why. You give your sweetheart a bouquet of roses for Valentine&#8217;s Day and before they are put into the vase, sugar is added to the water to extend their bloom. Some &#8220;old school&#8221; gardeners will add molasses to their nutrient solution during the flowering period. Actually, just by adding fulvic acid, usually labeled &#8220;gold,&#8221; and humic acid, usually labeled &#8220;black,&#8221; to your nutrient mix you are giving your plants the building blocks for sugars.

Most growers do not even know that there is a meter, called a Brix meter, that is used to measure the level of sugars in the leaves of plants. It is generally understood that the higher the level of sugars within a plant&#8217;s tissue, the healthier the plant is and the better the yield will be.

Knowing this, the question should not be, &#8220;Why add a carbohydrate supplement to my nutrient solution?&#8221; but simply, &#8220;Why haven&#8217;t I added one already?&#8221;

To understand why you should give your plants one of the sugary supplements on the market, you should become a little more familiar with the way plants produce and use sugars.

Almost all plants use sugars as their main source of fuel. They transport these sugars along with water and other elements throughout their systems, either for food or to create amino acids for biosynthesis to fuel cellular respiration. Maple trees are a great example of how plants use sugars. Their sugary sap is famous at breakfast tables worldwide, but that sap is really the food the maple tree has begun to store to survive the winter to come.

Most plants are photoautotrophs, which means that they synthesize their own food directly from inorganic compounds using photons, the energy from light. They do this using a process called photosynthesis. Photosynthesis comes from the Greek word &#8220;photo,&#8221; meaning light, and &#8220;synthesis,&#8221; meaning to put together. The inorganic compounds are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), and the energy source is sunlight. The end products include glucose, a simple sugar, and oxygen (O2). The actual equation looks like this:

6CO2 + 12H2O + photons &#8212;> C6H2O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
(gas) (liquid) (aqueous) (gas) (liquid)


Then, through a process called carbon fixation, ATP (adenosine triphosphate),AND? a high-energy molecule CO2 (carbon dioxide) are used to create sugars. Some sugars produced, such as glucose, are simple sugars or monosaccharides. They are easily broken down by the plant and are generally used for energy. Other sugars produced, such as cellulose, are complex sugars or polysaccharides. Polysaccharides consist of a chain of two or more sugars and are usually used for lipid and amino acid biosynthesis. Polysaccharides are also used as a fuel in cellular respiration. Cellulose specifically is used as the building material for all green plants. It is the main component of all green plant cell walls.

Through the examination of the process of photosynthesis, we learn just how important the sugars produced through this process are. The sugars and starches are vital to the plant. They are essential for cellular preparation, to maintain the plants metabolism and vigor. The sugars are even the building blocks that keep the very cells of the plant together. Now it is understood that plants have a great big &#8220;sweet tooth&#8221; and are specialists at making the sugars they need.

So why then should we be feeding them more on top of all this? Simply put, flowering plants are burning these carbs trying to make large fruit or vegetables, or big beautiful blooms, faster than a marathon runner trying to win a race. Not to mention that the process of photosynthesis, which produces the sugars, itself takes a lot of energy. By adding one of the organic carbohydrate supplements to your nutrient solution the carbohydrates that have been allocated to the flowering process will be replenished more easily. This will save your plant the energy it would need to create those sugars itself, and your plant can focus more of its energy on the flowering process.

Also, many beneficial bacteria and fungi (aka carbon-fixing bacterial fungi) will live on the sugars and will break down the sugars for the plant. This, again, allows the plant to use energy usually spent breaking down sugars for other processes. The more beneficial bacteria and fungi, the easier nutrients are absorbed by the roots. All this leads to improved flowering and overall health of the plants.

When choosing the supplement for your plants remember the old saying, &#8220;You are what you eat.&#8221; The same goes for your plants. Look for something organic because organic sugars will improve flavor and smell better than anything that inorganic.

There are also some sugars that are more important to your plants than others. Xylose and arabinose are two of those sugars. Both are sugars naturally produced by plants. They are also monosaccharides, which means they are simple sugars and, therefore, used more easily by the plant.

Glucose should be the main ingredient of the product because it is the main product of photosynthesis. Glucose is a monosaccharide that is used for energy and for starting cellular respiration in the plant. The name &#8220;glucose&#8221; comes from the Greek word &#8220;glykys,&#8221; which means sweet, with the suffix &#8220;ose,&#8221; which denotes that it is a carbohydrate. Glucose is critical in the production of proteins and in lipid metabolism. Glucose is also used as a precursor for the synthesis of several important substances, such as starch and cellulose. Starch is a way in which plants store energy and cellulose makes up most of the structural parts of plants.

Fructose is also a monosaccharide and is a main component of most tree fruit, berries, and melons. It is the sweetest naturally occurring sugar and is twice as sweet as the disaccharide sucrose, which consists of glucose and fructose bonded together.

The disaccharide maltose is also an important sugar because enzymes break it down into two glucose molecules.

All of the above sugars are produced naturally by plants. By adding a supplement containing these simple and complex sugars to a well-balanced nutrient, a plant will increase the levels of sugars in the leaves and throughout the plant. This will let the plant use its energy more efficiently, allowing more energy to be focused on producing large fruit and bigger blooms. These sugars will also improve the taste of the end product while giving fuel to beneficial bacteria and fungi.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 14, 2008)

The first thing to consider when evaluating botanical information is 'Did it come from a botanist?" 

Matt LeBannister is NOT a botanist. So who is he?



> Matt LeBannister
> Corporate Store General Manager, writer for Maximum Yield Magazine
> E-mail: [email protected]
> Phone: *416-242-4769*
> Toll Free: *1-800 INFO GRO*


LeBannister is a seller of magic sauces and has an intrinsic interest in selling anything, not just things proven to be effective in growing plants. 

His lack of experience in botanical science is implicit in this stetement, which he wraps up in some high-school botanical science:


> Most plants are photoautotrophs, which means that they synthesize their own food directly from inorganic compounds using photons, the energy from light. They do this using a process called photosynthesis. Photosynthesis comes from the Greek word &#8220;photo,&#8221; meaning light, and &#8220;synthesis,&#8221; meaning to put together. The inorganic compounds are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), and the energy source is sunlight. The end products include glucose, a simple sugar, and oxygen (O2). The actual equation looks like this:
> 
> 6CO2 + 12H2O + photons &#8212;> C6H2O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O
> (gas) (liquid) (aqueous) (gas) (liquid)
> ...


Yes, to state the bleeding obvious, plants make sugars to make cellulose, the main building block of plants. But does that mean you should feed them sugar? No. Sugars won't pass the root membrane. The plant uses the sugars that it makes as a building block but cannot absorb any sugars through the roots. 

The sort of evidence you want is peer-reviewed data form a horticultural or botanical college of a university, data which has been used by independent others to replicate certain scientific claims. A salesman will tell you what want to hear until you part with your money.


----------



## Antman (Sep 14, 2008)

You sound like a very smart fellow and I dig what you're saying. Tell me you're a botanist and I'll toss my $3 bottle of organic molasses right now. LOL!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 14, 2008)

I'm not a botanist, but I'm very good at researching the information they publish. I have been looking diligently for some time for any good botanical science indicating plants can use sugars as a nutrient. After all, it would make some sense to give a plant sugars if you could short-circuit the process. However, even if you *could* do that, you would not do it with complex carbohydrates like sucrose (molasses, table sugar, etc). You'd use the simple sugars that the plant itself produces, like glucose. 

If you read LeBannister carefully, he debunks himself:


> Most plants are photoautotrophs, which means that they *synthesize their own food directly from inorganic compounds* using photons, the energy from light. They do this using a process called photosynthesis. Photosynthesis comes from the Greek word &#8220;photo,&#8221; meaning light, and &#8220;synthesis,&#8221; meaning to put together. *The inorganic compounds are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O),* and the energy source is sunlight. The end products include glucose, a simple sugar, and oxygen (O2).


Where in the list of inputs do you find sugars? You don't, and there's a reason for that.

Plants are biological organisms which have evolved given certain available environmental conditions and materials. If there were natural deposits of molasses anywhere on this earth, you would probably find a plant that thrives on them. 

So, if there's a plant that is indigenous to the widely mytholgised Great Sugar Lake in Bumfuck, Egypt, *that's* the plant you'd feed molasses. 

LeBannister's animal-oriented aphorism 'you are what you eat' presumes first that you can eat something. Humans can't eat CO2 or nitrogen and similarly, plants can't eat sugars.


----------



## Antman (Sep 14, 2008)

"So, if there's a plant that is indigenous to the widely mytholgised Great Sugar Lake in Bumfuck, Egypt, *that's* the plant you'd feed molasses."
Dude, you're crackin' me the fuck up!! Good enough, the molasses is gone. What do you think about Humic and Fulvic Acids for our girls?


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 14, 2008)

Humic & fulvic acids are also very 'magic sauce'-y. I can't find any good science to support those either. One very BAD write up on them is the entry for humic acid in Wikipedia. I can't even find a molecular formula for the stuff. Can you?

Go back to first principles. What does a plant really need? A certain temp & RH range & ventilation, sufficient light, water, elemental nutrients and a rootzone pH suited to the behaviour of the roots. 

Most unfortunately, somewhere along the line, it became _de rigeur_ to include some measure of unsubstantiable wizardry in growing cannabis. Plug that into the Chinese whispers circulating around cultivating a prohibited plant and madness ensues... and salesmen stand at the ready to provide whatever the growers think they need. A prime example is the 'Carbo Load' additive. Not a skerrick of botanical science to support the use of it, but by gum, you can buy it!

It's really astonishing how little you really need to grow great plants. Nutes, pathogen control, light & ventilation is the whole box & dice. If you're a magic sauce salesman, replace the word 'astonishing' in the last sentence with 'disappointing'.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 14, 2008)

Reading LeBannister more carefully, I'm a bit amused at his comments. 

LeBannister gets himself in trouble in this paragraph:



> So why then should we be feeding them more on top of all this? Simply put, flowering plants are burning these carbs trying to make large fruit or vegetables, or big beautiful blooms, faster than a marathon runner trying to win a race. Not to mention that the process of photosynthesis, which produces the sugars, itself takes a lot of energy. By adding one of the organic carbohydrate supplements to your nutrient solution the carbohydrates that have been allocated to the flowering process will be replenished more easily. This will save your plant the energy it would need to create those sugars itself, and your plant can focus more of its energy on the flowering process.


First, he's a little confused as to the metabolic system he's dealing with. Plants don't BURN carbs (ie oxidise them to release energy for support of biological processes), they BUILD carbs. 

I'd like to know his source for the comment 



> burning these carbs trying to make large fruit or vegetables, or big beautiful blooms, faster than a marathon runner trying to win a race.


Seriously, that's total bullshit. 


> Not to mention that the process of photosynthesis, which produces the sugars, itself takes a lot of energy.


Yes, photosynthesis requires energy, but would it get it from burning the carbs it builds... or perhaps from some unlikely source like sunlight? 

This is the very sort of magic sauce salesmanship, mixed with a sprinkling of botany to make it believable to the layman, that I reaaaaaaaaaaaalllly despise. It's pseudoscience and should be recognised as such.


----------



## HalideHarry (Sep 15, 2008)

I think sometimes how you cure and store your buds comes into play.
If you cure and then cryovac or just pack tightly into jars, the buds get squished and become more dense.


----------



## Kludge (Sep 15, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> The first thing to consider when evaluating botanical information is 'Did it come from a botanist?"
> <snip>
> The sort of evidence you want is peer-reviewed data form a horticultural or botanical college of a university, data which has been used by independent others to replicate certain scientific claims. A salesman will tell you what want to hear until you part with your money.


Thank you, thank you, thank you! I try to tell people this all the time, don't just blindly believe something, make sure there is some real evidence and then check it for yourself.


----------



## mammal (Sep 15, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> The first thing to consider when evaluating botanical information is 'Did it come from a botanist?"
> 
> Matt LeBannister is NOT a botanist. So who is he?
> 
> ...


+rep for a very wise post.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 15, 2008)

HalideHarry said:


> I think sometimes how you cure and store your buds comes into play.
> If you cure and then cryovac or just pack tightly into jars, the buds get squished and become more dense.


You can't squash properly grown dense buds, not with a jar, not with a cryovac bag.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 16, 2008)

What about the deal where you turn the lights out for 48 hours before harvest to trick the plant into thinking it's dying therefor producing more resin? Any truth to that? Never tried it but I hear it all the time.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 16, 2008)

seaniken said:


> Any truth to that?


None at all, wives' tale city.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 16, 2008)

good cuz I really didnt want to do that... seemed like a waste of time.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 16, 2008)

You can rest assured that the myth believers are as much in the dark as their plants.


----------



## Kludge (Sep 17, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> You can rest assured that the myth believers are as much in the dark as their plants.


I was reading something the other day where one breeder actually suggested putting a plant in TWO WEEKS OF DARKNESS before harvesting! Looking for the info now, I'm pretty sure it was in a blurb for some seeds and while I may be a newb I think it's well established that those blurbs are at best artistic interpretations and at worst out right lies.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 17, 2008)

Two weeks? Why stop there? Sprout 'em & put 'em in the basement for a couple months.


----------



## ghostsamurai25 (Sep 17, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Two weeks? Why stop there? Sprout 'em & put 'em in the basement for a couple months.


lol thats some funny shit.


----------



## Antman (Sep 17, 2008)

Al B, you out there? Tried to private message you but you obviously know that didn't work for me so I'm gonna see if you get it this way. What do you know about this? B.S or will it work?:

Top Tip for you all, 
Do you want to double the crystal growth on your plant/s??
All you need is a spare timer, spare strip light/s, and ultra violet bulb/s!

Did you know the uv rays from the sun encourage crystal growth?
This is a natural defence system for the skunk plant to protect itself from uv rays, THC-rich resins act to protect the plant and its seed from both higher light intensities and ultraviolet presence.

The way to encourage this growth without harming your plant or weed is to allow ur plant/s short daily bursts of uv rays.

All your plant/s need is 30 mins of uv rays a day during the latter stage of flowering in 3x10 minute bursts spread throughout your daily light cycle.
The uv lights directly stimulate THC production.
More THC= 

TRY IT OUT!!!
Then plus rep me on harvest day LOL


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 17, 2008)

Antman said:


> B.S or will it work?:
> 
> _Did you know the uv rays from the sun encourage crystal growth?_


BS. 

No one has proven the actual reason why cannabis plants produce resin or the THC it bears. 

It's a lot more logical that a plant would evolve to produce resins & neurotoxins as a defence against insects or other critters that would eat the plant than UV light.


----------



## genfranco (Sep 17, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Could be the perspective of your lighter in the b/g that makes it look smaller than I'm thinking it is. The bucket that the budstalk is sitting on in my pic is your typical 9L bucket, about 300mm dia. The stalk is about 450 or 500mm long. Ones that size usually yield about 1-1.25 oz for me.
> 
> 
> Do a parallel test, running several with and several without molasses in the same crop. If you're lucky, there'll be no difference, simply because vascular plants (not just cannabis) can't use complex carbohydrates as a nutrient and simply will ignore the stuff. The downside is the potential to feed pathogens.
> ...


So you have done this test?. Al B you know i have gotten some tips from you in the past... but there are credible growers that state that these sugars ...actually Mollases gives you about 20% increase on girth... now 20% isnt much... but it is... Mr HIgh times jorge cervantes has run these tests and he says your wrong al B..... 

So whats up...


----------



## genfranco (Sep 17, 2008)

I have allways grown with 400 HPS indoors and i think im still missing something... I think C02 is key ... i havent bought it yet... but i feel that would make a bigger diference than sugars... ya know?


----------



## Antman (Sep 17, 2008)

Thanks bro! One other thing, you in the market for some Blackstrap Molasses? LOL.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 17, 2008)

genfranco said:


> So you have done this test?. Al B you know i have gotten some tips from you in the past... but there are credible growers that state that these sugars ...actually Mollases gives you about 20% increase on girth... now 20% isnt much... but it is... Mr HIgh times jorge cervantes has run these tests and he says your wrong al B.....
> 
> So whats up...


I'll suggest to you that Señor Cervantes is more writer than grower. He compiles information given to him by growers, which he entertains as noteworthy, but I seriously doubt he's tried everything he's written about.

Soon as you find me some peer-reviewed botanical science that says vascular plants can use sugar as a nutrient, I'll try it. Until then, I have just as much reason to fertilise with chicken feathers, which I also know plants can't eat. I don't have to jump off a cliff to prove I can't fly.


----------



## genfranco (Sep 17, 2008)

Are there any peer - reviewed botanical science that says they dont? RIU is peer reviewed and there are tons of people that say they feel it makes it better... then there is the whole books and such.... isnt that enough? I mean on the flip side there are plenty of breeders that dicourage adding anything like that to your plant... that good soil mix and water is all it needs. So you might have something there... BUt if there are soo many people stating that they swell more and they seem sweeter?... Hell a bottle of molases is $2.50 ... I havent heard to much of people seeing there plants die because of the use of it... and not all of these growers used anything to prevent anything... Just good soil mix. 

Im with it either way... I use ro water and thats it for the most part... i do give it a shot here and there of nutrients and stuff.. but alwways allow at least 3 waterings so it flushes excess ... Good luck people..


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 17, 2008)

genfranco said:


> Are there any peer - reviewed botanical science that says they dont?


Is there any peer-reviewed botanical science that says cannabis plants can't eat chicken feathers?



> RIU is peer reviewed


No, it's not!

see Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> and there are tons of people that say they feel it makes it better... then there is the whole books and such.... isnt that enough?


Nope! I feel lots of things (and sometimes they smack me when I do!). It's entirely possible for a large number of people to get it wrong all at once and keep being wrong!



> BUt if there are soo many people stating that they swell more and they seem sweeter?...


Ok, presume for a moment that your plant COULD take up sugars through the root system. Have you ever inhaled burning sugar smoke? What's nice about it? Burning sugar does _*not*_ taste sweet!


----------



## genfranco (Sep 17, 2008)

OK Al B. I just dont see your hate against it.... if people say it works... then let them do it... on the other hand you know by now if it was a bad thing that they would be saying not to use it... I mean maybe you should put some chicken feathers in your next grow and prove your theory... These people actually do put the feathers (molasses) and they say it works... so why bash what you havent even tried... I thought you had tried it before and it caused a negative effect or something... so you never tried it? but are sooo against it? How about this AL b... how about you tell us a tried and true formula... 

I got one: never fails and provides awsome crops.


----------



## beargrillz (Sep 17, 2008)

sugars introduced into the soil CAN be taken in my the plants IF they piggyback on other macromolecules. i asked this question to my plant science prof. in passing and will get a detailed answer after thursdays lecture. just thought id throw that tidbit into the mix. having too much sugar in the surrounding area of the roots could cause the cells to purge water from themselves or become so turgid that no new uptake of water can happen. while a 1 time does of milk or very dilute sugar solution may give an intial boost continued exspore seems less than beneficial


----------



## calicat (Sep 17, 2008)

seaniken said:


> Thats definitely understandable. They may not have been finished. I have 3 more growing and I WILL NOT pull them early. Any tips on the final stages? What's this I hear about molasses? Is it just regular store bought molasses? How is it fed?


This is how I use molasses. I start it during the third week of flowering. I mix it in with my nutrient cocktail @ 2 tablespoons per gallon of water. I use south pacific molasses. The best I believe is blackstrap molasses. I have heard of people that use Grandma's syrup with good success. The potential of bud yield can range from 5-20% if all other conditions are being met as well.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 17, 2008)

genfranco said:


> OK Al B. I just dont see your hate against it....


 Let's get clear on this point; I don't 'hate' molasses. There's simply no evidence that plants can use sugars as a nutrient. There's as much evidence in support of fertilising with chicken feathers.

You don't go through your kitchen cupboard and chuck stuff in your grow until you find things that kill plants, do you? Tried oregano yet? Self-rising flour? Holstein hoof shavings? Why not? You don't know for sure they don't raise potency by 4 squillion percent!

OF course, that's ridiculous. 

The way you run an op is to use things for which there IS good botanical science in support if their use. 

Since plants can't use sugars as a nutrient, they do not belong in your grow, it's that easy.



beargrillz said:


> sugars introduced into the soil CAN be taken in my the plants IF they piggyback on other macromolecules.


Bullshit. Show me your source. 



> i asked this question to my plant science prof.


If you did, s/he'd be pretty amused that you didn't know what s/he really is. What do you think a 'plant science prof' is called? 



calicat said:


> This is how I use molasses.


How do you use chicken feathers? I hear Welsomers have nice ones.


----------



## cHiEf04grwer (Sep 17, 2008)

Sunlight is the best light. I just fucking hate pest!!! specially spider mite right now..


----------



## beargrillz (Sep 18, 2008)

Decoupling of microbial glucose uptake and mineralization in soil

found thru ScienceDirect - Soil Biology and Biochemistry : Decoupling of microbial glucose uptake and mineralization in soil

as for what title she holds asa prof. without waiting to ask her id assume her doctorate in botany would have me call her Dr.

i have lecture tonite so ill ask for a source to provide. if my link isnt sufficent


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 18, 2008)

bear, you have succeeded in finding information on how to feed microbes, not cannabis plants!


----------



## stunned (Sep 18, 2008)

In the last two weeks I use Cha Ching from fox farms it seems to harden the buds and increase density in the final stretch. I have no scientific proof but my yield weights have improved and my strains haven't changed.


----------



## jsgrwn (Sep 18, 2008)

GrowingPA said:


> The more light that get to the buds the denser they are going to get. I would try to water with molasses to help densin the buds.But one of the main factors is light describe the area around your plants, this maybe the main factor. Im not sure but i believe soil also plays a factor in the density of the bud.


there is a tentative rule here, much advise given by strangers can damage your crop. yes light plays a major role in density, but there are several other factors to take into consideration. these are heat, nutrients, nutrient poisoning, co2(which is really only needed if you are growing in a closed environment), length of flowering time and ph. this is not to say that all info from strangers is foul but i have seen quite a bit. i would deff let your plants finish out, and as far as light being the cause, this is a problem from early in the plants life when it decides for itself how far apart to place the node regions. 
late


----------



## jsgrwn (Sep 18, 2008)

Antman said:


> Al B, you out there? Tried to private message you but you obviously know that didn't work for me so I'm gonna see if you get it this way. What do you know about this? B.S or will it work?:
> 
> Top Tip for you all,
> Do you want to double the crystal growth on your plant/s??
> ...


another good example. see HID lights give off uv rays already. this gentleman is trying to explain the facts about UVB light which is stronger in metal halide than HPS lights. so you can use on of each for best results of just a MH for slightly less weight and higher THC content.
late.......


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 18, 2008)

stunned said:


> In the last two weeks I use Cha Ching from fox farms it seems to harden the buds and increase density in the final stretch. I have no scientific proof but my yield weights have improved and my strains haven't changed.


 If you really want to get science-y about it, do what scientists do. Run a control group and a test group, in parallel. This will eliminate any other environmental variables and allow you to make amore informed decision as to what the effects are of your changes. 



jsgrwn said:


> there is a tentative rule here, much advise given by strangers can damage your crop. yes light plays a major role in density, but there are several other factors to take into consideration. these are heat, nutrients, nutrient poisoning, co2(which is really only needed if you are growing in a closed environment), length of flowering time and ph. this is not to say that all info from strangers is foul but i have seen quite a bit. i would deff let your plants finish out, and as far as light being the cause, this is a problem from early in the plants life when it decides for itself how far apart to place the node regions.
> late


This is so well said that it should be posted at the top of every forum. +r, mon. Well done. 



jsgrwn said:


> another good example. see HID lights give off uv rays already. this gentleman is trying to explain the facts about UVB light which is stronger in metal halide than HPS lights. so you can use on of each for best results of just a MH for slightly less weight and higher THC content.
> late.......


You presume here that UV makes one whit of difference. No one has ever probed the reasons why cannabis plants make resin, but it's highly unlikely that it is a response to UV light. Most plants which make sticky substances do so to trap & kill or discourage insect attackers. Maybe you should add some bugs. 

Again, here's a good case for a parallel test. Set up a control and a test group and provide them all with the same conditions, except for lighting.


----------



## jsgrwn (Sep 18, 2008)

crystallization is up for debate, personally i think it is to capture the pollen from males and absorb it to propagate. this is very similar to how wheat is altered and pollinated. 
anyways, the key to what i wrote is "UVB" , the B part. not just UV but UVB light. just so you know, once i learned the following from ed rosenthal (marijuana grower extrodinaire) i did a controlled test with the same strain, plant count, and nutrient cycle. and the MH bud had about a 2
% higher THC content if my memory serves me right. and the difference in yield was very small. if it wasn't 2% i know it was slightly higher anyway. here is a direct cut and paste quote from ed r. 
_MH lamps emit more UVB light than HPS lamps, although still in very small amounts. The amount of UVB light plants receive is directly related to the quality of the buds. The more UVB, the higher the quality.

Buds grown under MH light will not be as big as buds grown using HPS lighting. However their quality will be as good or better._

anyways Al B, thanks for the rep
late, rep for u Al b


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 18, 2008)

js, I certainly appreciate your quotation of Rosenthal; he's been traditionally a good source of good data. No doubt, Ed Rosenthal & Jorge Cervantes deserve an awful lot of respect & credit for carrying the torch for cultivators for so many years, but some of the things they've written over time really deserve a closer look. 

I'd like to see a number of growers do parallel tests to establish a larger sample on the UV matter. While MH does indeed put out a bit more UV than HPS, when you look at spectral representations of sunlight at temperate latitudes vs HPS or MH, you find that the relative UV content expressed as a percentage of total luminous energy in all of them is all fairly similar. 

University quality research on cannabis, with elements like large samples and double-blind comparisons, is often impossible to come by as many governments actively prohibit or interfere with it, as happens with NIDA in the USA. NIDA is responsible for providing cannabis for research and has a tradition of providing precisely none.

I approach most things, cannabis growing included, from a perspective of skepticism. Unless I can find some good data to support a practise, I'm more apt to leave it out as mess with it.


----------



## jsgrwn (Sep 18, 2008)

Al, I am the same way brother. I try things on test crops. with the UVB thing i decided to grow 2 full crops because there was not really any risk to the crop just from using a diff light. and the results were MH-higher THC , slightly less weight and HPS- a bit less THC and more bud. but i rarely test out theories on my plants, especially with nutes (like molasses). 
furthermore, i agree with you. older research does need a closer look because things change along with our world. 
late


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 18, 2008)

I'd love to participate in such testing, but like many growers, I have dedicated a space to growing- and it's busy, all the time. It would be very difficult for me to incorporate any test crops without making mods to my op which would affect the productivity of the remainder of the grow, which happens to keep the coffee pot going around here. Can't muck around too much without taking a risk with my _*real*_ drug of choice- caffeine.


----------



## jooooooosh1934 (Sep 20, 2008)

im also having the same problem. im hearing people tell me to get different lamps, becase im running dual tube flouros 40 watt, which from what i understant have really low lumens


----------



## CaliGurl (Sep 20, 2008)

I've been using Blackstrape molasses along with soem awsome blossom, first time using that product, currently not with my grow but have gotten some nicepics showing density and weight gain, I'm using HIDS as well tho.. n e ways I give 3 tbls per gallon now of the molasses and it has shown to work for weight gain. If I were you I would try to get some t5's they work well I have those for my mums and clones and my Hids for flowering


----------



## goldenchips (Sep 20, 2008)

It has an average npk of 5-1-3. Because it is a byproduct of refining sugar you get concentrated minerals too. like 30 of them. You are correct when you say it will feed bacteria. That is its most redeeming quality, feeding mychorizhal fungi. 
Maybe you are too smart by half on this one.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 21, 2008)

Hey, is anyone listening? 

*Plants can't use sugars as nutrients.* 

If you're running a hydroponic system, there should be ONE organism in there- cannabis plants.


----------



## emmpey (Sep 21, 2008)

sugars in soil can improve microbial life, which in turn can make more nutrients available for uptake by the roots, BUT... ff you're using a complete fertilizer and dosing correctly you will see absolutely NO BENEFIT in doing this. The anecdotal evidence about positive effects of molasses is probably due to the other minerals etc. in molasses. Adding molasses to soil will also alter PH, i.e make it more acidic, so that maybe another reason why people see an improvement in their plants.

I tried it on six plants with and six without on a strain that i'd been growing for two years so had the feed cycle nailed, all i ended up with was PH problems and no improved yield.


----------



## OGkushOG (Sep 21, 2008)

Molasses serves only to feed the beneficial fungi that is found in the medium the plant is growing in. If you are growing in compost, molasses is very beneficial. It feeds the beneficial fungi living in the compost which feed on the molasses and is able to send more nutrients through the roots.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 21, 2008)

OGkushOG said:


> Molasses serves only to feed the beneficial fungi that is found in the medium the plant is growing in.


If that is a hydroponic medium, there better be no fungi or anything else.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 21, 2008)

Hey... So Im harvesting one of my plants tomorrow. And, compared to the last one I harvested, this one is looking pretty dense. Using CFLs. It seems like there are so many variables in growing this stuff. No one can get EVERYTHING right. Im happy with wha&#8224; I have produced on my first grow. Maybe I got lucky, but the CFL's without adding any goofy tricks to the soil has worked just fine for me. Just letting you know


----------



## Dirtyboy (Sep 21, 2008)

seaniken said:


> Hey... So Im harvesting one of my plants tomorrow. And, compared to the last one I harvested, this one is looking pretty dense. Using CFLs. It seems like there are so many variables in growing this stuff. No one can get EVERYTHING right. Im happy with wha I have produced on my first grow. Maybe I got lucky, but the CFL's without adding any goofy tricks to the soil has worked just fine for me. Just letting you know


 I hear ya. The more dinking around adding sugar and topping and fucking with this and that messes shit up at times.


----------



## seaniken (Sep 25, 2008)

So I have chopped and dried my topped plant and I will say Im very pleased! I dont have a scale to get an accurate weight. But I'd guess about 2 ounces. Which is great for me. They are dense, sticky and have a very pungent aroma. Havnt smoked it yet but I will this week sometime. Now on to curing...


----------



## McMuffin (Sep 26, 2008)

this happens because CFL's suck. pony up and buy a real light


----------



## pacman123 (Sep 26, 2008)

Dr.X said:


> In the long run its cheaper to run a cfl for 12 or 18 hours a day than it is to run a 400watt HPS for the same amount time isnt it? Making it the more economical choice, i think cfl's are fine to use throughout the grow, less heat and risk of burning your plant and cheaper to run and purchase in the first place.


 
That's the common misconception, though, and if you look into it a little more thoroughly you'll discover thatCFl's in fact produce more heat than HPS! I know first reactions to that statement tend to be disbelief, but it's absolutely true. The amount of heat a CFL produces per watt it uses is more than HPS. CFL grows require many lights spread around the room and plant, so the intensity of the heat from any one bulb is certainly lower than that from even a 150 HPS. But add all that heat up and now we have an issue. On top of that, it is much more difficult to control the heat coming off 15 little bulbs than one large HPS. I think folks tend to shy away from HPS, especially new growers, because it seems more expensive, and maybe it somehow subconsciously signifies a level of commitment beyond where the grower wants to be. But when you do the math, the HPS set-up can be quite inexpensive compared to the 27 different CFL's they would inevitably purchase. That said, I've seen some nice looking grows done with cfls. Use what works, but understand HOW it works so you can make an informed decision.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 26, 2008)

well said, pac.


----------



## pacman123 (Sep 26, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> well said, pac.


Why thank you, Al. I think folks are confused on the molasses issue, too. Molasses is an option for SOIL GROWERS ONLY. It has the potential to protect your soil by feeding the good bugs/fungi/bacteria and for soil growing it's the activity happening on a micro/macrobiotic level that we are interested in. There was a fantastic article I will try to dig up comparing hydroponics with soil. Written for a gardening periodical that a dude at my garden shop gave me to read. The gist was that when growing in soil, a gardeners 1st priority is the health and viability of the living organisms in the soil as well as the overall composition. These things provided allow the plant to take what it needs. That is the fundamental difference between the two methods: Hydroponic plants are given everything they require by the grower in the right ratio's, to exploit the plants natural ability to grow. A soil grower makes sure the soil is adequate and allows the plant to sort it out from there. Molasses does contain magnesium, calcium, nitrogen, and other micronutrients. It also contains natural sugars and unless you are making beer, you would never want to introduce a natural source of sugar to a large container of warm liquid, lest you were hoping to propogate some lovely wild yeast! Not to mention the potential for sticky molasses to gum up fine plumb components of a hydro system. So again, molasses is optional for SOIL GROWERS ONLY. Using it in hydroponics makes as much sense as throwing a shovel full of composted bannana peels and rotted leaves into your resevoir! Soil growers should use it experimentally and decide for themselves.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 26, 2008)

Agreed, but sugars will feed many types of microbes. Let's just hope the ones you want in your soil push the baddies out of the way at the dinner table!

My point about sugars in hydro ops is that cannabis plants can't uptake them. Sugars are useless as food for plants. Any hydro op worth doing will use inorganic based nutes which are compatible with H2O2, so the only living organism in the op is the cannabis plants- there ought NOT to be any microbes, beneficial or otherwise, in a hydro op.


----------



## pacman123 (Sep 26, 2008)

Exactly, and it's the INORGANIC nature of a hydro op that would no longer be such once the molasses was added! And I agree, as far as I've ever known plants don't use sugar in any form as a nutrient. The byproducts of the sugar are what growers need take interest in!


----------



## pacman123 (Sep 26, 2008)

Al-

After you use your bud dryer, do you spend any time curing in jars? If you've done both the longer hang dry and your quick method, what are the strong differences in final product, i.e. taste, scent, smoothness, texture? There is a lot of b.s. floating around about drying methods,it's tough to sort it all out! Apologies if I'm diggin up old info, but I'm almost ready to harvest.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 26, 2008)

pacman123 said:


> After you use your bud dryer, do you spend any time curing in jars?


heh, no... as soon as a bud is dry, it's in my bong (or out the door). No time for such.



> If you've done both the longer hang dry and your quick method, what are the strong differences in final product, i.e. taste, scent, smoothness, texture?


I have done various drying methods over time. The only diff with the dryer is no mould or even any possibility of it. 



> There is a lot of b.s. floating around about drying methods,it's tough to sort it all out!


You can dry a bud any way you like that does not expose the resin to temps above 29C nor leaves them damp long enough to allow mould growth. Faster is gooder. Air motion while drying is especially gooder.


----------



## pacman123 (Sep 27, 2008)

Thank you for the clarity! rep


----------



## seaniken (Sep 27, 2008)

McMuffin said:


> this happens because CFL's suck. pony up and buy a real light


I said I got dense, potent nugs. 2 ounces off one plant. That doesnt seem too bad to me at all!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 28, 2008)

2oz off one plant with CFLs is indeed not bad at all, but how many CFLs did it take to produce that and how large was the plant?


----------



## seaniken (Sep 28, 2008)

yeah I had about 8 CFL's on one plant. Quite a bit. I do agree that an HPS would be more efficient. So next time I will use HPS. But for those beginning and dont want to invest in a light setup, I wouldnt be against CFL's. My plant was about 3 1/2 ft tall. CFL's just suck cuz you have to adjust them ALL THE TIME.


----------



## 2smoke4bud7 (Sep 29, 2008)

how many times do you water you flowering plants with molasses through out the 6 weeks of feeding?


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

Approximately none. Plants can't use sugars as a nutrient.


----------



## mammal (Sep 29, 2008)

if plants cant use sugars as a nutrient (and i believe you when you say they cant) how did we get to this point where "we" say that you can only use molasses and not any other kind of sugar?


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

I wasn't aware that 'we' suggest that molasses and nothing else is useful. 

Molasses is sucrose, same as table sugar. Not a point that requires any further dissection, really.


----------



## calicat (Sep 29, 2008)

seaniken said:


> hmmm... I guess that could be. Im growing with CFL's but I have 3 plants right now with 15 - 46w bulbs. So light shouldnt affect it right? Im growing in store bought soil but currently Im feeding it Green Light Super Bloom once every 10 days or so. Two teaspoons per gallon. The plants are healthy otherwise. How do I feed molasses? Like just regular store bought molasses?


 If you have access to a hydro store then purchase molasses that is unsulpherated. How you use it would be 2 tablespoons for every gallon of water from the third week of flowering till finish. I have a friend that uses grandma's syrup if you do not have any hydro stores in your area. best of luck.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

Plants can't use sugars as a nutrient. They will only feed microbes and pathogens. Sugars should not be used in a hydro system.


----------



## NASTYRUDEDOGG (Sep 29, 2008)

plants do benefit from molasses in the water. Somehow, someway, it does help. CASE CLOSED!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

'case closed' because you say so, hm? I don't think so. 

There's absolutely no peer-reviewed botanical evidence that plants can use sugars as a nutrient. There's as much evidence to suggest plants can use petrol as a fertiliser. 

If you can find reliable botanical or horticultural evidence indicating that plants can use sugars as a nutrient, by all means, post them here. 

Plants are biological systems which have evolved to adapt to available conditions and nutrients. If there were natural deposits of sugars anywhere on this earth (that faster moving critters like insects and animals had not gotten to first), you would find a plant that has adapted to feed on them. So, if there's a strain of plant that is indigenous to the much fabled Great Sugar Lake in Bumfuck, Egypt, _*that's*_ the plant you would feed molasses. I'm not aware of any strains of cannabis that are native to that region, but you might hit Wikipedia, there's sure to be something on the topic there. 

Sugars are especially problematic in hydroponic systems. Pathogen access to a tank of nutes is much easier than to a sugar solution in soil. Common results are colonies of mould, exacerbatiuon of root problems, attraction of insects, etc.


----------



## NASTYRUDEDOGG (Sep 29, 2008)

Al b fuct. Chill out man, I never said plants use sugar, okay. But it does seem to feed the organisms in soil to provide more nutrients available for uptake by plants. I can just imagine you looking exactly like your avatar, all pissed off smoking a joint. Why don't you have a couple of beers and chill out, okay. CASE CLOSED!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm not pissed off. However, when you put up a post that contradicts what I have just said (with a basis in botanical science evidence) and does so on the basis of your say so alone with no supporting evidence, with your demand that the discussion be halted, don't expect me to remain silent. 

Don't _tell_ me I'm wrong, _prove_ me wrong.


----------



## weedyoo (Sep 29, 2008)

its got a lot to do with npk during bud you need alot of p. this will help co2, sugar water,fresh air all help also.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

You can very easily add P & K with flowering supplements that contain them, without adding things that can cause problems.


----------



## NASTYRUDEDOGG (Sep 29, 2008)

Al B Fuct, do you not agree with the fact that molasses benefits the micro organisms that in turn aid in the process of flower prodution of the cannabis plant?


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

al b fuct is making more sense these days..... lol...j/k al b.... so yeah it feeds the micro organisms and in turn they feed off your dead roots so in turn you have a healthier plant that drinks better?... Anyway... I agree 100% as far as in hydroponics..... me and al b already hit this theme up before and honestly he seems like a very edjucated person... likes to read and shit... maybe its just a wives tale... like beer or cig butts in your soil....in any case.. what i say that if people find it that it works ...then it does... my only problem with al b is that he isnt even willing to try for himself in 1 single plant and compare to the rest of his forest that he no doubt im sure has.... al b really seems pasionate about this molasses thing.. he has allot of good info in him.... i think this is just one of those pet peeves... al b just do a side by side on 1 plant and then youll have your own answere as if it magically helps or not... these people use it and it works for them ....so why knock it... 


good luck all


----------



## NASTYRUDEDOGG (Sep 29, 2008)

genfranco said:


> al b fuct is making more sense these days..... lol...j/k al b.... so yeah it feeds the micro organisms and in turn they feed off your dead roots so in turn you have a healthier plant that drinks better?... Anyway... I agree 100% as far as in hydroponics..... me and al b already hit this theme up before and honestly he seems like a very edjucated person... likes to read and shit... maybe its just a wives tale... like beer or cig butts in your soil....in any case.. what i say that if people find it that it works ...then it does... my only problem with al b is that he isnt even willing to try for himself in 1 single plant and compare to the rest of his forest that he no doubt im sure has.... al b really seems pasionate about this molasses thing.. he has allot of good info in him.... i think this is just one of those pet peeves... al b just do a side by side on 1 plant and then youll have your own answere as if it magically helps or not... these people use it and it works for them ....so why knock it...
> 
> 
> good luck all


 Come on man just do a comparison with 1 plant, I'm sure it won't hurt and who knows you may just increase your yield. General, this guy does seem to know his shit but how much more can he learn if he's got a closed mind and is so adament about not doing a trial.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

NASTYRUDEDOGG said:


> Al B Fuct, do you not agree with the fact that molasses benefits the micro organisms that in turn aid in the process of flower prodution of the cannabis plant?


 There should _*be*_ no microbes in a proper inorganic hydroponic system. There's no need for them. We're not dealing with an orchid that absolutely relies on a fungus found in the roots of certain trees. 



genfranco said:


> al b fuct is making more sense these days..... lol...j/k al b.... so yeah it feeds the micro organisms and in turn they feed off your dead roots so in turn you have a healthier plant that drinks better?...


H2O2 takes that role in hydrooponics. 



> my only problem with al b is that he isnt even willing to try for himself in 1 single plant and compare





NASTYRUDEDOGG said:


> Come on man just do a comparison with 1 plant, I'm sure it won't hurt and who knows you may just increase your yield. General, this guy does seem to know his shit but how much more can he learn if he's got a closed mind and is so adament about not doing a trial.


I have zero evidence before me that plants can use sugars as a nutrient. I have the same amount of evidence supporting the use of petrol as a fertiliser. Should I try some petrol, too? How many ml/L?  

I've said it before, I don't have to jump off a cliff to prove I can't fly. 


My mind is not closed. I am open to any real botanical science- that's the rules these things operate under, not wives tales.


----------



## Tricks (Sep 29, 2008)

I cut a K2 a week ago wich was fluffy as hell. Grew under 2x 400 watt hps, dunno wtf happend. Same light has a BB under it thats 2 weeks behind that K2 and the buds on that BB are rock hard. Got 3 more under that same light, but there only 4 weeks into flower. All plants r on the same feeding and watering schedule.

First time that happend, pulled a K2 before this one and its buds where very dense. Had a small gnat problem for about 2 weeks, but dont think that hurt it too bad.


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> There should _*be*_ no microbes in a proper inorganic hydroponic system. There's no need for them. We're not dealing with an orchid that absolutely relies on a fungus found in the roots of certain trees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Woah woah... your talking hydro now?... Molasses is ONLY recommended in soil... never hydro.... sugar in hydro will cause root rot quicker than you can think ...we all know that...


----------



## NASTYRUDEDOGG (Sep 29, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> There should _*be*_ no microbes in a proper inorganic hydroponic system. There's no need for them. We're not dealing with an orchid that absolutely relies on a fungus found in the roots of certain trees.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes you should use petrol, drink 1 liter yourself and see what happens.You can stop saying over and over that plants do not use sugar, nobody is saying that, just start drinking that petrol. Maybe you can fly go try that too and see if you can fly.


----------



## NASTYRUDEDOGG (Sep 29, 2008)

genfranco said:


> Woah woah... your talking hydro now?... Molasses is ONLY recommended in soil... never hydro.... sugar in hydro will cause root rot quicker than you can think ...we all know that...


 Hey is Al b talking about hydro, no wonder, mollases is used for soil only, as it only benfits the micro organisms that are only found in soil. But hey you can still try that petro experiment.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

The reason we got on sugars in this thread was due to an assertion that they would increase bud density. In fact, the answer is no from a direct cause & effect standpoint. 

If the purpose of sugars in a soil grow is to feed microbes which then break down organic matter into inorganic elemental nutrients which the plant can directly use, why not simply provide the elemental nutrients themselves instead of adding food for any old Tom Dick & microbe, which may be friend or foe? You can't get the sugar to feed one without feeding the others.

I'll let you guys try the petrol thing first... lemme know how ya go.


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> The reason we got on sugars in this thread was due to an assertion that they would increase bud density. In fact, the answer is no from a direct cause & effect standpoint.
> 
> If the purpose of sugars in a soil grow is to feed microbes which then break down organic matter into inorganic elemental nutrients which the plant can directly use, why not simply provide the elemental nutrients themselves instead of adding food for any old Tom Dick & microbe, which may be friend or foe? You can't get the sugar to feed one without feeding the others.
> 
> I'll let you guys try the petrol thing first... lemme know how ya go.



Well al b ... you know that those products are normally made fro hydroponics use... and why not use molasses if it works... its 3 dollars for a big jar of it and you only use a tbsp worth each time you water... why buy another 17$ bottle of someshit... If this works .. then it works... 

i dont suggest you drinking petrol... Im sure you were joking but just in case... lol


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

damn al b .. So this whole time... you dont have soil experience?... only hydro..?


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

genfranco said:


> Well al b ... you know that those products are normally made fro hydroponics use...


what products?



> and why not use molasses if it works...


Works for what? It doesn't do a thing for plants!



genfranco said:


> damn al b .. So this whole time... you dont have soil experience?... only hydro..?


Nah, I don't have any 'soil experience' as you say... I get the fuckin' garden gnomes to do all _*this*_ shit...







Ya like this 12ft cherry tomato plant which yielded >450 fruit? I hear the gnomes didn't put any moleasses on it.


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

check out some of the advanced nutrients...they have a few products that speak about root breakdown and such.... Molasses works for the micro organisms... werent you reading?.. and i see a bunch of tomatoes out there... little green.... you sure can grow weeds in soil too... just not thc weed 

Dont be rude il b... 

Your starting to make me think thats your moms garden


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

genfranco said:


> check out some of the advanced nutrients...they have a few products that speak about root breakdown and such....


There's indeed some sugar sauce products sold for hydroponics but there's no evidence they work. Just because someone mixes some sugar with some water & puts a fancy label on it is not proof of efficacy. 

The most infamous sugar sauce is 'Carbo Load',' which has a profoundly misleading name, which references a practise of marathon runners, that of eating a lot of pasta or other carbs before a race to provide sustained energy. Plants can't eat carbs, but they certainly can make them.



> Molasses works for the micro organisms... werent you reading?..


Do you smoke microorganisms? I don't. I don't care to grow any, thanks,.



> and i see a bunch of tomatoes out there... little green....


Well, isn't that what cherry tomatoes are supposed to be? 



> you sure can grow weeds in soil too... just not thc weed


Yep, eggplant weeds, cherry & Grosse Lisce tomato weeds, carrot weeds, capsicum weeds, spring onion weeds... 



> Dont be rude il b...


Why yes daddy, I will mind my tongue, just for you. Not. 



> Your starting to make me think thats your moms garden


Nah, I don't let mom near my veg patch, because...
 

Welcome to early spring, seedlings went in yesterday.


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

wow...nice ... no advanced nutrients has this other product ....ill search for it...


----------



## genfranco (Sep 29, 2008)

i was talking about this one for the roots... not about sugar....


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Sep 29, 2008)

ah, right, an enzymatic agent. protein based, aids in breakdown of dead organic matter. Incompatible with H2O2 as H2O2 will nuke the proteins.


----------



## mykul916 (Sep 30, 2008)

dude, *you grew them with 42 watt cfl's.* what did you think was gonna happen? thats like growin an outdoor plant in the shade. next time use a 600 or a 1000 watt hps. you'll see the difference.


----------



## karenj (Sep 6, 2012)

sugars are simple carbohydrates not complex as stated above


----------



## wizim (Sep 6, 2012)

and this thread is 4 years old


----------



## choop (Sep 7, 2012)

wizim said:


> and this thread is 4 years old


lol i read through all the pages until realizing this. someone rep me please for my time LOL hahaha a haaa talk about being stoneeed


----------

