darkness before harvest bullshit?

[patlpp]

I remember now what happened on this test.

they harvested the first half of the plants three days earlier than the others. So the test is flawed. extremely flawed. I forgot about this as i read about it so long ago. If you read it you'll find that the plants left in the dark for three days were not left in the dark for 3 days while the other plants were in the light.

nope. they harvested half the plants and then gave the other half an extra 3 days growth time, albeit in the dark. A plant still grows during the dark as it uses energy stored from the light. Why give the test plants an extra 3 days?

Why not simply give half the plants 3 days dark while the other plants get light?

the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit. they need to do the test again.

They may not have had a choice. In order to harvest the entire crop the same day, they would have had to segregate that portion subjected to 72 hrs of darkness from the normal crop. In order to do that, they would have had to move them (who knows how many) from the referenced environment, which would have also invalidated the experiment. The solution would be as they did: To harvest the normal crop and measure, subject the remaining crop to darkness in the same environment, than cut and measure. The THC values, had the normal crop been given 3 more days, could have been extrapolated from normal growth patterns and than included in the calculations. Just a theory. Say they measured 10% THC with the first harvest and 13% THC with the dark harvest, and obtaining data from many past experiments that the average THC value increases .2% a day in the final days for the subject strain. This THC difference value would than be subtracted from the 33 % increase. Your reasoning would be that the plant would have increased in THC levels by 33% regardless, but the extrapolated data from historic experiments would prove otherwise.

 

[skunkushybrid01]

They may not have had a choice. In order to harvest the entire crop the same day, they would have had to segregate that portion subjected to 72 hrs of darkness from the normal crop. In order to do that, they would have had to move them (who knows how many) from the referenced environment, which would have also invalidated the experiment. The solution would be as they did: To harvest the normal crop and measure, subject the remaining crop to darkness in the same environment, than cut and measure. The THC values, had the normal crop been given 3 more days, could have been extrapolated from normal growth patterns and than included in the calculations. Just a theory. Say they measured 10% THC with the first harvest and 13% THC with the dark harvest, and obtaining data from many past experiments that the average THC value increases .2% a day in the final days for the subject strain. This THC difference value would than be subtracted from the 33 % increase. Your reasoning would be that the plant would have increased in THC levels by 33% regardless, but the extrapolated data from historic experiments would prove otherwise.

I see where you're coming from, nice post.

However, these guys grew multiple strains (as they claim only certain strains gained up to 30% increase) in one area, then harvested half of the plants 3 days earlier than the others. I highly doubt these guys waited till every strain was ready before harvesting.

To my mind this test is just too flawed to take any credence in. even if they created two separate areas they could have done this the right way.

Lots of people now will be placing their plants in the dark too early, thinking they will get something magical with the potency. If there wasn't a doubt in my mind that this works i would gladly share the info with others. As there are doubts, and quite big ones, as to the legitimacy of these results i'd never lay it out as a fact to people asking the question. I'd suggest it as a possibility, and then go on to explain about the flawed nature of the results.

I can understand an extended dark period being very stressful to a plant, maybe even more stressful than drought. if the light has gone, death isn't far away. if the water has gone death is also not very far away.

I once tried to grow an 8" clone plant in the dark, foliar feeding a sugar mixture of glucose, sucrose and fructose. Lasted about a month. No water... and a plant can last a few weeks. I think drought wins out though... just. I'll stick with drought for added frost.

 

[R2F]

I actually just tried this recently.

4 quadrants, 0 days dark - 4 days dark before harvest.

There was no difference in weight or trich between the 0 day dark and 4 day dark under the scope or the scale, and after curing they look the same, no way to tell the difference.

 

[noxzious]

I actually just tried this recently.

4 quadrants, 0 days dark - 4 days dark before harvest.

There was no difference in weight or trich between the 0 day dark and 4 day dark under the scope or the scale, and after curing they look the same, no way to tell the difference.

Finally.

Perfect.

 

[BCBuddy420]

oh... Word!

lol i dont doubt that for a sec

I jus wanted to know what volatile terpenoids were lol

LoL Volatile terpenoids? I have not a clue man haha