# co2 decreases potency according to skunk magazine



## axl (Aug 11, 2010)

What do you guys think of this? Their logic is that the plant can only genetically produce so much thc, and co2 increases size wihtout increasing potency, so potency naturally decreases because its spread over a larger area. Any expierence or thoughts.

I was going to use co2, but if it only increases yeild, while compromising potency, i would rather veg an extra week and not use co2.


----------



## homebrewer (Aug 11, 2010)

Did they actually test buds with and without CO2 treatment and get THC percentages from a lab? Because it sounds like they're just theorizing. My first harvests were skimpy and by their rationale, that should have been my most potent product, right?


----------



## genisis (Aug 11, 2010)

I use co2 and have for years. By this mag`s rational, I am glad I do. Since my weed already tends to blow the top of your head off, without co2 I would not be able to even look at my room without getting high. I do need to function sometimes. LOL


----------



## gobbly (Aug 11, 2010)

I also would be curious to see how they tested this. Though there is some logic involved in their conclusion, you could also make the argument that though concentrations might be governed by genetics, the size of the plant is certainly greatly effected by environment, so the large the plant the more of that certain concentration you harvest. CO2 is added to increase growth rate, not potency, and I've never read a claim that it increased potency myself. But a larger plant will produce a larger yield of similar potency (all other things being equal), and that's what CO2 is used for, to bet bigger plants faster.


----------



## medimaker (Aug 11, 2010)

Hmmmm I'd like to hear more. I'm in the process of finishing construction on a sealed flower room for co2 use. The way I understand it the plant with co2 augmentation would just have more plant matter thereby more canabanoid of the same thc level, not more thc as far as potency is concerned. But I can't see it making a fixed volume amount.


----------



## fred flintstoned (Aug 11, 2010)

I agree with you guys. Can anybody say Pseudoscience?


----------



## OZUT (Aug 11, 2010)

CO2 was originally introduced so the plants could handle higher temps....it's not going to lower potency


----------



## NLXSK1 (Aug 11, 2010)

I grow with CO2 and am relatively new at it but I am not complaining about the product...


----------



## Buddreams (Aug 11, 2010)

genisis said:


> I use co2 and have for years. By this mag`s rational, I am glad I do. Since my weed already tends to blow the top of your head off, without co2 I would not be able to even look at my room without getting high. I do need to function sometimes. LOL


what strains are u growing


----------



## freddiemoney (Aug 11, 2010)

What makes them think there's certain cut-off point for resin production?


----------



## axl (Aug 12, 2010)

I agree with you guys. A lot of times writers will say something like this, a bit outlandish to get attention. I dont exactly know how reputable Skunk magazine is. It was a simple question and answer column, so the guy didnt give any form of refrence to a study or explaination. I am hoping someone has some type of semi formal test to confirm either side. Co2 has been used a while i assume its a matter of time before someone chimes in with the correct answer


----------



## Murfy (Aug 12, 2010)

my room is sealed-

and levels are just to low without it. my bud PARALYZES people.


----------



## mydixiewrecked (Aug 12, 2010)

that's like saying breathing more oxygen makes your sperm less potent. what a joke.
plants breathe in c02 and exhale 02, it really is pretty simple.


----------



## Murfy (Aug 12, 2010)

actually-

don't plants breath oxygen( to burn sugars) and more eat co2 to make sugars?


----------



## mydixiewrecked (Aug 12, 2010)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays a really important role in photosynthesis. Where does carbon dioxide used in photosynthesis come from you say? It comes from the air or other environment around the plant. The plant gets carbon dioxide for photosynthesis from the stomata. Stomata are the holes in cells of leaves that let in water and let out water through transpiration. If you don't know what transpiration is, it is the evaporation of water from the plant. To make food, plants take in carbon dioxide from the air and it takes it in from the roots, stem, and leaves. Carbon dioxide was the first atmosphere of earth.


----------



## slomoking13 (Aug 12, 2010)

The only way co2 will affect resin production and potency is if you use to high of a concentration of it . At that point, resin production will only be affected because the plant will start to die; if it's dying, it will stop producing resin. co2 level has more to do with the photosynthesis process and overall plant growth rates. Your resin production will depend more on your relative humidity and strains than it will on co2 level.


----------



## gobbly (Aug 12, 2010)

Murfy said:


> actually-
> 
> don't plants breath oxygen( to burn sugars) and more eat co2 to make sugars?


to get technical plants breath oxygen. They use CO2 to perform photosynthesis which produces oxygen. When photosynthesis is going on oxygen is created faster than the plant requires it to respirate, so the net oxygen is positive (it is producing more than it consumes). When the lights go out and it ceases photosynthesis the net oxygen produced becomes negative because it is still respirating, but is not producing oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Hope that helps shed some light on the process


----------



## sappytreetree (Aug 12, 2010)

I dont belive it what might be up is humitey plants are more potant at lower humitey during Co2 injection you usally have high humtiey thats probley the colpert



I cant spell big whoop wanna fight about it


----------



## mydixiewrecked (Aug 12, 2010)

sappytreetree said:


> I cant spell big whoop wanna fight about it


lmfao, my favorite show


----------



## TopShelfComatose (Aug 12, 2010)

a plant technically is predetermined to produce a certain amount of thc... a good strain will have around 20%. but thc glands are not like ovaries, there are not a certain amount that a plant contains and is able to give off. 20% THC would be in relation to the plants mass, big or small. this is why i read High Times


----------



## freddiemoney (Aug 12, 2010)

I don't think it's measured like this. I think it's more like 20% of the cannabinoids found in the resin is THC, as opposed to other types.

If High Times is giving out this information, then that's why I don't read it.


----------



## stonedmetalhead1 (Aug 12, 2010)

There are different ways to test THC percentages and none of them are an exact science. Some measure THC by using weight by volume (hash to bud) while others determine the amount of THC in the resin glands through different methods. In the end these numbers don't really matter because a plant with a lower THC content could have better resin quality than a plant with a higher THC content not to mention the amounts and different types of cannabinoids play a big role in changing the effects of THC. THC percentages are a marketing ploy pure and simple. If a strain is good it's good, you just have to grow it out and smoke it to find out.


----------



## OZUT (Aug 12, 2010)

Just because something is printed in a mag doesn't mean it's true. They're just articles written by someone that interviewed a grower. Next month someone could be interviewed that says the opposite. Difference between a good and bad mag is their choice of people they interview and the content they publish. Good mags can publish crap and crap magazines might sometimes publish something interesting and worth reading.


----------



## genisis (Aug 13, 2010)

In reply to Buddreams - I grow; Alaskan thunder fuck, Pot of gold, White rhino, Shiskaberry, Jack H, Af-goo, and Yumbolt to name a few. Avatar is Yumbolt.


----------



## thewinghunter (Aug 13, 2010)

all the plant sthat i stunted and made small looked really icy
but twhen they are healthy and huge they dont looks as good and everyone thinks the buds suck. they go by look alone usually.


----------



## medicalsb420 (Aug 13, 2010)

like people have already stated... plants use co2 for photosynthesis- in a sealed grow there is little to no co2 available in the room since no new air is being sucked in. the plants use up the co2, and kick out O2 . without a way to replenish co2 in the sealed grow the plants are essentially suffocating. since the point of a sealed grow is to contain and supplement- co2 in the sealed room is absolutly vital whether it decreases potency or not. having expirience with a sealed grow and also much expirience with passive intake grows, i'd say the difference in potency is negligible at best. ambient atmosphere co2 availability is about 400ppm which i find is absolutly sufficient for indoor growing. just have fresh air constantly being pulled thru your room and the co2 levels remain at around 400 ppm. co2 in an "open" grow is pointless imo. also if the argument is made that co2 decreases potency due to "streching"- then the same is true for bloom enhancers such as H/G shooting powder(i love that stuff!). you can actual watch the lattice work of the trichomes expand as the nugs enlarge, what is required at this stage is to allow an additional 2 weeks for the trichs to once again "tighten up. however this additional 2 weeks proves a pain in the ass as you witness your beautiful milky/amber trichs extend to post maturity (good for medical strains, but not for a stoner like me haha=]). alot of growers will simply not wait. so yea, a delicate balance. i think thc potency is not neccessarily decreased by co2 itself but rather by the delayed harvest needed for "tight" trichome lattice work, time that decays pure THC headiness to cbn and cbd narcotic effects. in this instance the magazine is right that the THC is less potent technically, but the bud itself will still be stoney.


----------

