# The Evolution of the Trichome



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the trichome. I know that light is the most important thing to a plant, whether that be low or high light levels... light is still the most important thing, not just to plants, but to all life on this planet. Whether you are religous or not, light is the creator of life.

I argued this point, without ever fully understanding why. Then, Your Grandfather (already an esteemed member of the site), helped me make a connection, if indeed it was just a connection as he seemed very positive of his words.

To get to the truth I have travelled back in time to the birth of the cannabis plant. It stands to reason that trichomes were a later evolutionary development... I won't go into the reasons why here, as it would take too long and move too far from the point.

It is presently believed that trich's are primarily there as a protective barrier to parasites. I believe this is wrong. I believe trich's were primarily created to harness light. This makes the most sense to me...

At first the cannabis plant would have grown larger fan leaves in an effort to capture the suns rays. Maybe the plant used to finish much earlier, only dropping a handful of seed. The plant realised that it would need to grow bigger, to produce more seed, and the fan leaves are not good enough at getting the best out of the available light...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

So with the fan leaves incapable of harnessing enough light... especially as the autumn comes in. The plant creates glands, or organs that we know as trichomes to help do a better job.

These early glands/trich's help magnify the rays of the sun, so the plant has access to a more intense light source. Not only that, but at an essential time of development. Now the plant can grow much bigger during the flowering period, or when the sun is at its lessening intensity. This is not about nature controlling the plant's growth, but about the plant getting the best out of what nature has to offer.

Once low light levels (ie, moonlight) are put in motion, the plant uses the light stored throughout the day to continue growth rates, and produce new fresh trichomes in preparation for whatever sunlight might be available the next day.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

It has also been suggested that trichomes are a means to stop transpiration. I believe this to be wrong also. 

If trich's were there for that reason, then they would put in a show long before the second week of flower... during the summer months when the sun is at its most intense would be most likely.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

g'mornin' Skunk....I watching this develop. thanks for taking the initiative...its good to let the mind flex....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

There is much less light available in the red spectrum, and I believe the trichome was evolved to harness this light. All other purposes are merely secondary.

So if this is true... and we know not all trichomes contain cannabinoids. It would be reasonable to suggest that trich's are primarily for harnessing lower light levels, and that the cannabinoids are secondary. Maybe from the aging of the trich', as the trich is downgraded by the light... maybe damaged by doing the very job it was created for... the plant responds by trying to preserve the trich' with chemicals.

Did you know that outdoor plants can actually see each other? Green is not the only part of the spectrum reflected off the plants... but also light from the far red end is also reflected. Plants use this information to gleen how much competition they have for light.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> .....Did you know that outdoor plants can actually see each other? Green is not the only part of the spectrum reflected off the plants... but also light from the far red end is also reflected. Plants use this information to gleen how much competition they have for light......


that's interesting....where'd you find that nugget of info?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Also, this would suggest that chopping off the fan leaves mid-way into flower would cause the plant to produce more trich's. This works, I've done it... I did it three days before harvest. Trimmed the bud like it was already harvested.

I thought at the time, that the reason the plant did this was because of stress... I now believe it was to harness more light.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> that's interesting....where'd you find that nugget of info?


Here:

Can Plants "See" Light?

Glad I still left the tab open. Probably learned it atschool, then promptly forgot all about it. Who needs to learn about light spectrum, right?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

hahahaha yea like most....it is interesting to see how school has become more practical and applicable...at least it seems that way for my kids...thanks for the link...I'll take....BTW - I sent you a PM with another Q? Cheers! 


skunkushybrid said:


> Here:
> 
> Can Plants "See" Light?
> 
> Glad I still left the tab open. Probably learned it atschool, then promptly forgot all about it. Who needs to learn about light spectrum, right?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

You might wellbelieve from reading this that this means that trich's devlop better in low light environments, but I believe this would be wrong.

trich's develop better in high light conditions because the plant can grow better and faster, the trich's will age quicker... and it will use the dark period to grow even more trich's so that it can grow yet even bigger.

Give it the right farming techniques and cannabis could become a tree... just like many other plants before it.


----------



## GoodFriend (Nov 25, 2007)

so you're saying that the trichs are there to harness more light energy basically...

what do you say to the idea that the trichs are there for UV light protection? the two theories are kinda quite conflicting... or maybe not?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

If trich's are a response to high UV radiation then why do they take so long to come? By the time the trich's arrive in any numbers is when there is less UV radiation.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

Boy I wish I could offer more to this but my mind is just stuck in a circle thinking about light in general and, light and UV both A&B in particular.

Okay, I've done the wake & bake so this might seem, way out there, but could trich's be natures sunscreen??

Could the low light, reds/orange_over millions of years_be the signal that stronger light cometh and to prepare? Years in the desert has given me a perspective of how things adapt first to survive and then to pro-create. This would make sense, kinda sorta, if approached from the fact that plants are Hermies.

Just thinking


----------



## bluewizard (Nov 25, 2007)

i agree skunkushybrid, the later arrival of the trich (when the light intensity's lower) supports your argument


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

Chemical ecology of Cannabis

Seems to indicate the trichomes are not for catching light but protecting plant from dessication, predation, UV-B, etc., all previously mentioned. Fucker is Dutch, so who knows.


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

Later arrival of trichs, as I mentioned in a previous thread, is to protect the seed from the degrading affects of light and heat. The plant is out to do one thing, not gather more light to grow big, which it would if it had enough energy left over. The plant wants to produce seed, period. Keep this in mind when thinking about the trich; seed production. This is why the highest concentration of trichs, by far, is on the seed bract, not the fan leaves.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Then if this is true, why are trich's on the fan leaves at all? Also, why do males get them?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 25, 2007)

if trichs where there to intensify light wouldn't they show up most during vegettative growth when the plant needs the most light?

i think they are there to protect the seeds and help the seeds travel to further locations. ie: sticking to animals fur.


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

To protect the plant in the other ways mentioned, predation etc. I personally believe that the development of trichs in such profusion is almost entirely due to selective breeding. Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years and not always for the drug. Paper, food, and other uses are recognized throughout the ancient world. However, like all of humankinds crops, the selective breeding of the plants with the highest concentration of trichs, for hash say, over thousands of years, has no doubt changed the plant in order to suit our needs. Many of the crops we buy at our supermarkets today bear little or no resemblance to the original plant from which the selection process began. This must play a very important role in the evolution of the marijuana plant.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 25, 2007)

ccodiane said:


> Later arrival of trichs, as I mentioned in a previous thread, is to protect the seed from the degrading affects of light and heat. The plant is out to do one thing, not gather more light to grow big, which it would if it had enough energy left over. The plant wants to produce seed, period. Keep this in mind when thinking about the trich; seed production. This is why the highest concentration of trichs, by far, is on the seed bract, not the fan leaves.





ccodiane said:


> To protect the plant in the other ways mentioned, predation etc. I personally believe that the development of trichs in such profusion is almost entirely due to selective breeding. Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years and not always for the drug. Paper, food, and other uses are recognized throughout the ancient world. However, like all of humankinds crops, the selective breeding of the plants with the highest concentration of trichs, for hash say, over thousands of years, has no doubt changed the plant in order to suit our needs. Many of the crops we buy at our supermarkets today bear little or no resemblance to the original plant from which the selection process began. This must play a very important role in the evolution of the marijuana plant.




i'm riding in this boat.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

There is more light available to a plant during the veg' stage, also more UV radiation.

A plant needs to grow much more during flower, not just grow but also develop fruit, and in just 8 short weeks can triple in height. Where does this energy come from? From a dwindling sun?


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

Stored carbohydrates?


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

This could be why the plant grows such an extensive root system in the veg phase. Storing carbs that it will later use for flowering. It eats its own root system. This may relate to your root development link. It may be why root growth seems not to be related to bud size in indoor grow situations. No dwindling light at the end of life!


----------



## justin2937 (Nov 25, 2007)

If anything, a crystal is going to diffuse the light, a lens would focus the light. But in order for the lens to provide any benefit to the plant, the lense would have to be larger than the area that it's focusing light on.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

ccodiane said:


> This could be why the plant grows such an extensive root system in the veg phase. Storing carbs that it will later use for flowering. It eats its own root system. This may relate to your root development link. It may be why root growth seems not to be related to bud size in indoor grow situations. No dwindling light at the end of life!


I believe the plant grows a more extensive root system with age. In my last post in the root development thread are side by side pic's of a 4, 5 and 6 week flowering plant's root system.

There is a dwindling light, as soon as we put them in the dark. The trich's are a reflex to this. I don't believe the dark is actually needed, merely a certain level of low light for a certain amount of time. Once this level is reached, the plants respond by producing the trich's throughout the dark period in preparation for the sun (which is much less intense during the flowering weeks).


----------



## FourTwentyMan (Nov 25, 2007)

sry skunkush but i have to agree with ccodian... there are amazing points on both ends.. but skunkush is a little out there ...remember marijuanna is just another plant..it isnt something special ....it still abides by the rules of nature... research some other plants ...where there has been more research done ...u may be surprised.just a thought


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> i think they are there to protect the seeds and help the seeds travel to further locations. ie: sticking to animals fur.


That makes so much sense, IMHO

*First law of engineering ~ Does it make sense


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

FourTwentyMan said:


> sry skunkush but i have to agree with ccodian... there are amazing points on both ends.. but skunkush is a little out there ...remember marijuanna is just another plant..it isnt something special ....it still abides by the rules of nature... research some other plants ...where there has been more research done ...u may be surprised.just a thought


marijuana is just another plant? No, it has no classification... it is a class unto itself.

Obey the laws of nature? Since when does nature provide 24/0 sunlight?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Yes, they do encourage animal intervention too, as well as discourage it. I'm not saying they don't.

I'm suggesting a primary purpose for trich's... a reason for their development in the first place... or second place... doesn't matter.

What does matter is that there is enough evidence to suggest that trich's also magnify light. To my mind, the immediate survival of the plant itself would come first... else how would it produce the seed in the first place?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes, they do encourage animal intervention too, as well as discourage it. I'm not saying they don't.
> 
> I'm suggesting a primary purpose for trich's... a reason for their development in the first place... or second place... doesn't matter.
> 
> What does matter is that there is enough evidence to suggest that trich's also magnify light. To my mind, the immediate survival of the plant itself would come first... else how would it produce the seed in the first place?


evidence please......


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 25, 2007)

take a crystal ball and shine a spot light into it. i bet you end up with a big blurry spot on the wall.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

look here:

Cannabis THC


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> There is a dwindling light, as soon as we put them in the dark. The trich's are a reflex to this. I don't believe the dark is actually needed, merely a certain level of low light for a certain amount of time. Once this level is reached, the plants respond by producing the trich's throughout the dark period in preparation for the sun (which is much less intense during the flowering weeks).


Maybe because I want to believe, but this theory has lot o' validity in my mush mind. 

It seems to me, there are ± latitudes from the equator which historically have produced, consistently excellent marijuana. Could this have happened as a pure Darwinian result due to the angle of the sun?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

This paragraph in particular:

(1) "For all spheres, a ray drawn perpendicular to the sphere's surface will intersect the center of the sphere, no matter what spot on the surface is picked, and the magnifying power(a) of a glass sphere is greater the smaller its size. A sphere of glass can also bring light that is heading to a focus behind it to a point within it, with freedom from two aberrations, spherial aberration and coma, but not from chromatic aberration. Chromatic aberration results when different wavelengths are focused on different planes and is the most difficult of the aberrations to correct. The human eye lens also exhibits chromatic aberration, but a yellow pigment(b) called the macula lutea in the fovea, an area at the rear of the eyeball, corrects this problem by the way it absorbs blue light."


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Could this have happened as a pure Darwinian result due to the angle of the sun?


This is what I'm thinking.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 25, 2007)

not to get off the point too much, however could the increase in production of trichomes be somehow related to the fact that alot of large fan leaves die off during the autumn flowering period, not to mention all the environmental hazards to the leaves?


----------



## northerntights (Nov 25, 2007)

Lets not forget the several thousand years of evolution that human beings have influenced. At one point corn was nothing more than a simple grain called teosinte, that had few uses. Now after several thousand years of cultivation the two don't even look alike. So much so it took years for scientists to even recognize the ancestral plant. It's almost imposable to know what marijuana's pre-cultivated form was and how we have effected it. Although I have to say, this thread is very interesting.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 25, 2007)

this thread makes my brain hurt. i'm gonna go smoke some trichromes now.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> this thread makes my brain hurt. i'm gonna go smoke some trichromes now.



ROFL..... Good idea. 
Think I'm gonna vaporize some.
Helloooo Mr. Volcano


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

From the piece "Cannabis THC" one of the plants uses for the magnifying effect of the glandular head is to concentrate UVB which hastens the production of THC in the gland. Very interesting. I have heard of growers giving their plants UVB thoughout flowering, probably not a bad thing.


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 25, 2007)

also, thrich didn't always contain THC, there can be uses for the thrichs that are independent of their psychoactive properties, those properties could have been selctively breeded by man with the actual trichomes having been


----------



## newbutpersistent (Nov 25, 2007)

*without the thrichomes themselves having been bred

that's what I meant


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

So it could be inferred that the trichome evolved as a way to produce and concentrate high levels of THC in the plant. Now what was the evolutionary need for THC?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

ccodiane said:


> So it could be inferred that the trichome evolved as a way to produce and concentrate high levels of THC in the plant. Now what was the evolutionary need for THC?



Sunscreen & sticky-ness_so it could spread and propagate. IMHO


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

Among others I'm sure, what a great substance!


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

I hit the Volcano and I'm thinking back to when we grew in the high desert_over 7,000'_we lost the weed, due to competition from the wildlife. But, the plants were purple, and we are sure_to the extent people who smoke massive amounts of pot, can be sure_it was caused by the UV levels being so high. As a matter of fact, the UV regularly goes off the scale_which is from zero to 11.

This thread is just like a game of chess. It forces you to think thru a number of variables. Great fun


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> this thread makes my brain hurt.quote]
> 
> yes, mine too... isn't it great to share.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

ccodiane said:


> So it could be inferred that the trichome evolved as a way to produce and concentrate high levels of THC in the plant. Now what was the evolutionary need for THC?


I believe the other answers answer this one... animal prevention and attraction.

Is it a coincidence that all plants offer wildlife, gifts? The more enticing the gift, the more likely an animal will come over. Certain animals will be attracted, others not. 

My dog will always smell out the stinkiest plants to do his business on. Urine is full of nitrogen... as the animal urinates it must lean up against the plant, or brush it in some way... therefore not just collecting seed... but much more likely, male pollen.

Animals like to mask smells with their own, and what smells more than marijuana?


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 25, 2007)

i'm sorry i missed this thread so far. skunk, i believe your theories are entirely credible. they are in line with some very recent readings of studies on trics. it has been concluded that their main purpose is as UVB light collectors. 

like a skylight tube- if anyone has seen these. it's a clear half-sphere mounted on your roof, sitting on a tube with highly relective sides which can bring natural light down one or two stories.

the coolest thing is, ALL of the sugestions mentioned in this thread could be correct. if they serve these purposes today, they probably evolved in response to each those pressures.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Excellent, thanks CC... that's given me even more belief in this outrageous theory.

It seems the more I look into things, the more scientists don't know. I hit dead ends in logic all the time.

Also, peoplelike to pretend they know, and will state things as facts. Much like I have done here... but for me things have to add up. I also think that the cannabis community as a whole is more intent on getting a good smoke than actually finding out about the plant. Yet, we are the only ones that can study it. Funding isn't given for cannabis. So it is up to us. 

Cannabis is an individual, it has no direct family tree... forgive the pun. So studying other plants is good, but just not the same.

And i realise that we have no way of knowing what the earliest cannabis looked like, but then we don't from all life either. As I believe that all life started from the same single strand of protein, and that environmental factors played it's part in cell division, then each cell grew into an animal or plant, to cut a long story short. The big bang of life, so to speak. Anyway, that's a different thread.

What i mean by the early cannabis plant, is the very stage it was a plant. A very tiny plant, just finding its way through the jungle that is life (forgive the pun). Maybe it was still a hermie when trich's first evolved on the plant, who really knows?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> like a skylight tube- if anyone has seen these. it's a clear half-sphere mounted on your roof, sitting on a tube with highly relective sides which can bring natural light down one or two stories.


I think this may very well be a good analogy. you have low light conditions, and the plant has developed a mechanism to extract as much energy out of the environment at a time when it is waining, and pumps this directly into seed production...if fertilized and into false seed production if not.

The issue of the "purpose" of the THC is an interesting one. I think the comment a while back about the "modernization" of the cannabis plant may be worth considering in this light. Let's look at some other examples....and the one of corn/maize is a good one. It may very well be that it is our own intervention that has been the impetus to concentrating more THC in our plants. I might use the American QH and their tiny feet, and navicular - this was a bred in trait that was ulitmately destructive to the integrity of the foot structure and to the "ridability" of thosse individuals....but they were great show horses - but for us humans, and a focus of small feet/hooves and showing these animals led to a very serious problem for many years.

I dunno....still remains a VERY interesting discussion...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

I honestly believe that we came after thc (don't we always, lol)... we discovered the plant for these properties (back when civilisation didn't exist). And through farming it in different locales (environments) discovered the plants amazing ability to adapt. This didn't happen in just one part of the world, but everywhere... and i'm not even talking as far ahead as the beginings of the hemp industry.


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 25, 2007)

So I put a post on here stating that you reversed your hypothesis on trichomes and you delete your original posting and mine. Good move.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

interesting thought....I don't doubt we came after it...but as with so many things that we try to improve, we look to the attirbutes that we wish to enhance and breed for it. Any taking the variations from different parts of the globe gave us that oppotunity to take all of the best traits as it relates to thc production and start comining them. don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm right, I am just putting forward the thought processes that I am going through....? 


skunkushybrid said:


> I honestly believe that we came after thc (don't we always, lol)... we discovered the plant for these properties (back when civilisation didn't exist). And through farming it in different locales (environments) discovered the plants amazing ability to adapt. This didn't happen in just one part of the world, but everywhere... and i'm not even talking as far ahead as the beginings of the hemp industry.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

donnieosmond said:


> So I put a post on here stating that you reversed your hypothesis on trichomes and you delete your original posting and mine. Good move.


the only post i deleted from this thread was yours. I did it because, I didn't want to have to explain it all to you. How have i reversed my hypothesis? See what I mean, I should just delete this one too, but no doubt rolli's and the other mod's inboxes would get filled to the brim with your complaints.

I have not deleted a single one of my posts from this thread. Only yours, which asked a stupid question.


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 25, 2007)

Actually, you're lying. I didn't ask a question. You said something earlier that was the complete opposite of your beginning hypothesis of this thread and I called you out on it. I don't remember what I said or what you said because I didn't think I had to, but you revised it after I said something so obviously it bothered you. This coming from the person who said medical marijuana was a joke. I have absolutely zero respect for you at all. You might know, in some regards, about how to grow marijuana but your lust to be revered shines through everything you post and I see right through you.


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 25, 2007)

That coupled with the fact that you compared aids to the flu in post #6. No one ever said you had to be an educated man to grow marijuana. Or have any compassion. I suppose it puts a new meaning to the phrase the light's on but no one's home.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Excuse me?

I'm a liar, covering up? 

From you?

Please.

I edited nothing. I have no need to edit anything. I deleted your post because you are thick... and as usual asked a stupid question.

Which was, why did i change my hypothesis?

You asked this after my explanation of why thc is produced. THC is secondary to the trichome.

You think I need or want your respect, now that is a joke. 

Now keep out of my thread. Please.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

donnieosmond said:


> That coupled with the fact that you compared aids to the flu in post #6. No one ever said you had to be an educated man to grow marijuana. Or have any compassion. I suppose it puts a new meaning to the phrase the light's on but no one's home.


AIDs and the flu are comparible in that they are both viral.

Compassion comes on many levels... you know not what you speak of. moron.


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 25, 2007)

Ok so spraining my toe and having my foot severed off are comparable because they are both below my ankle.

And you can't touch a door handle and give the next person who touches it AIDS.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

donnieosmond said:


> Ok so spraining my toe and having my foot severed off are comparable because they are both below my ankle.quote]
> 
> Quite...
> 
> ...


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 25, 2007)

Rather than justify myself, I'll apologize for getting off topic from this thread's original point. Please continue.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

donnieosmond said:


> I'll apologize for getting off topic from this thread's original point.


When? .


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

No? No apology then?


----------



## traffic (Nov 25, 2007)

Those that are best suited to the environment survive through natural selection...

The fact that trichomes are a way to transport seed and pollen does not mean that they do not also help the plant harness light. There are probably more efficient ways for the plant to harness light, just as there are probably more efficient ways to spread seed and pollen. However, the trichome allowed for a damn good balance of the two that made plants with trichs on both the fan leaves and the buds more prone to survival.


----------



## ccodiane (Nov 25, 2007)

A question. I personally have never seen hemp or ruderalis bud, but if anyone has, does it have trichomes/trichomes in abundance?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 25, 2007)

as with so many processes, somewhre along the line of change....there was a competitive advantage for a plant to have trichromes - their genes were more successful in passed along, and those with thc advanced as well. But is it not also true that cannabis sativa also evolved other individual genotypes that were not psychoactive? or is that an outcome of human intervention....the hemp plant that had only negligible amounts of thc?


----------



## jesus3 (Nov 25, 2007)

ccodiane said:


> A question. I personally have never seen hemp or ruderalis bud, but if anyone has, does it have trichomes/trichomes in abundance?


yes ruderalis have trichs on the buds.my parents grow in country side bunch ruderalis plants every year.trich amount is very low but they are there.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 25, 2007)

Yes. Thanks for stopping by jesus. god (pun intended) that feels strange calling someone that.

Yes, it's worth note too that ruderalis is not as potent as strains grown in climates where thesun is more intense.

It's a combination of things... the trich's are there to magnify light, but if there isn't much light then the trich's have no real energy to gather thc... or maybe they don't need protecting as much from the UV Radiation.

It could still all be about light... even the cannabinoids. The chemical that gives off smell is THCV (i think it's the right way round), although I can't remember my source for that information. I think it was Mr Rosenthal in his book... 

So maybe some of the cannabinoids are to help protect the trich' from UV radiation... and some are there to encourage, and discourage certain types of wildlife.


----------



## ViRedd (Nov 25, 2007)

All plants need light in order to grow. All plants need to reproduce. The Trichomes start to develop after the plant enters the flowering stage. The Trichomes are there to "catch" any male pollen that happens to float by. That's why their sticky. God is good, isn't she? 

Vi


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 25, 2007)

ViRedd said:


> All plants need light in order to grow. All plants need to reproduce. The Trichomes start to develop after the plant enters the flowering stage. The Trichomes are there to "catch" any male pollen that happens to float by. That's why their sticky. God is good, isn't she?
> 
> Vi


Do you think this is the sole purpose of Trich's? If we removed the Trich's_thru electrostatic_and then placed the plant back into the light.

Would the buds get sunburn?


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 25, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Do you think this is the sole purpose of Trich's? If we removed the Trich's_thru electrostatic_and then placed the plant back into the light.
> 
> Would the buds get sunburn?


Now that's a good question. You should try it. If nothing else it'd rule out some possibilities.


----------



## ViRedd (Nov 25, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Do you think this is the sole purpose of Trich's? If we removed the Trich's_thru electrostatic_and then placed the plant back into the light.
> 
> Would the buds get sunburn?


If we removed trichomes from cannabis plants, I think we would lose cannabis plants. Not from sunburn though ... but from the inability to reproduce. 

Vi


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

ViRedd said:


> All plants need light in order to grow. All plants need to reproduce. The Trichomes start to develop after the plant enters the flowering stage. The Trichomes are there to "catch" any male pollen that happens to float by. That's why their sticky. God is good, isn't she?
> 
> Vi


Ok... then why do hermies have trich's? In fact, this may go against your religous beliefs, but cannabis started out as a hermie... no need for procreation. If cannabis got trich's then, it would discount them being needed for pollenation. Also hermies are usually much bigger plants, and the natural hermies (where both chromosomes are equal) will still get trich's... abundantly so.

and the fact that it does happen in flower, when the sun is getting less and less intense... yet cannabis triples in height, How does it do this? During the period the plant has the most light. It stays much shorter.

Why the disc-shaped head on top of the stalk? Is it the head of the trich' that is sticky, or the stalk?

Trich's are often thought of as hair, in fact I believe the literal translation is something to do with hair, if trich's are hairs... then cannabis gets them all through it's life.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Do you think this is the sole purpose of Trich's? If we removed the Trich's_thru electrostatic_and then placed the plant back into the light.
> 
> Would the buds get sunburn?


According to my theory, no. The light getting to the plant would be weaker, they'd have no way of magnifying it, so shouldn't grow as big. Only for one day though... as soon as low light levels are initiated the plant will respond by producing more trichomes. also, the freshly produced trich's should contain no (to very minute, maybe) cannabinoids.

If you place a plant into 3 days dark, is the plant producing excess trich's in response to what looks like a harsh world (in other words it expects the whole season to be like this), it's reasonable to suggest that the plant produces these trich's in an effort to capture as much light as it can the next day. 

If they produce all the trich's in response to the fact they believe they might be dying, then what would be the point in trying to catch pollen? They'd never be able to successfully mature the seed anyway. Is cannabis stupid?

I don't believe it is.

I also don't believe that cannabis even considers death as an option. All life wants to live, cannabis adapts to its surroundings quicker than any other plant we know.

Give it darker conditions than what it's used to, and the plant will respond in producing more trich's. Why?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

I was going to write this in my own words, but the article is very entertaining, and I don't believe I could do it any justice, so here you are:



*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Forget soil and fertilisers, there is one plant that needs only the air that we breathe. Darren Crayn explores the salt marshes of Venezuela in search of an incredible plant which has captivated him for over 20 years.
[/FONT]*​




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Tillandsia like to live perched up high on cactus.[/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was a perilously hot morning. I could just make out the ghostly visages of cactus plants, tall and elegant, through the shimmering heat waves rising from the dusty plain. I knew that out here in the seasonal salt marshes of the Venezuelan carribean coast there grew a plant that had a much harder life than these tall cacti. A plant that never knew the luxury of a quick drink from the sodden soil after a rainstorm. It was out here somewhere, all I had to do was find it. And I knew where to look, because in this parched landscape the little plant lives perched on top of the cacti![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I had come to these salt marshes on a personal pilgrimage, to meet face to face with the tillandsias that had so entranced me in my youth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As I trudged across the cracked and bone-dry landscape, I remembered the day twenty years before when I saw my first tillandsia. It was just a hairy little tuft of a thing, stuck to a rock in a local plant nursery on the north coast of New South Wales. It was living, there was no doubt about that, but there was no soil and no obvious roots. Instead, it was sitting, anemone-like, in a big blob of rubbery glue, with its stiff, grey-green tentacles twitching gently in the breeze. It looked other-worldy, like no plant I had seen before. I was intrigued.[/FONT]



*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where to get a drink?[/FONT]*

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My companion across the salt marshes that morning was the well-known Venezuelan plant physiologist, Dr. Ernesto Medina. It was the dry season and the sustaining waters had long retreated from the marshes leaving a dry, dusty, and salty soil. But around me, groups of hardy plants appeared to be managing quite well, even under such adverse conditions. These plants have found ways to overcome the one over-riding problem with living in such arid habitats, and that is, where to get a drink. [/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Plants in the tillandsia family include this Bromeliad[/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The cacti have adopted one common approach to this problem. They drink heartily from the soil when water is available, and store in their fleshy stems what they dont immediately use, to get them through the dry periods. But the tillandsias, living high up on the cactus thick, fleshy arms, dont get the opportunity to drink from the soil. Their roots are highly modified and are good only to anchor them, limpet-like, to their spiny hosts. They are not parasites: the roots dont penetrate the cactus thick skin, so the reservoirs of vital water within are off-limits. There they sit, high up in the dry, wilting air. You could hardly think of a less hospitable place. But tillandsias manage to thrive, so where do they go for a drink?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ernesto led me toward a large and impressive-looking _Pilocereus_, the dominant cactus in these coastal Venezuelan plains. At its base, sun-bleached flotsam littered the cracked soil as a testimony to this arid lands other life as a saltmarsh. The upper reaches of the cactus spiny limbs were festooned with freeloaders, their tentacle-like leaves combing the breeze like warped green anemones. These were the tillandsias, _Tillandsia flexuosa_ to be precise. Suprisingly, they are close relatives of the pineapple. Standing there before what looked like a frayed and twisted rope of fat snakes, I couldnt help but think maybe they were closer to Medusa. [/FONT]



*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Up close & personal[/FONT]*

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I had to get a closer look. Turning one of the leaves in my fingers I marvelled at the fine, light grey fur covering its surface. While it gives the leaves a gorgeous silvery lustre, this fur is there for more than that just aesthetics. In addition to the protection it gives to the plants tiny green photosynthesis factories (chloroplasts) against excessive sunlight, there is an even more remarkable function. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Looking carefully through my magnifying glass, I could see that this fur is not made up of simple hairs, but it is a veritable forest of tiny, fragile cups whose rims fan out into narrow, tongue-like bits (lets call them wings) on one side. I knew that these beautiful structures must be important:- why would a plant living in such a harsh environment invest so much energy to produce them if they were useless?[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Trichomes, the ' little cups' which make living on air possible.[/SIZE][/FONT]​[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I knew that these little cups, or trichomes (pronounced try-combs), allow tillandsias to do something quite amazing and unparalleled in the plant world. Rather than absorb water through their roots like other plants, tillandsias use their trichomes to drink through their leaves. This astounding feat led the great botanist Carl Mez to coin for tillandsias the name atmospherics, but to gardeners and hobbyists they are simply air plants.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While botanists have known of the existence of these curious trichomes since the pioneering work of Dr. Mez over a century ago, only recently has their role in water uptake been fully revealed. We now know that each trichome is made up of a lot of little cells, some of which are living, and some of which are dead and are just an empty shell. When a drop of rainwater falls on the surface of the leaf, it spreads very quickly into a thin film due to 'capillary action. This is a peculiar vice of many liquids that, when faced with a very narrow space (like the space in the centre of a thin needle) they want to defy gravity, and squeeze themselves up into it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the tillandsia leaf, it's the gaps between the trichomes that constitute the 'narrow spaces' which result in the capillary action. When the water comes in contact with one of the dead cells in the wing of a trichome, it is drawn into it like into a sponge, swelling the cell to several times its original size. Then osmosis takes over, and the hapless water molecules are dragged by this irresistible force out of the dead cells into the living cells in the centre of the trichome. Once in the living cell, the water is caught and the plant may use it how it likes. The whole process from rain to gain is simple but effective, and it all happens, literally, in the blink of an eye. [/FONT]




Now, if a trichome can be produced to harness rainwater, could one not (at least in the terms of cannabis) be evolved to harness light?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

you know Skunk....there is a huge point in my mind that I can't shake.....if trichs were for gathering pollen.....how does the pollen make it to the pistil if its caught on the trichs? that does not seem to be an effective reproductive (and therefore competitive) advantage?.....now I'm gonna go back and read this other stuff you put here....thanks!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

Yes, this is a good point, which is why I wanted to know which part of the trichome is sticky.

Trich's could be used, and most likely are used, for all the things mentioned in this thread.

A male plant does not need sticky resin... it's pollen is all too easily dispersed. It has less trichomes because it doesn't need to live as long or draw as much energy from the sun to flower. Maybe this is also a reason that cannabis plants with the dominant male chromosome will have a tendency to stretch taller, in a quicker time than the females.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 26, 2007)

very interesting read on trics of the Tillandsias.

With regards to male hieght and trics:

Cannabis plants are *Anemophily* or *wind pollinated.* This is a form of pollination whereby pollen is distributed by wind. Unlike entomophilous and zoophilous species, whose pollen is spread by insects and vertebrates respectively, anemophilous species do not develop scented flowers, nor do they produce nectar. -Wiki

So, this suggest that males are taller because the tallest were more successful at spreading their pollen farthest by wind. And males seem to have less functions requiring trics. 

Also, interestingly, if these statements are entirely correct, the smell of the cannabis plant does not come from the flower, per say. Because ordinary flowers developed smell to attract a pollinating insect. Rather, the smell is in the secreted chemicals. This falls in line with one of your previous posts, Skunk. Though I have not researched this any further.

I have found no information that the sticky trics have anything to do with catching pollen for pollination. I know this seems elementary, but it is the stamin and pistol that carry the pollen into the flower for pollenation. how would it help the plant to have pollen caught on sticky leaves? Maybe I haven't read enough. Still looking...


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 26, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Ok... then why do hermies have trich's? In fact, this may go against your religous beliefs, but cannabis started out as a hermie... no need for procreation. If cannabis got trich's then, it would discount them being needed for pollenation. Also hermies are usually much bigger plants, and the natural hermies (where both chromosomes are equal) will still get trich's... abundantly so.
> 
> and the fact that it does happen in flower, when the sun is getting less and less intense... yet cannabis triples in height, How does it do this? During the period the plant has the most light. It stays much shorter.
> 
> ...



where are you finding these things?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

so that is so fascinating....the adaptation of this plant to trhe specific conditions under which it now thrives is awe-inspiring for me. I found the following link at the U of Saskatchewan Tillandsias and although a dvisersion a diversion....a wholly (HoLey?) interesting read....and some additional insight into the comlex world of botanical adaptations....like...this plant does not produce a seed....it produces offsets...little babies plants...why? my guess is that a seed would have little chance of success...but a baby plant....obviously it had a serious competitive advantage...how cool!


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 26, 2007)

here is the link regarding the purpose of Trichs resin spheres as UVB magnifiers to produce THC from its precursors CBD: 

Marijuana THC

that whole website is great.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

I wonder who did the test for the article? Green Man refers to a significant other...

Cannabis seems to reflect the far red end of the spectrum, but take in the far blue. Tahoe's touched on this subject in pm very recently.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

and maybe we should now take this to another thread....that of a more intense examination of light....the components of the light and their influence over the plant/trichome processes....I'm sure this has been dealt with in some manner before, but I think we have come to a point in this discussion, that would benefit from starting at a new juncture and running that path...to all the particpants in this thread (and with Skunk's envcouragement *** thank you***)....I hope you have some join us in taking this discussion in another direction.


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 26, 2007)

You guys are to smart for me, I'm going back to the trailer park...


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 26, 2007)

But really, through out evolution all spec. will change in one way or another to adapt to its environment. Isn't the whole point for the spec. to keep its continuation. 
If I remember right in the Gal. Ilands resurchers have found many of different spec. (animals/plant ect) to evolved from one spec. into another and this was from great distances. But through out there evolution they still keep trates from previs adaptations. 

So why would it not make some sence that at one point in time trics- had one function and through time, evolution and adaptation turned into a mutitude of functions. This could make sence logically knowing all the facts through out the true life of the 1st spec. 
With all respect there are to many variables over the corse of time to have a true one dimension answer.
I don't have my books in front of me so don't quote me.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

A lot of what we think we know is guesswork or theory. There will always be theories, which theories do you believe, logan?

You believe these theories, because thay make the most sense. I believe that there is a pattern to evolution, and that it happens for very logical reasons. So by using logic, reasoning, history... whatever... we can come up with answers that make the most sense.

Any niggling doubts must be raised and then addressed.


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 26, 2007)

I don't have enough knowledge on the plant its self and have not resurch it. I was speaking in generality.

Like yourself I don't like it when ppl state disclamed facts and try to ponder them of as truths/facts. That never helps, it makes thing worse. And I see no point but for that person to feel like they are knowledgeable in something that they are not.

If we are talking about the life of a spec. I would think that spec. would develop over time different traites for different environments and would actaully turn or morph into a new spec. I'm not saying that the first spec. would die out I'm saying it would change as the evironments does. This is over 100s of years maybe 1000s. 

If we think about any living spec. and ask our selves what is the key factor in its existance, I would say to stay alive or in essences to keep the DNA alive and with that said as pollen is released it would be definitely an advantage with the glue like substance. 
Someone made the comment about how it would not be beneficial for reproduction but why not? It takes something like 10 million sperm to enter one egg. So even if one pollen made it in (I don't know the real number it take to reproduce, nor do I know the number of pollen released) would be a dna structurer/trait. 

Futher more with the stickiness of the trics I would see a benefit with other animals walking by and catching it on its nose, fur, feathers, ect. This might be why in different geographic location the plant does not trive (as to date) it just has not evolved to its environment. 

As for the other functions that it might have, ie magnifying the sun for an extra boost of photosynthesis this could be a possibility. 

Lets think about it...????....????

Why would this help? ---- This could help produce bigger and better seeds as it has been poll. all ready. This might be why the plant produces much more at the final stage of its cycle of life. This might allow it to have a consentrate amout of energy production. This could help keep the poll in the plant to reasure its reproduction as well.

Like I said in my first statement I do not know enough about the structure, so everything that I have said is merrily my educated guess.


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 26, 2007)

1 sperm 1 egg just to correct my misprint.


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 26, 2007)

And as for herm and other mutations maybe thats what they are. I beleive that you stated that they started out this way, I don't know how they started but for arguement sake lets say this is how they started out. 

So what would tell us? 

Maybe that in its primal state it didn't have as many spec. around the same area so it needed to poll. its self to keep the spec. thriving but through time it change into a male, female poll. plants. do to it abundance in nature. 

Maybe there life span was in the years or decades and not a seasonal plant. Maybe they where the size of tress (ie 10 x 10 or 30 x 10). This is very possible.

But with every strand of DNA there will some type of genetic mishap. This is with time of course. So now think of what the mishap will bring to its spec. maybe nothing but maybe change its entire structure over time. That could be the fist step in its new footprint of evolution. 

Just a thought I have no proof to back any of this up-


----------



## natmoon (Nov 27, 2007)

I believe that trics are multi functional and provide many things to the plant and serve many purposes.
Trics glistening in the sun like a million diamonds would attract many insects that would pollinate the plant,many insects will also die from potent trics and eventually fall to the ground.

Many seeds will fall down in the original plants base area with all the dead insects and leaf and provide a great new home for the new seedlings next season.

I also think that the trics moisturize the plants and probably act to reflect some light and heat away from the plant in hot dry conditions and maybe to absorb extra light in low light conditions as the trics can move just as the leaves do and angle the resin globs as needed.

There are many reasons for trics and it is even possible that trics were developed to ward of men and other animals over time as im sure that being totally wasted on weed and living in a time were you may have been hunted by wolves or bears did not mix well,so it is possible that trics are a defense against men as well as other animals that knew not to eat that plant because it will make you go to sleep and not wake up until your legs being chewed of by a wolf


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 27, 2007)

all of the above....as I wrote in another thread yeaterday....anti-dessication (i.e., THC concentration higher in xeric conditions), antimicrobial, antifungal, antifeedant (i.e., chemical and physical deterrent). Anotehr one that is also being further investigated is UV-B pigmentation roles.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 27, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> all of the above....as I wrote in another thread yeaterday....anti-dessication (i.e., THC concentration higher in xeric conditions), antimicrobial, antifungal, antifeedant (i.e., chemical and physical deterrent). Anotehr one that is also being further investigated is UV-B pigmentation roles.


Yes, NASA do a lot of work on atmospheric pressures and varying degrees of spectrum. So the plant releases pigment, or changing colours in response to UV. This is why YGF's plants in the desert went purple... too much exposure, maybe? UV prevents cell division, so the pigment in the plant is a response to this, almost a defensive barrier against the harmful radiation getting in.

Yet, it seems at the moment, that the trichome works and responds in much the same way. It creates chemicals to counteract the harmful UV, yet then why work as a magnifier to the light? Maybe the trich' was first developed to harness the dwindling blue end of the spectrum, and in response to this the trich had to work out defences against the UV. Could this be the reason for the 2 cells? Within the trich, the harmful UV is reacted with a chemical, rendering it harmless, while at the same time creating thc. The rest of the light reacts with the other cell, which responds in feeding the cytokinin hormones responsible for photosynthesis.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 27, 2007)

LoganSmith said:


> If we are talking about the life of a spec. I would think that spec. would develop over time different traites for different environments and would actaully turn or morph into a new spec. I'm not saying that the first spec. would die out I'm saying it would change as the evironments does. This is over 100s of years maybe 1000s.
> 
> If we think about any living spec. and ask our selves what is the key factor in its existance, I would say to stay alive or in essences to keep the DNA alive and with that said as pollen is released it would be definitely an advantage with the glue like substance.



It is my assumption that if we change the environment, regardless of the degree of change, the plant_or us for that matter_will immediately begin the process of adaptation. I don't think it waits for a few years to evaluate changes. I've lived remotely with the animals for decades now and I can tell you that the animals and plants adapt and change at a much faster rate than we do.

eg. While the world is pondering global climate change, the beaver is daily working on his dam, managing the amount of and quality of water for his enviornment. Which goes to your 2nd paragraph about how the plant wants 'to stay alive'.

Of course, this is my opinion and I'm probably wrong.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 27, 2007)

Thinking further about the evolutionary time of a plant. 

If we agree the effective life of a plant is 300 days_10 months outdoors_that works out to a total life of 7,200 hours.

In that period of time, the plant not only has to do all of the genetic housekeeping that is encoded, but also it has to have 'situational awareness'_don't you just love that word_to analyze it's environment, compare it to it's baseline and then make the necessary changes to: 1) survive; 2) give a road map to later generations of how they survived, thru DNA encoding.

7,200 hours = a lifetime.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 27, 2007)

Yes, and the mayfly... lives for just 24 hours. I watched a documentary once, and it was designed to show us what life looks like to a fly.

Normal street lights would flicker, as the fly could see things moving so quickly, it even could see the surges of power it takes to run a sodium lamp. naked to our own eyes.

This would be true of a plant also. They see differently than we do, maybe a trichome is just a highly advanced eye.


----------



## LoganSmith (Nov 27, 2007)

If I'm uderstanding you right then you are saying that the plant will change its self within one cycle of life to the degree of a internal DNA change. How can this be possable? I would think that it would take years and years for a spec. to change to a totally different enviorment. I would say I know this to be true- Like I have said in my past posts I don't have my books nor do I really want to resurch it. 
This is as we were talking about the start of trics. or the start of the plant in general. 
We as humans are one of the youngest living things on earth as we know it as of now. 
Trees can live for 100s and 1000s of years and with that said the change of a spec. DNA to adapt totally to a new enviorment would be a very slow process. I'm not saying I'm 100% right because I know I'm not. I'm saying with the few years of desert eco. that I have taken and the study of different spec. ie Kangaroo rats, snakes, and a var. of different other spec. and plants that the process in a very slow one, and slow I would refur to the other spec. of life and not ours as humans.

I would say that a spec. is changing all the time but not to the degree of a new DNA strand that has altered the structure of that spec.

Please excuess my spelling errors I'm sick and don't have the energy to spell check. 

Thx for the debate it gets my mind going-


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 27, 2007)

phenotypically....the physical and observable structural makeup can change within the confines of the living time of an organism. however, I believe the genetic code to remake that morphological change will take more time. How much....that's evolution - the success of the individual species is inherent it is ability to adapat and in the translation of that adaption into a genetic code. that is genetic change and not adaptive change. 

say for example you break your leg and you are in a cast for 12 weeks....your immobilized leg will undergo singnificant reduction in muscle mass (atrophy), and I expect under microscopic analysis your bones will also change structurally. these are adaptive, not evolutionary processes. The babies that my sperm produces will not have a changed genetic code for an atrophied and emaciated legs muscle and bone less adapted to being weight bearing.

Adaptive changes will only become evolutionary changes once they are an expression of the genetic material, and not a mere response to an environmental condition. Environmental conditions come and go. genetic change has to make certain that it is an absolute competitive advantage to propogating that genetic material. So, in the case of trichome production and THC concentration, the adapative change may be significant differences from the genetic map, but until the genetic map has "mutated" to include this as a "trait" it will remain as an environmental adaption. 

I go back to my example of the cheetah and the thompson's gazelle. an individual cheetah that is able to chase down thomson's gazelle more successfully will propogate its genetic material. That behaviour will be passed along, but only those offspring that are capble of tolerating the higher body temperature will have the probability of higher survival success. Somewhere along the line, that same animal will have to experience a genetic map that carries the gene that is programed for the allowance to withstand a higher internal body temperature.

As we are "manipulating" environmental conditions, and we can complete many many generations, it is "theoretically" possible to pursue those traits that we prefer. there is much more to say here....and I will continue to read and think....I'm having SOOO much fun with this....I truly do believe I have gone over the edge! hahahahaha.

***EDIT*** taken from CC article entitled Pot Potency.....

_Marijuana is unique from an evolutionary standpoint in being the only plant in history that in some cases has been grown and bred for over two decades under nothing but artificial light. It is very likely that there have already been some genetic changes that have taken place as a result of this. All plants, especially cannabis, will quickly adapt to a new habitat by adding or dropping traits over successive generations. With breeders doing potentially as many as three or four generations per year, over 20 years there is great opportunity for drift from original genotypes.
_


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

ok...I just had a thought blast its way through me early this morning. if we accept the notion that there is a measureable difference in the concentration of trichromes, and ultimately THC with female plants - then what I am saying in this attached quote? That males do not warrant the same level of protection from all the elements that female plants do? is it not as important for a male plant to not dessicate? is it not equally important for a male plant to avoid fungal and microbial attack? etc. etc. maybe it is not. one male plant spewing its pollen can cover many females, so the overall importance of the male is potentially less? there we go we get f*cked in the ear again. work, make money, make babies, work some more, make more money, work your fingers to the bone, and make sure you're making even more money...and ....then f*ck off...what mine is mine and whats yours is mine! (and no...I'm not bitter!) hahahahahahaha 



tahoe58 said:


> all of the above....as I wrote in another thread yeaterday....anti-dessication (i.e., THC concentration higher in xeric conditions), antimicrobial, antifungal, antifeedant (i.e., chemical and physical deterrent). Anotehr one that is also being further investigated is UV-B pigmentation roles.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 28, 2007)

The ability of many hardy plants to adapt to their current environment quickly is already in their dna and is not something that requires an evolutionary jump or change in genetics.
Just as you would put a coat on if it was cold outside a weed will grow differently because it can sense the cold


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

understood. these are adapative changes that are inherent in most biological organisms. and if/when environments change (again), these adapative change will predominate (again).

so have the needs of the male plant over eons meant (through continuous adaptive change) that they do not need to be "as protected" from the elements as females, and therefore females have the dubious distinction of having more trichomes and more THC. this would suggest that the strong adaptive/evolutionary advantage comes from trichormes/THC protecting the seed production capacity as a more important variable than the other "purposes".

I dunno know...I'm just trying to better understand why males plants are not as potent and therefore shunned. if the real reason for trichomes and THC was all those "other" preventative measures or defensive mechanisms, seems to me that the male plant would have more equal distribution of defense mechanisms (trichomesa) as compared to the female.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 28, 2007)

Females are always well protected in all species that have male and female sexual repro as they have the ability to become true hermaphrodites.
This includes human females whereas the theories that i know of are that a human females ovaries will become testicles and the clitoris will become a small yet effective penis or another one is that one of the females ovaries will become an internal testicle and that when she masturbates she will fertilize her own egg.

This is a theory that is obviously all speculation and applies when and if there are no men left and only several women or 1 woman in the theory where she fertilizes her own egg.

A man however cannot do this but a male cannabis plant can create its own seeds but it is highly unlikely that its seed will produce a real female only severely hermiefied things.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> understood. these are adapative changes that are inherent in most biological organisms. and if/when environments change (again), these adapative change will predominate (again).
> 
> so have the needs of the male plant over eons meant (through continuous adaptive change) that they do not need to be &quot;as protected&quot; from the elements as females, and therefore females have the dubious distinction of having more trichomes and more THC. this would suggest that the strong adaptive/evolutionary advantage comes from trichormes/THC protecting the seed production capacity as a more important variable than the other &quot;purposes&quot;.
> 
> I dunno know...I'm just trying to better understand why males plants are not as potent and therefore shunned. if the real reason for trichomes and THC was all those &quot;other&quot; preventative measures or defensive mechanisms, seems to me that the male plant would have more equal distribution of defense mechanisms (trichomesa) as compared to the female.


This isn't true, a male plant can be just as potent as a female plant. I've only ever read one book about cannabis, and it was by Ed rosenthal, In many strains the male will just be as potent as the female. A male merely finishes quicker and provides less yield.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

interesting thoughts and theories. 'preciate your bringing this forward. spo the evolution of the prduction of concetrated trichmoes and THC was driven primarily to protect the seeds through the direct protection from dessication, fungus/microbes, etc.

In my other thread, I am trying to see if we can further this understanding by exploring the relationship of trichome/THC wirth UVB light. the destructive potential of UVB light is also worth protecting against. so does that mean we should be able to isolate and breed for increased trichome/THC through UVB light manipulation? that's the question I am posting there.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

really? then why do people immediately shat upon them and through them away. why would you not take the necessary precautions and take advantage to make some decent oil or bubblehash...or tincture? 


skunkushybrid said:


> This isn't true, a male plant can be just as potent as a female plant. I've only ever read one book about cannabis, and it was by Ed rosenthal, In many strains the male will just be as potent as the female. A male merely finishes quicker and provides less yield.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> really? then why do people immediately shat upon them and through them away. why would you not take the necessary precautions and take advantage to make some decent oil or bubblehash...or tincture?


People that know... do.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Besides, it's hard to keep males safely without threat of them pollinating the fem's. Even a fly could do it.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 28, 2007)

think about it like this:

85% of all genetic material in ALL human's DNA in included in our each of us. Even if you don't look dark, the DNA is there, recessively.

if a plant can't handle the cold, it dies. but it's brother, not too far way, grown from a seed which dropped from the same plant as the dead one, lives because the hearty cold gene is dominate.

plant vigor is based on its environment, assuming it is genetically healthy. evolutionary adaptation takes place on too long a time scale for anyone to see with their eyes, so far as we know.

for example: records show people today live longer and are taller and bigger then the past (thousands of years ago even). is this evolution? no. it is medical and diet awareness that are creating a healthy generation that are reaching their FULL POTENTIAL for body size and mass. like giving a plant everything it needs will create a 'monster'. really, any healthy plant could acheive that with the same care.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

great post.... that is so true...maximizing the genetic potential.....through maximizing favourable environment conditions - we do this for our human children every day. thanks for putting this forward. 

but because we have the option of selectively breeding for particular traits that we desire, and that plant "evolution" can be so-called compressed with ans many as 5 generations in one calender year....with knowledge, experience, commitment, and diligence - could we begin the processs of "creating" a strain that produced a preponderence of trichome/THC under UVB exposure conditions?

Or am I missing the point here?



closet.cult said:


> think about it like this:
> 
> 85% of all genetic material in ALL human's DNA in included in our each of us. Even if you don't look dark, the DNA is there, recessively.
> 
> ...


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

hehehehe good one. I guess there has just been so much said about the uselessness of males that I had myself convinced there was absolutely NO value in retaining a male plant.

In my case. I will have two different rooms, on separate floors of the house (1 top floor and one garage) which I believe will be sufficiently separated that contamination is unlikely....though I would have to be careful not to the the vector of transport myseslf!



skunkushybrid said:


> People that know... do.





skunkushybrid said:


> Besides, it's hard to keep males safely without threat of them pollinating the fem's. Even a fly could do it.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 28, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> This isn't true, a male plant can be just as potent as a female plant. I've only ever read one book about cannabis, and it was by Ed rosenthal, In many strains the male will just be as potent as the female. A male merely finishes quicker and provides less yield.


ineresting. we know THC is produced ONLY in the tricnome glands.

since the male has no flowers and very few leaves it's going to be producing trics at only a few places. but, i suppose if you pulled the trics off using electrostatic means or scraped them off somehow, you could smoke them as hash. but the yeild would be far less then the effort.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> ineresting. we know THC is produced ONLY in the tricnome glands.
> 
> since the male has no flowers and very few leaves it's going to be producing trics at only a few places. but, i suppose if you pulled the trics off using electrostatic means or scraped them off somehow, you could smoke them as hash. but the yeild would be far less then the effort.


A male plant can also flower... although I believe (can't remember) that the optimum time to harvest a male is just before this event occurs. what is the male protecting, it's pollen sacks?

Although the male trich' could be merely left over from when cannabis was a hermaphrodite plant only. I believe it produces enough trich's to help it grow.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

yea Skunk...totally agree. and the survival of the plant...from dessication, fungus/microbes and uv light protection all remain as reasonable means to protecting the pollen sacs...and perpetuating that particular plants genetic material. 



skunkushybrid said:


> A male plant can also flower... although I believe (can't remember) that the optimum time to harvest a male is just before this event occurs. what is the male protecting, it's pollen sacks?
> 
> Although the male trich' could be merely left over from when cannabis was a hermaphrodite plant only. I believe it produces enough trich's to help it grow.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 28, 2007)

a male plant can flower? i've never head of this? have you seen a male plant. it's a few leaves and alot of pollen sacks. if it flowers it must be a hermi.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

I believe this is a matter of semantics....male plants do flower...that does not mean they produce buds like a female...but a fully flowering male plant )prior to blowing it's load) can have very substantial "flowering" growth.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 28, 2007)

theres a huge difference between the 'bud' of a female plant and the pollen sacs of a male. 

do you mean to say that when a male is producing pollen sacs it is flowering and therefore is producing THC in it's few trics? if that is the case its still a waste of time to collect those few.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

yes...I think that it what I am trying to say. there is significant debate over the "concentration" of trichs for males vs females. you have stated that it is your opinion (and I acknowledge that of many others as well) that males have substantially less trich production and therefore likely lower THC production as well. I do not disagree. I am merely questioning the absolute and unequivocal manner in which many people refer to male plants as useless, and possibly even impotent as it relates to THC, which I am not convinced is founded in fact.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

A male can be just as potent as a female. Lets not forget that cannabinoids are present in the actual plant itself, and not just the trich's. Trouble with a male is that you get less weight, although it does finish quicker... also you have the problem of not pollinating the fem's. There is a specific time to harvest a male (i read that ed' rose' book back when i first started, I only borrowed it for one night though, so my memory is a little sketchy in this area), and i'm sure you smoke the pollen.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 28, 2007)

skunk, what you just said does not jive with current research. according to the link i sent you:

The resin spheres contain the THC. It is not contained in the leaf or floral bract. After the resin spheres are dissolved in solvent or dislodged by electrostatic attraction, and a microscopic examination of the leaf or floral bract has revealed that only the glandular trichomes' stalks remain, no effect will be felt after smoking the dried plant material from which the resin spheres have been removed. 

which is why you need UVB light during flowering:

If the UVB photon is missing from the light stream(a), or the intensity as expressed in µW/cm2 falls below a certain level(b), the phytochemical process will not be completely energized with only UVA photons which are more penetrating but less energetic, and the harvested resin spheres will have mostly precursor compounds and not fully realized THC(c).

so leaves do not have cannabinoids. if you feel high it is the trics on the leaves giving you a little hit of THC.

so, i understand that males produce 'some' trics. and theTHC in them is just as potent as their female siblings of the same mother/father. they just hardly have any trics so they're not much good for a high. but, if you consider the fact that the precursors NEED UVB light to mature to THC, then the best time to try to smoke anything off a male is around the same time you would harvest the females: late in the year when UVB light is at it's highest, due to the position of the sun.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

do you mean this book? I believe I bought this book in 1971 or 73? can't remember. 









skunkushybrid said:


> A male <U>can be&lt/;U> just as potent as a female. Lets not forget that cannabinoids are present in the actual plant itself, and not just the trich's. Trouble with a male is that you get less weight, although it does finish quicker... also you have the problem of not pollinating the fem's. There is a specific time to harvest a male (i read that ed' rose' book back when i first started, I only borrowed it for one night though, so my memory is a little sketchy in this area), and i'm sure you smoke the pollen.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

I think this is the key to this particular component of the discussion/debate (i.e., trich production female vs. male)....

_"yes, i understand that males produce 'some' trics. and theTHC in them is just as potent as their female siblings of the same mother/father. they just hardly have any trics so they're not much good for a high."_

what I mean is - has there been a factual and empirical measure that given the same care and attention, do males actually produce less trich density than females?

I'm not saying that what is being said is wrong or right - I just have not seen the data to support such a claim...and likely this is a function of everyone not having any interest in males and therefore not giving them "equal care and attention". And maybe that is appropriate, but this is leading back to the discussion relating to the purpose of trichs....dessication, antifungal/mircrobial and UVB protection - these are of eqaul importance to males and females...so trich production should not be markedly different ....UNLESS....the purpose of trich IS more important for seed production.


----------



## closet.cult (Nov 28, 2007)

well, tahoe, i grew 1 male and two female White Widows outdoors towards the end of the season this year for seeds. i used identical veg nutes and then flowering nutes on both. the male was thin and spinly and i noticed NO trics on him. the girls were covered in trics and seeds.

i'm sure if i had a magnifying glass i could have found some trics on him. and i'm sure if i could have analyzed them i would find comparable THC% in him as the girls. there's just not alot of it. hardly any at all.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

cool..thanks for sharing that info.. 'preciate that.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> well, tahoe, i grew 1 male and two female White Widows outdoors towards the end of the season this year for seeds. i used identical veg nutes and then flowering nutes on both. the male was thin and spinly and i noticed NO trics on him. the girls were covered in trics and seeds.
> 
> i'm sure if i had a magnifying glass i could have found some trics on him. and i'm sure if i could have analyzed them i would find comparable THC% in him as the girls. there's just not alot of it. hardly any at all.




Yes, this is not evident in all strains... maybe we need to go back to superior genetics.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

yes Skunk. I am getting a stronger feeling that this is really what we are talking about here as much as anything. the genetic potential to be realized under ideal conditions (whatever they are?) and entering in environmental stress to trigger the plant to produce tons of trichomes. 


skunkushybrid said:


> Yes, this is not evident in all strains... maybe we need to go back to superior genetics.


----------



## W33D (Nov 29, 2007)

Maybe there just there, like how stipules are just there. Now that would be a debate, what the hell do stipules do exactly?


----------



## donnieosmond (Nov 29, 2007)

So.... conclusions?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

W33D said:


> Maybe there just there, like how stipules are just there. Now that would be a debate, what the hell do stipules do exactly?




This is interesting... never thought about it before. So I googled it...

stipules are thorns... or at least in their evolved state now they are protective measures for newly forming leaves...

At one time I imagine these may well have been more prominent along the stem of cannabis. Much thicker... maybe at one time, cannabis would have tried to bite your finger off.


----------



## psyclone (Nov 30, 2007)

could this explain why the trichomes on my first indoor plants seem to orientate themselves towards the light? It's an interesting idea. I wonder if there other photosynthesis operations going on? at what point on the plant are the light signals received/processed that govern the duration of the flowering period? I sort of assumed it was an holistic, whole plant thing, but can this be the trichomes at work?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

I don't think cannabinoids are a deterrant (just like the rest of us on these boards, lol).

Again, I think we need to look to Darwains theories to find what I believe was the prime motivation of the cannabinoids.

At one time in cannabis history, it was a carnivore... who knows how big it was... or what it looked like... but the plants of this period would have needed to devise all sorts of neat little tricks to catch their prey.

What better than sticky trichomes? The aromas of the THCV enticing it's victim into the promised heaven, bright colours, a calming feel in the air... Then what better than a powerful drug to incapacitate its victim as lengthy, sticky tendrils (early pistils) wrapped around it and devoured it? 

I also imagine that back then cannabis may have been much more potent.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

hey Skunkk....you have mentioned in thr past that cannabis was not a dioecious plant but a monoecious and now you mention a carnivore. where can I find that old historical stuff to read up on?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Hey tahoe... i couldn't find you anything specific... but this makes for a good read.

Top 10 Carnivorous Plants - Plants turned to animals - Softpedia

I think the carnivorous plants that are left today are merely a shadow of what they were back in the time of the dinosaurs... I also think that all plants started out this way.

There is no direct evidence, but darwins theories suggest as much... at least they do to me.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

oic...ok..thanks!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

so skunk....whaddaya think of my 20 day old sprout? any thoughts, guidance?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 2, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> =At one time I imagine these may well have been more prominent along the stem of cannabis. Much thicker... maybe at one time, cannabis would have tried to bite your finger off.



Lucky it was only my finger it was trying to bite off.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 2, 2007)

another good reason to not walk around nude in your house.....even in your neck of the wooods! hahahahaha....g'morn YGF!


----------



## kindprincess (Dec 2, 2007)

hey skunk, i thought it might be a good idea to try and list known strains that may be bottlenecked to the point of domestication (as you mentioned earlier). a lot of change can happen in just a few generations, meaning that LOTS of indoor med strains might be weak against uvb.

def worth looking into; has anyone found a thread/experiment that has been done? things i'm thinking about are altered intenisties, short but frequent intervals, distances etc....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 2, 2007)

kindprincess said:


> hey skunk, i thought it might be a good idea to try and list known strains that may be bottlenecked to the point of domestication (as you mentioned earlier). a lot of change can happen in just a few generations, meaning that LOTS of indoor med strains might be weak against uvb.
> 
> def worth looking into; has anyone found a thread/experiment that has been done? things i'm thinking about are altered intenisties, short but frequent intervals, distances etc....


Yeah, on the strains... I'd say most of them. But I also think that cannabis is very adaptable.

I think you'll be very lucky to find a paper on experiments of this nature. All of this is still relatively new to scientists. They blame poor funding, which is most likely true.


----------



## kindprincess (Dec 2, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yeah, on the strains... I'd say most of them. But I also think that cannabis is very adaptable.
> 
> I think you'll be very lucky to find a paper on experiments of this nature. All of this is still relatively new to scientists. They blame poor funding, which is most likely true.


heh, so we can call ourselves, "the founding fathers(/mothers) of uvb growing/testing" eh?

lol, looks like this upcoming year will be interesting. it'll be fun to do indoor/ourdoor grows while uv is the main focus of comparison, watching results change with seasons, and then all the speculation and discussion! 

yeah, this is gonna be cool


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> so skunk....whaddaya think of my 20 day old sprout? any thoughts, guidance?


Sorry buddy, forgot about this post. Any chance of a link?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

kindprincess said:


> heh, so we can call ourselves, "the founding fathers(/mothers) of uvb growing/testing" eh?
> 
> lol, looks like this upcoming year will be interesting. it'll be fun to do indoor/ourdoor grows while uv is the main focus of comparison, watching results change with seasons, and then all the speculation and discussion!
> 
> yeah, this is gonna be cool


Yes, I feel YGF played the defining card... my head was just stuck on light intensity. UV didn't actually occur to me until he mentioned it. Even up till now I had been sceptical about it's involvement. 

I'm going to order my UV lamp today, I've finally settled on the one I want.


----------



## premier (Dec 3, 2007)

what is an non-glandular trichome ?

peace love this reading ... @ page 4 atm.


----------



## kindprincess (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes, I feel YGF played the defining card... my head was just stuck on light intensity. UV didn't actually occur to me until he mentioned it. Even up till now I had been sceptical about it's involvement.
> 
> I'm going to order my UV lamp today, I've finally settled on the one I want.


show us!

i'm using the 10.0 reptile bulbs from the pet store....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

This one here...

UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram

I'm just not sure that you get everything you need to start. It says built-in ballast... but only shows a pic' of the bulb.

Cheap though, I've looked around and the same bulbs go for much more on other websites.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

Tahoe's doing it - stepping up to the plate....we're ready.....


skunkushybrid said:


> Sorry buddy, forgot about this post. Any chance of a link?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

premier said:


> what is an non-glandular trichome ?
> 
> peace love this reading ... @ page 4 atm.


I believe a non glandular trichome is one that doesn't secrete chemicals. I'm not sure, but I think they may also be headless... like a dormant stalk.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> Tahoe's doing it - stepping up to the plate....we're ready.....


Thanks tahoe. 

I'm wondering if you have anything to add on my choice of light? Think it's a little too powerful maybe?

I just like the fact it says equivalent UV radiation to the sun... I'm assuming they mean from the perspective of a tropical country, lol.


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> At one time in cannabis history, it was a carnivore... who knows how big it was... or what it looked like... but the plants of this period would have needed to devise all sorts of neat little tricks to catch their prey.
> 
> I also imagine that back then cannabis may have been much more potent.


interesting. i disagree with this. not because it's imposible, but only because it is moving into conjecture at this point and it doesn't jive with my idea of evolution.

during the cambian explosion there were over 100(!) phyla that evolved and then vanished. today we have about 30. phyla is a huge group of different animals based on a a general body plan. like the difference between invertebrates and mollusks. 

i imagine that the species that would end up being plants and that one that ended up being animals coexisted with creatures 'in-between' plants and animals, for a while. like an awake venus flytrap or pitcher plant.

i tend think that marijuana is not from those groups of carnivorous plants. rather, it just shares a couple of features with them (sticky glands). but as your previous post points out, tricnomes form on other plants today. i should think marijuana is more closly related to them then it is to carnivorous.

having said that, your theory is not imposible.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

Yes... anything is possible.

Although there are proto carnivorous, and para carnivorous sub types. Darwin himself recognised a list of plants he suspected could evolve into carnivores. cannabis was not one of them... but that doesn't mean anything. 

The question is, can it be done? I believe the pot' ential is there.


----------



## kindprincess (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes... anything is possible.
> 
> The question is, can it be done? I believe the pot' ential is there.


ahahahahahaha


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

hey Skunk.. thanks for asking. I think it might be a very good choice. This is the product info from the OSRAM wewbsite....

_*The total irradiance of the sun on the surface of the Earth at noon on a sunny June day is around 1 kW/m2 (annual average solar radiation at a latitude of 50° N is 200 W/m2). An array of 16 lamps per square metre at a distance of about 50 cm between the bulb crown and the irradiated object achieves a similar uniform irradiance.*_


I found some other potential options as well, and I will continue to look into this.....I will post some additional information as I put it together.....but this is exciting...



skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks tahoe.
> 
> I'm wondering if you have anything to add on my choice of light? Think it's a little too powerful maybe?
> 
> I just like the fact it says equivalent UV radiation to the sun... I'm assuming they mean from the perspective of a tropical country, lol.


----------



## ez_growin (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> marijuana is just another plant? No, it has no classification... it is a class unto itself.
> 
> Obey the laws of nature? Since when does nature provide 24/0 sunlight?


So true...I am just finishing 2 that were on 12/12 since 1 week old...and these babies are the best I've grown so far.....plant is done with fan leaves and growin tight trich loaded buds....this is very interesting thread...following for the ride...and great inputs......


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> hey Skunk.. thanks for asking. I think it might be a very good choice. This is the product info from the OSRAM wewbsite....
> 
> _*The total irradiance of the sun on the surface of the Earth at noon on a sunny June day is around 1 kW/m2 (annual average solar radiation at a latitude of 50° N is 200 W/m2). An array of 16 lamps per square metre at a distance of about 50 cm between the bulb crown and the irradiated object achieves a similar uniform irradiance.*_
> 
> ...


Surely I don't need 16 of them? I honestly don't understand the last part. I get that I must have the lamp around 20" away... which is going to be a bitch, considering my 400's are max 12" away. I'm only going to use 2 400's during veg. 1 mh, and one hps, alongside the 300w osram. Then bring the other 400w hps into play for flower.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 4, 2007)

You don't have to simulate the suns output to reap the benefits of uvb.
Cannabis will immediately detect higher levels of uvb and protect itself accordingly and this response only requires an elevated uvb level not a sun simulation level.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

natmoon said:


> You don't have to simulate the suns output to reap the benefits of uvb.


Yeah, i kinda already know that... lol. Didn't you know that I am crazy?


----------



## natmoon (Dec 4, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yeah, i kinda already know that... lol. Didn't you know that I am crazy?


I figured that you knew that lol
My response was really aimed at this text from tahoe.


> The total irradiance of the sun on the surface of the Earth at noon on a sunny June day is around 1 kW/m2 (annual average solar radiation at a latitude of 50° N is 200 W/m2). An array of 16 lamps per square metre at a distance of about 50 cm between the bulb crown and the irradiated object achieves a similar uniform irradiance.


Just in case some new person goes and buys 16 300 watt lamps and frys all their weed


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks nat', sorry for the misunderstanding... but what it has done is forced me to digest the whole sentence properly. 

Now, I want a room that big... the possibilities, to my mind, seem endless.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 4, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks nat', sorry for the misunderstanding... but what it has done is forced me to digest the whole sentence properly.
> 
> Now, I want a room that big... the possibilities, to my mind, seem endless.


I used to have a friend who rented a garage for 10 pounds a week from the council lol


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 4, 2007)

hey skunk. that thing about 16 lights is a little off from other material I found and presented in my thread....however, penetrebility is a potential issue....so maybe the size of room and depth of penetration is a factor....I didn't realize you put ur HIDs that close? but the rest of what ur saying is bang on...I think your approach is gonna produce some mostros! 


skunkushybrid said:


> Surely I don't need 16 of them? I honestly don't understand the last part. I get that I must have the lamp around 20" away... which is going to be a bitch, considering my 400's are max 12" away. I'm only going to use 2 400's during veg. 1 mh, and one hps, alongside the 300w osram. Then bring the other 400w hps into play for flower.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 4, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> hey skunk. that thing about 16 lights is a little off from other material I found and presented in my thread....however, penetrebility is a potential issue....I didn't realize you put ur HIDs that close? but the rest of what ur saying is bang on...I think your appraoch is gonna produce some mostros!


What you posted was good info tahoe and something that i did not know but i reckon that some people that are new to growing if they had the cash may then try to simulate the sun with that 16 bulb setup in a confined area when i reckon that 16 bulbs would be good for a 16 square metre area lol


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 4, 2007)

hahahahaha....yea that a really good point....I certainly do not want to mislead them and have that happen. thanks for the clairfication.


natmoon said:


> What you posted was good info tahoe and something that i did not know but i reckon that some people that are new to growing if they had the cash may then try to simulate the sun with that 16 bulb setup in a confined area when i reckon that 16 bulbs would be good for a 16 square metre area lol


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I used to have a friend who rented a garage for 10 pounds a week from the council lol


He rented a council garage to grow weed in? Surely not... did he actually make it through to harvest?

A lock-up on an industrial estate, maybe worth considering... but a council garage brings up too many problems. They are in council estate areas, someone somewhere will see something. The garge would get burgled... without a doubt.

Also, the police helicopter is bound to pick up heat sources at night... 

If you don't want the attention... go for a lock-up on an industrial estate.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 4, 2007)

find a unused bombshelter or bunker. in canada the successful candidate to grow medicinal marijuana used an old mine....deep under ground....I can't remember if that is still operational though....I believe they have overall air quality issies....but that only money...that can be managed. good luck folks! be careful ....i want you all to be around to enjoy this new found revelation! 


skunkushybrid said:


> He rented a council garage to grow weed in? Surely not... did he actually make it through to harvest?
> 
> A lock-up on an industrial estate, maybe worth considering... but a council garage brings up too many problems. They are in council estate areas, someone somewhere will see something. The garge would get burgled... without a doubt.
> 
> ...


----------



## natmoon (Dec 4, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> He rented a council garage to grow weed in? Surely not... did he actually make it through to harvest?
> 
> A lock-up on an industrial estate, maybe worth considering... but a council garage brings up too many problems. They are in council estate areas, someone somewhere will see something. The garge would get burgled... without a doubt.
> 
> ...


This was 15 years ago,the garages were just behind his council house,all fluro tubes,garage doors were sealed around the edges.
No helicopters then and we lived in area that was quiet and fairly peaceful not like a city at all.
He grew shit loads of okish weed in there for years.
Your dream of having enough space to use 16 bulbs reminded of that garage.

He never got caught as far as i know as he no longer lives around here and no one ever burgled him but nowadays yes i reckon you'd get ripped of or busted within weeks.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Yeah, everything was much easier 15 years ago... people lived almost peacefully compared to the fear of today.

On a lighter note... I just got my seeds... and invested  in some sensi seeds white label too. The first pic' is of the NL i'll be growing on my next grow.

The sensi seeds white label are: Afghan Kush (in like of AK47), Master Kush, Sensi Star, Super Skunk, White Widow. 

Yum Yum.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 4, 2007)

sweet....thats gonna be great....I am itching to get onto more as well.....but I have commited to making sure I keep my concentration on this first one. gd luck with all that! 


skunkushybrid said:


> Yeah, everything was much easier 15 years ago... people lived almost peacefully compared to the fear of today.
> 
> On a lighter note... I just got my seeds... and invested  in some sensi seeds white label too. The first pic' is of the NL i'll be growing on my next grow.
> 
> ...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Yeah, the white label are sensi seeds version of versace urban wear.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 4, 2007)

the source for the TRUE conniseur!...hahahahahahaI want to learn to be a conniseur as well.......


skunkushybrid said:


> Yeah, the white label are sensi seeds version of versace urban wear.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

So there are no cannabinoids in the actual plant? I have read before that there are...

This has made me think... I either missed this post last time or was too stoned to fully grasp the implications of it.

This is excellent... there must be cannabinoids in the plant. I'm not saying THC, or even CBD... but certainly there must be THCV and CBN, this makes sense... and it's these chemicals that are pushed through into the trichomes. These chemicals could well be the precursors for THC and CBD. It's THCV (smell) and CBN (mild sedative) that are pushed into the trich's, and these are then changed by the sunlight.

THCV is a plants natural chemical for giving off smell... yet males smell more than females while they are still in veg', or very young into flower, anyone ever noticed that? 



closet.cult said:


> skunk, what you just said does not jive with current research. according to the link i sent you:
> 
> The resin spheres contain the THC. It is not contained in the leaf or floral bract. After the resin spheres are dissolved in solvent or dislodged by electrostatic attraction, and a microscopic examination of the leaf or floral bract has revealed that only the glandular trichomes' stalks remain, no effect will be felt after smoking the dried plant material from which the resin spheres have been removed.
> 
> ...


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 7, 2007)

hey skunk...thats an interesting thought, unfortunately my breadth of experience does not cover that....I will certainly keep that in mind though! cheers!


----------



## butterflykisses (Dec 7, 2007)

hay nat and skunk r frends again cool


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 10, 2007)

Thanks for the link Tahoe, I am sittin in on this thread, I can't believe I was off the back on this one! Good stuff! I don't don't know if Nat and Skunk were ever friends...just different peas in the same pod, or just stuck together by the sticky....


----------



## Raw (Dec 13, 2007)

very interesting post


----------



## antipythium (Dec 18, 2007)

I read thru to about page 11 and haven't seen it mentioned here; although i have elsewhere. The capitate glands are obviously highest in efficiency at capturing uvb. Not all plants have high thc levels. 

Stickiness in plants' glandular production is associated with insect and small mammal repellent. mice would love to eat those seeds as would birds and insects. 
Contact causing a stickiness can be death to an insect, and a lot of discomfort to a bird; or, any other small animal. Notably the resin is NOT water soluble; which indicates it's meant to stay there; and be more or less permanent to anything it touches. 

That makes one of the primary functions almost certainly predator repellent. 

Another aspect of glands: not all having thc; could be a locally reinforced genetic reaction to browsing animals. Several plants have intoxicants in their resins/sap.
There's only one reason to actively put an intoxicant into something surrounding a seed bract: deter the animal eating the seeds, from completing a thorough chewing up, cracking - and destruction of the seeds themselves. Animals/birds that adapt to the stickiness problem: very large birds, or larger browsing mammals: which become intoxicated by ingestion of thc are less likely to chew thoroughly; more likely to swallow mouthfulls of incompletely chewed up bract; also less likely to consume as massive quantities as they otherwise might be able. THC gets dogs, people cats, high, that ii know of; and i'll bet, it intoxicates other mammals too; probably birds as well.

A deer or other browsing creature coming up to a stand of hemp; might be more likely to browse in a less thorough fashion if intoxicated; thereby not being able to systematically strip any particular plant completely clean of flowers. It also would be more likely to chew less; and swallow more whole seeds: thereby spreading those seeds. 

The manufacture of the thc is more than likely part of the resinous repellent program; the resin itself having such strongly binding qualities designed to stick to any small creature first: insects have their mobility denied; maybe even the ability to open the jaw; small creatures stop to groom the sticky stuff off, or avoid the bracts altogether: lessening predation time; the intoxicant therein can disorient anything that braves the stickiness; contributing to less systematic destruction of individual seeds ingested, thereby less complete genetic pool eradication; less thorough chewing - swallowing whole seeds to be dropped & replanted thru dung - survival and indeed genetic expansion response.

Most deterrent processes are ingeniously simple in their mechanical interaction with their environment; the chemistry i'm not so interested in commenting on, because there hasn't been enough time in high grade laboratories to examine all the aspects of resin function. It's probably quite varied, involving the manufacture and reception of hormonal triggers as well as the various intoxicants sometimes found in hemp.

Just thoughts.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 18, 2007)

I don't know of any animals or insects that do not get high off THC... maybe spidermites and thrips... but even they will only hit the thc parts of the leaves last.

There is a big argument to support that the stickiness of the trich's is likewise an animal attractant.

Plants need animal intervention. The more animal intervention is encouraged the more the plant will thrive.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 18, 2007)

Thanks very much for your long and thoughtful post. You obviously have some good understanding. I appreciate the thoughts you have put forward in this discussion. Cannabinoid production has been directly linked to stress, hence the potential link with uvb radiation. The paper, Pate (1994) Chemical Ecology of Cannabis, is a very thorough review of the then current understanding by covering a variety of stress topics from dessication, temperature, nutrients, predation, competition, bacteria/fungi, and uv radiation.

In my view, the conclusion of most significance is "_UV-B selection pressures seem responsible for the distribution of THC-rich Cannabis varieties in areas of high ambient radiation, and may have influenced the evolution of an alternate biogenetic pathway from CBG to THC in some of these strains."_

However, Pate also cautions that a clear distinction between stress induced THC production and hastened production of glandular structures is made in future research.

I have as yet found no other such research but continue to seek it out.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 18, 2007)

* I have as yet found no other such research but continue to seek it out.

*_Thank you for your drive to search out the truth....._


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 18, 2007)

thank you for your continued support....this is most interesting....tough to leave it alone really....

tonight's learning are:

*Glandular Trichomes of Artemisia campestris (ssp. Maritima): Ontogeny and Histochemistry of the Secretory Product* 
L. Ascensao, M. S. S. Pais _Botanical Gazette_, Vol. 148, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 221-227:

_The number of glandular trichomes is established early during leaf differentiation; thus, gland density decreases with leaf development. Oleoresin production begins as soon as the glandular trichomes are fully developed._

Artemisia is a member of the family Compositae whose charateristics include glandular and non-glandular trichomes. Cannabis is also a member of this family.

*CHARLES S.* *COCKELL* a1 p1 *and* *JOHN* *KNOWLAND* a2 
a1 Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institute of Washington, 290 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305-1297, U.S.A.
a2 Department of Biochemistry, South Parks Road, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QU, U.K.
*Ultraviolet radiation screening compounds* Biological Reviews (1999), 74: 311-345 Cambridge University Press 

_Amongst the diversity of methods used by organisms to reduce damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) radiation, the synthesis of UV-screening compounds is almost ubiquitous. UV-screening compounds provide a passive method for the reduction of UV-induced damage and they are widely distributed across the microbial, plant and animal kingdoms. They share some common chemical features. It is likely that on early earth strong selection pressures existed for the evolution of UV-screening compounds. Many of these compounds probably had other physiological roles, later being selected for the efficacy of UV screening. The diversity in physiological functions is one of the complications in studying UV-screening compounds and determining the true ecological importance of their UV-screening role. _


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 19, 2007)

Hey Tahoe, I appreciate all this information you are bringing to the table. I like the 'early earth' reference in your last post. To discover the truth we must travel back in time to the very start of cannabis history.

It's true that we cannot know... but I remember growing up where people believed man had lived alongside the dinosaurs... So people just guess all the time.

Even now with global warming it is all guesswork. Scientists have not got a clue what's happening. In fact more sun is being reflected off Earth than ever before.

Guesswork, but educated guesswork is the premise for any reasoning behind any future experimentation.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 19, 2007)

hey man...thanks....I am really enjoying this research (aside from but interestingly similar to my daily work).

I thought overnight about the one statement _established early during leaf differentiation; thus, gland density decreases with leaf development._

It has been long held that the number of human fat cell is set at birth (a genetic trait) and that either they are used or not used.....and the same is believe about brain cell development....so.....is it reasonable to say that the precursors to trichome cells are genetically set and are either encouraged in their function or not - this would mean that the introduction of uvb light in the VERY early stages would be critical to activate their "use" in developing the protective mechanisms? just like if you don't give a fat cell the chance to be activated or a brain cell to be activated (and in the case of the brain this has been founded to be hugely important is activation during the 2-5 yr old period i.e., early childhood), the longer term implications are their utility is compromised?


----------



## potroast (Dec 20, 2007)

From my many readings I've taken that potency is genetic, and we try to get the most out of the plant that we can. Apparently there are environmental factors that will influence potency, but what we call potency, really cannabinoid make-up and amount of resin, is genetically set.

HTH


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

Thanks potroast... yes, everything is genetically set to a maximum... and there is no way of enhancing something without playing on the gentic level.

Even the plant's size is genetic. 

Yet everything about genetics seems to come in degrees. Just because a plant is genetically capable of reaching 30ft does not mean that the environment will allow it to do so.

I'm hoping you can answer this one pot': When potency is tested on a plant, which part of the plant is tested? Top, middle or bottom?

One of the first things I learned as a grower is that the top part of the plant will always be the most potent.


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 20, 2007)

actually, from what we have already discussed and researched, THC is found ONLY in the trichnome glands. in particular, the capitulated stalks. you have to test the trics (i imagine any of the trics will do, from the top or bottom) to test THC.

THC potency was also largely dependant on plant age. flower too soon, it will not be the top shelf of the plants genes.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> actually, from what we have already discussed and researched, THC is found ONLY in the trichnome glands. in particular, the capitulated stalks. you have to test the trics (i imagine any of the trics will do, from the top or bottom) to test THC.
> 
> THC potency was also largely dependant on plant age. flower too soon, it will not be the top shelf of the plants genes.


Thanks closet. wake n bake here in good ol' merry england.

There is more potency at the top of the plant because there are more active trich's... of course. So to test a potent trich from lower down the plant would be the same as testing a potent trich' from up above.

Or would it? The environment is different.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 20, 2007)

hey PotR....totally agree....genetic potential is either reailized or compromised by environmental factors. 


potroast said:


> From my many readings I've taken that potency is genetic, and we try to get the most out of the plant that we can. Apparently there are environmental factors that will influence potency, but what we call potency, really cannabinoid make-up and amount of resin, is genetically set.
> 
> HTH


hey Skunk and Cult - the stuff I have read (I realize that this is it not real world hands on experience) would suggest that the concentration of trichomes and therefore THC and therefore potency do increase as you go up the plant. I am looking forward to being able to do my own "tesitng"


_The major sites of cannabinoid production appear to be epidermal glands (Fairbairn 1972,Hammond and Mahlberg 1973, Lanyon _
_[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. _​_1981, Malingre [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. [/FONT]1975) which exhibit a marked variation in size, shape and population density, depending on the anatomical locale examined._​ 

_The cannabinoid content of each plant part varies, paralleling observable glanddistribution (Fetterman _[/FONT]_[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. [/FONT]1971, Honma [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. [/FONT]1971a & 1971b, Kimura and Okamoto 1970,Ohlsson [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. [/FONT]1971, Ono [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. [/FONT]1972), although Turner [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. [/FONT](197 have disagreed. Rootsc contain only trace amounts. Stalks, branches and twigs have greater quantities, although not asmuch as leaf material. Vegetative leaf contains varying quantities depending on its position on the plant: lower leaves possessing less and upper ones more. Leaf glands are most dense on the abaxial (underside) surface. The greatest amount of cannabinoids is found in the new growthnear each apical tip (Kimura and Okamoto 1970, Steinberg [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al. 1975), although Ono [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]et al.[/FONT](1972) seem to differ on this point. This variation in leaf gland placement may be due to either loss of glands as the leaf matures or a greater the endowment of glands on leaves successively produced as the plant matures. Additional study on this point is required.[/FONT]_​


skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks potroast... yes, everything is genetically set to a maximum... and there is no way of enhancing something without playing on the gentic level.


 


skunkushybrid said:


> Even the plant's size is genetic.​
> 
> Yet everything about genetics seems to come in degrees. Just because a plant is genetically capable of reaching 30ft does not mean that the environment will allow it to do so.​
> 
> ...


 



closet.cult said:


> actually, from what we have already discussed and researched, THC is found ONLY in the trichnome glands. in particular, the capitulated stalks. you have to test the trics (i imagine any of the trics will do, from the top or bottom) to test THC.


 


closet.cult said:


> THC potency was also largely dependant on plant age. flower too soon, it will not be the top shelf of the plants genes.​


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 20, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Thanks closet. wake n bake here in good ol' merry england.
> 
> There is more potency at the top of the plant because there are more active trich's... of course. So to test a potent trich from lower down the plant would be the same as testing a potent trich' from up above.
> 
> Or would it? The environment is different.


are you sure there is not simply more resin at the top of the plants. it is not obvious to me that there is greater potency in the trics just because it is higher.

well, the one rule i can think of is the taller the plant is the greater exposure there is to the UVB spectrum, which is the true catalyst for turning canabinoid precursers into THC. 

so perhaps so. but i cant think of any other physiological reasons for it.


----------



## antipythium (Dec 21, 2007)

The plant's not going to invest such complicated mechanisms for a simple reason. Many other plants flower and seed in the same environments as hemp. Most pot doesn't have any thc in it. Therefore the thc isn't central to the plant's need. If a plant is covering seedpods with a sticky substance, it's to repel insects and other predators first. 

If it wasn't, and the trichomes' function was other - some really necessary physiological function - they wouldn't be designed to self destruct on contact; they'd be designed to sustain some contact before collapse into goo.

If it wasn't, the uv screen would be incorporated into the sepals around each individual calyx. Much easier, much more rugged, much more efficient.

The mechanism of nature, when it's not in a bind, is to make anything as simple as can be arranged; and that which is complicated, perform as multiple functions when possible. 

If the resin was designed to draw feeding animals, it wouldn't intoxicate them. In nature a fall can end a genetic line *snap* like that. All fucked up, flopping around to drunk to fight or flee is called Darwin award candidate. Being snake food, lizard food, anything with an appetite food is what being high means in nature - especially in an accessible environment like a pot plant. Things can climb it; there are no thorns - and eat the buzzed bugs & birds & beasts.

I grew up in a swamp. Later i completed two electronic technician trade schools for 2400 class hours of analyzing systems: their functions, their designs.

About ten years in the field working with all kinds of systems. Nature tends toward combined function and typically doesn't bullshit. If something's in a place - like the trichomes being pushed outward: they're there to be contacted first. If it's very sticky and non water soluble it's that way for a reason. If it's got intoxicants in it, those are there for a reason.

When
(1) it's built outboard when it would be lots cheaper inboard: there's a reason. For something to contact it before it gets to the seed.
(2)it's built incredibly sticky and completely water insoluble: that means it's meant to stick to something.
(3)it's got intoxicants in it: it's meant do deter consumption.
(4)it's thickest around the seeds.... duh.
(5)it's thickest around the seeds that are highest: therefore more likely to be encountered by flying insects, birds - well - it's not just a coincidence. When it's got more intoxicants in it higher up as well - the odds lean even further - as if they had to be - to indicate predation deterrence. 

I know i don't post much and might seem to be oversimplifying to seem smart; no.

When many factors point to one thing: it just shouldn't be denied. The secondary functions of uvb absorption undoubtedly have to do with the wavelenghth of that light being able to catalyze chemical reactions that would otherwise be expensive. 

Since massive quantities of anything in particular haven't been discovered being formed, this lends the idea that the chemistry is used to form chemicals that will be used locally; probably antibiotic/repellent functions are involved. This is after all a resin heavily vested in terpenes.

And incidentally, what's the last line we see written concerning terpenes in our local wiki terpene article? 

"
*Agri-chemical use*

Research into terpenes has found that many of them possess qualities that make them ideal active ingredients as part of natural agricultural pesticides."




When a small globule of resin is found to contain many chemicals, it's not accidental. That plant's got people to do and things to see. It could just as easily fill it with any one substance as many. 


Therefore the usage of the stalk caps is by default multifold. But the facts surrounding it's primary configuration: very sticky; contains intoxicants; contains other, terpene chemistry - a family associated with repellence; the fact the capped stalks are outboard - and, bristle around the fragile seeds -



This is too much to ignore. Additionally the seeds themselves - are specifically NOT designed to be eaten. Their thin shells make them easily cracked and rendered useless for reproduction. If the trichs were designed to draw predation for the function of spreading the plant's genetics, the seeds would be thicker.

Instead, as i noted, the trichs contain oils; are sticky; and intoxicants. At least two of these are well known, obvious repellents. The flavinoid/oil/other ingredients are there to DRAW initial attention: away from? That's right, the seeds. 

Animal, insect, using sensory equipment, finds what first? Trichomes. Seeds are buried further below. No odor or tasty components, to the contrary they're very nondescript. They're not designed for intentional predation.


I've repeated myself i realize; most of the time i'm the L.A.S.T. person to suggest there's over analysis of a subject. However the overwhelming empirical evidence is as a repellent/deterrent with additional functions regarding the chemical reactions made easier thru usage of uvB.

Just sayin. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck: it's a duck.


----------



## potroast (Dec 21, 2007)

Great stuff, AP. One question though ...

Did you go back and analyze the swamp? 



Your intuitive answer gave me an idea. Could it be that the resin is there for the reasons you say, to ward off predators of the seeds, _only until they're ready?_ IOW once the seeds are mature, and hardened, the resin dries up and the birds are more likely to grab the seeds and spread them, but not until then.

HTH


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 21, 2007)

Yes, thankyou an excellent point.

most pot (hemp) only has very small to no thc in it. Is it most these days, you think?

Which came first cannabis or hemp?

There are also many recordings of animals actually liking intoxification... and many species of plants devise all sorts of means to attract animal attention... from aromas to beautification, mimication... even, I believe, intoxification.

there are monkeys at a certain holiday resort that were recorded in a test. certain of the monkeys would always drink the alcohol, whereas others were tee-total and would only drink the pop (soda). I believe the ratio was 60/40 in favour of the alcohol.

Cannabis may well be a deterrent to certain animals, but another certain animal of the same species may well quite like the high.

I have also never said that they aren't a deterrent, merely that they are _also_ an attractant. To me this is an obvious statement... given the evidence of animal behaviour. Indicas grow very short, how do they defend against mammal predation? If cannabis wanted to discourage mammal predation wouldn't the intoxicants actually be at very toxic levels? If a plant will evolve the mechanism for birds and insects why not do the same for mammals? The reason for this is that plants need animal intervention. When do birds ever fly onto a tree and peck at the fruit while it is still on the tree? Why do they always wait till the fruit has fallen to the ground? Even now as I watch the birds eat the fallen apples in my garden there are still apples on the tree left untouched. How do the birds know there are seeds in the apples? If they know there are seeds in the apples, why do they not try and take them earlier? Is it that the seeds are not ready, or that the birds would have more difficulty getting in? What nutritional value do seeds offer birds?

Also we are forgetting the trichomes relationship with light, the spherical head.

I have a lot of questions, and I need to leave it there for now. Thanks for taking the time to post.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 21, 2007)

This thread is just silly because we all know that Cannabis is not of this world. The infrastructure, defenses, and or attractants are not designed for anything on this planet. Cannabis, just like the mushroom traveled to us from a distant world, it is a teacher and healer, used in the correct way. So I hate to burst the minds of all of you searching for the reason "why", but it is as simple as what I stated above, no more discussion..LOL


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 21, 2007)

I just realized that my last post was #666.....hmmm


----------



## kindprincess (Dec 21, 2007)

daddychrisg said:


> I just realized that my last post was #666.....hmmm


that's scary.....


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 21, 2007)

hey cult. thanks for those thoughts. yea I agree....it does make sense. the plant's exposure to elements that it must defend against like wind dessication may also be more as you move up the plant. The denser the plant in the lower branches would also maybe not recieve the same light intensity. But things like insect predation and fingi/bacyeria may be more prevalent in lower reaches where there is less air movement? I suppose the immediate environs of the plants, proximity of other vegetation and things probably also influence it. It is a rather complex response and outdoor plants must deal with a lot more uncertainties in environmental factors than the indoor grows.


closet.cult said:


> are you sure there is not simply more resin at the top of the plants. it is not obvious to me that there is greater potency in the trics just because it is higher.
> 
> well, the one rule i can think of is the taller the plant is the greater exposure there is to the UVB spectrum, which is the true catalyst for turning canabinoid precursers into THC.
> 
> so perhaps so. but i cant think of any other physiological reasons for it.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 21, 2007)

AP, PR and Skunk....interesting thoughts, and thanks for those. I agree that nature is generally simple in it's response to following a path to its continuation and survival. In my case, this discussion as helped me better understand the plant and maybe just confirm that it is following simple biological principles.

dc - I hear ya. although being a biologist - I still see biological entities as something where form follows function - and mutation occurs that provides new opportunities to adapt (or perish). And maybe we have gone a long way down that path of excessive analysis, but asking these questions and postulating potential answers also has some value - to me.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 21, 2007)

here's the nutritional make-up of a hemp seed:

*The nutritional composition of a hemp seed is exceptional!* 
Whole hemp seeds contain approximately 25% protein, 31% fat (in the form of a nutritious oil), and 34% carbohydrates, in addition to an interesting array of vitamins and minerals.


I cannot find anything to tell me the nutritional value of an unripe seed... I feel it's safe to assume though that an unripe seed would hold much less goodness.

Birds eating these seeds at the right time of year would gain a lot of weight, weight needed for the long journey ahead or to brave the coming winter. 

Most animals will have regular feeding grounds, some will have more than others... but they will visit these different feeding grounds to match the change in environment. Birds know when the right time to feed on the seeds is... they get them twice a year. Once before the freeze, then another one just afterwards. The seeds are ripe and full of goodness. I'm not sure that birds would be interested in unripe seeds. Many birds need to chew grit and other such things to break down the food they eat, an unripe seed would be hard work and the breaking down of it may use more energy than is useful.


----------



## closet.cult (Dec 21, 2007)

yes there is much goodness in a cannabis seed!

do birds have to crack open the shell in order to digest the seed?


----------



## potroast (Dec 22, 2007)

I've been eating hulled hemp seeds for years. I buy them in bulk, called hemp nuggets or hemp nuts, and blend them with water to make hemp milk. The nugget is 50% hemp oil, which is pure protein.

And the most easily assimilated protein that our bodies can use. 

HTH  heehee, that means Here's To Health!


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

*I've been eating hulled hemp seeds for years. I buy them in bulk, called hemp nuggets or hemp nuts, and blend them with water to make hemp milk. The nugget is 50% hemp oil, which is pure protein.

And the most easily assimilated protein that our bodies can use. 
* 
HTH




heehee, that means Here's To Health!

_I have been eating Hemp seeds for a long time now...I can't get enough! Do you have backing on your statement that hemp protein is the easily assimilated protein that our bodies can use? I just love them, good plain or on salads..anything..I wonder if the birds think the same..I wounder if the plant counts on that, and uses that craving for something beneficial for its kind..I would think this would have to be the strongest desire for especially mammal, to eat the protein of the seed, not get a buzz off the thc. Insects, now that is a different story..Maybe insects stuck in the resin is also a protein blast for the creature eating the seeded flower...? But like I said, this debate is silly...This plant was sent from a different world, to teach...Atleast it is easier for my mind to leave it at that! Keep at it guys, something might end up making sense.._


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 22, 2007)

closet.cult said:


> yes there is much goodness in a cannabis seed!
> 
> do birds have to crack open the shell in order to digest the seed?


They have to do it while the seeds are in the digestive system. the birds will swallow coarse stones or twigs to help the digestive system break down the seeds.

Unripe seeds are exceptionally hard and (I'm assuming) wouldn't hold the same amount of goodness. Which would also mean that it would be pretty pointless for the birds to take the seeds before harvest anyway.


----------



## jsgrwn (Dec 22, 2007)

I Disagree About The Trichs, I Beleive The Idea That They Are There To Capture The Male Pollen When It Is Ejected Into The Wind. That Explains Why They Are Sticky And Plentifule Right Around The Buds. If The Trichs Captured More Sun Then The Plant Would Have Long Ago Evolved And Covered The Entire Plant To The Tips Of The Leaves With Trichs.


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

Just a thought..and something different then any other idea's. Could the trichomes be used in in conjunction with many other purposes, to catch and digest insects? I look at all the little fungus gnats that have be sentenced to death on the sticky trichomes, and wonder why the plant would not try and take in that nutrient...Just a flashing thought..


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 22, 2007)

_But like I said, this debate is silly...This plant was sent from a different world, to teach..._

_Ok. I'm confused....in your next post you bring a postulation forward as to what the real purpose of the trichs might be...to catch insect and provide a source of nutrients?....I thought you said it was easier just to accept that they came from another world to teach....._

_I Disagree About The Trichs, I Beleive The Idea That They Are There To Capture The Male Pollen When It Is Ejected Into The Wind. That Explains Why They Are Sticky And Plentifule Right Around The Buds. If The Trichs Captured More Sun Then The Plant Would Have Long Ago Evolved And Covered The Entire Plant To The Tips Of The Leaves With Trichs._

If this was truly the case then when the pollen got stuck on the goo, how did that pollen stuck on that goo get to the eggs and pollinate to make a seed. Pollen stuck on goo would be unable to pollenate the plant - sort like trying to make a baby by screwing the wrong hole?


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

_Ok. I'm confused....in your next post you bring a postulation forward as to what the real purpose of the trichs might be...to catch insect and provide a source of nutrients?....I thought you said it was easier just to accept that they came from another world to teach.....

_*LOL, yeah well I could not help bet let my mind wander into the earthly possibilities... Like I said it was a flashing thought.. Once Skunk started pushing the carnivoristic past of cannabis, I quickly thought of the bugs trapped in the sticky resin on my plants..My thought of posting on this thread in the first places was of comedic relief..But I can't help but think of the reasons WHY the plant has evolved the way it has..Or has it?*


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 22, 2007)

hahahahaha LOL....yea I understand....why...isn't that for two year olds.....hahahahaha......I too find myself drawn into exploratory thinking when sometimes it is just easy to ...."let it be"......but at the same time we can possibly entertain ourselves with such intro- and extraspective thinking, and what better place than with a bunch of other like minded people....cheers and thanks for your thoughts....its all good in the edn....and if it ain't good yet...it ain't the end yet! 


daddychrisg said:


> _Ok. I'm confused....in your next post you bring a postulation forward as to what the real purpose of the trichs might be...to catch insect and provide a source of nutrients?....I thought you said it was easier just to accept that they came from another world to teach....._
> 
> *LOL, yeah well I could not help bet let my mind wander into the earthly possibilities... Like I said it was a flashing thought.. Once Skunk started pushing the carnivoristic past of cannabis, I quickly thought of the bugs trapped in the sticky resin on my plants..My thought of posting on this thread in the first places was of comedic relief..But I can't help but think of the reasons WHY the plant has evolved the way it has..Or has it?*


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

Come on Tahoe, lay off! We will need to start a new thread if you want to debate my position on why I toss out multiple concepts...I am just tossing out some idea's and maybe it will give a chuckle, or it might shed some light to this brain storm of ideas. In my opinion all of the ideas on this thread are debatable, and should be used to help create a broad spectrum of thought...No one had spoke of a planetary voyage, so I through it out there.. What I wondered about is...If bugs are still being drawn to the plant to find nutrient, and they are caught in the resin, then if evolution is real, why would the plant not take advantage of the situation...


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 22, 2007)

opps...sorry man....don't understand what I said that prompted that?....but if so...my apologies....i thought I was sort of agreeing with you.....walk on....


daddychrisg said:


> Come on Tahoe, lay off! We will need to start a new thread if you want to debate my position on why I toss out multiple concepts...I am just tossing out some idea's and maybe it will give a chuckle, or it might shed some light to this brain storm of ideas. In my opinion all of the ideas on this thread are debatable, and should be used to help create a broad spectrum of thought...No one had spoke of a planetary voyage, so I through it out there.. What I wondered about is...If bugs are still being drawn to the plant to find nutrient, and they are caught in the resin, then if evolution is real, why would the plant not take advantage of the situation...


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

LOL! I read your quote and it looked like you were backing up your original statement about being confused about my statement! My bad, I am alittle under the weather and on a hand full of over the counter meds...Yuck! Sorry for the "LAY OFF" comment, damb I am not feeling very well..I have clones to transplant, plants to toss into bloom, resivores to change out and clean...I don't have time to be SICK!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 22, 2007)

no worries....hope ur feeling better soon! cheers! 


daddychrisg said:


> LOL! I read your quote and it looked like you were backing up your original statement about being confused about my statement! My bad, I am alittle under the weather and on a hand full of over the counter meds...Yuck! Sorry for the "LAY OFF" comment, damb I am not feeling very well..I have clones to transplant, plants to toss into bloom, resivores to change out and clean...I don't have time to be SICK!


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

Thanks Tahoe, your plants are starting to look like they may over take there environment! Lookin nice..


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 22, 2007)

LOL...yeah....I have about another six inches in height left....I think I'm sorta screwed. Not sure exaclty what to do. there is a glas plate between the light and the grow space....and the fans inside the grow space keep the glass reasonably cool so maybe its not the end of the world.....with eight (minimum) tall standing colas....not sure how best to "tease" these stalks over or even if that is a good thing to do at this stage....I am a little perplexed to say the least.... I only veged for 19 days in hopes of avoiding this....I am certainly going to have to be careful with the six clones that have been taken from this mom.....thanks for checking it out and sharing your thoughts 


daddychrisg said:


> Thanks Tahoe, your plants are starting to look like they may over take there environment! Lookin nice..


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 22, 2007)

I wish I had a magic answer for ya Tahoe! But I think you may not veg for 19 days next time! Is there any way that you can finish them some where else, and get your next batch going in there? GL, I am interested to see how you resolve this problem..BTW, I have seen a few buds that grew horizontally because of height restrictions...Ya gota do what ya got to do!


----------



## kayasgarden (Dec 22, 2007)

if i look at a seedling with my 420 scope they have trics on them


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 23, 2007)

kayasgarden said:


> if i look at a seedling with my 420 scope they have trics on them


Hey, is it possible that you could take a pic'. Seedlings have hairs on them, but trich's are hairs.

I'd love to see a magnified puicture of a seedling hair/trich'...


----------



## psyclone (Dec 23, 2007)

skh-how are the seedlings?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 23, 2007)

psyclone said:


> skh-how are the seedlings?


Just waiting for them to die... but I don't think they will. They got radiation burn, or heat burn in a few places now because I moved the fan then forgot to put it back for several hours. The light is around 9" away from the plants atm.

I'm also germing some NL seeds, so things are going to have to get moved around soon, I think.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 23, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Hey, is it possible that you could take a pic'. Seedlings have hairs on them, but trich's are hairs.
> 
> I'd love to see a magnified puicture of a seedling hair/trich'...


I will try to get some better pics tomorrow of my seedlings.
The kind of hairs that are on seedlings are not potent at all as far as i know anyway


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 23, 2007)

I don't think the quality of the pic's is good enough to say for sure, but I think that a couple of those trichs/hairs look as though they may have spherical heads...

That would be a very exciting development, I don't quite know why yet, I just know that it would be very important information.

Thanks nat', but I think only microscope pic's are going to work with this one.


----------



## gogrow (Dec 24, 2007)

this is a few years old, but thought you guys may find it interesting none the less...
Samedan Ltd Pharmaceutical Publishers


----------



## daddychrisg (Dec 24, 2007)

*[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In addition to cooling the cannabis flowers, by reflecting the radiant heat of the midday sun, the sticky trichomes are an obvious barrier to the passage of insect pests.

[/FONT]*[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_This was from the above link Samedan Ltd Pharmaceutical Publishers
I found this to be an interesting statement, due to the fact that he only talked about the trichomes purpose as being a repellent to bugs, and a heat shield for mid-day heat...Very basic...makes sense..But does not add much to the "mystery" of the trichome.
_[/FONT]


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 24, 2007)

_By growing repeat crops of cannabis in well-equipped and carefully controlled glasshouses, this species can produce in excess of 36 tonnes per hectare of dry botanical raw material per year. Twenty five per cent of this material would be cannabinoids and essential oils. That equates to an annual yield of secondary metabolites of nine tonnes per hectare. Cannabis does not just produce some of the most valuable natural products to man; when ranked for its performance as a producer of secondary metabolites, cannabis is a league leader._ 

I like this one......hahahahahahaaaaaaaa 9 tonnes (19,800 lbs!) of secondary metabolites!




gogrow said:


> this is a few years old, but thought you guys may find it interesting none the less...
> Samedan Ltd Pharmaceutical Publishers


 

Yes that isw a very good one too! 


daddychrisg said:


> *[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In addition to cooling the cannabis flowers, by reflecting the radiant heat of the midday sun, the sticky trichomes are an obvious barrier to the passage of insect pests.[/FONT]*
> 
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_This was from the above link Samedan Ltd Pharmaceutical Publishers_[/FONT]
> _[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I found this to be an interesting statement, due to the fact that he only talked about the trichomes purpose as being a repellent to bugs, and a heat shield for mid-day heat...Very basic...makes sense..But does not add much to the "mystery" of the trichome.[/FONT]_


----------



## SSH (May 20, 2008)

All good theory's. I agree with your justice but are you saying that this is something that is not being researched today? Im sure there are most people who have your opinion and experience. Its a good one I agree with the trichome theory too. Are these facts? I dont know. Maybe not yet or myabe it already is, I'll have to look into it.

Trichromes are also known within some strains to produce an aboundance of trichome count due to genetics which is due to its natural invironment in which originated. In low humidity plants tend to produce trichomes to protect it from the dry air. It produce this crytal to keep the plant in a more lush state and from further drying out. Like any plant, if you were to leave marijuana to grow through many seasons it will produce flowers, die off and produce more. And like most plants, Marijuana produces flowers and leaves according to its light schedule( whether its the sun or artifical light), spring, fall, winter, summer. Thus, Resin is formed due to increase in heat or light schedule. Carbohydrates are produced through photosynthesis and stored in the plant as a starch. This starch is converted into sucrose or sugar. This is why people refer to trichs as suger crystals.


----------



## The Stig (May 22, 2008)

wow this thread is really interesting!! I been trying to do some research about the trichomes (if we know how they work and why they grow, we can encourage the trichomes production in a plant).


about the UV light, I came with this idea...
Has anyone ever tried to grow a plant in a UV free environment?? (using something like a big UV filter on the HID's)


would be nice to try that experiment and compare it w/ a normal plant getting uv light


----------



## jesus3 (Mar 17, 2009)

skunkushybrid said:


> Did you know that outdoor plants can actually see each other? Green is not the only part of the spectrum reflected off the plants... but also light from the far red end is also reflected. Plants use this information to gleen how much competition they have for light.



this thread is old and forgotten...
at last i get what you mean with your avatar pic.
and thankyou skunkushybrid for this thread.


----------



## no6969el (Mar 19, 2009)

Thank you for the awesome read.. just got done...time for dreams of monstrous marijuana plants feasting the bodies of whatever was interested in its intoxicating smell!!


----------



## Toukinup (Mar 19, 2009)

The Stig said:


> wow this thread is really interesting!! I been trying to do some research about the trichomes (if we know how they work and why they grow, we can encourage the trichomes production in a plant).
> 
> 
> about the UV light, I came with this idea...
> ...


Well, flowering with cfl's doesn't produce much uv and the difference can easily be seen when compared to a hps at relative wattage.


----------



## VerdantGreen (Mar 28, 2009)

hi, interesting and entertaining discussion!

my take on it is that resin production in cannabis is a relic from the ancestors of cannabis that would have been pollinated by insects. Most wind pollinated plants have evolved from insect pollinated plants. the resin is there to attract insects - thats why it smells, and it doubles as a protection against the elements.


----------

