Lights off last few days?

I believe it was Sannie on opengrow that was saying many varieties will do better on a 11/13 instead of 12/12, and I also read somewhere that certain varieties need more than 12 of darkness, and some need less. Does anyone experiment with these times? Also, many places tell u to turn the lights down to like 10/14, then 8/16, then off for the last few days before harvest. Even Barneys farm i think said to do that for one or more of their strains. Please post your experiences.

Since you started two threads in two different forums asking the same question I will respond to the same question twice.

Equatorial sativa strains or crosses that are highly predominantly made up of equatorial sativa strains do better when flowered using an 11/13 light cycle.

In general, when it comes to other types of strains, the idea is less THC lost to light degradation and increased levels of THC since most THC is produced and accumulated during hours of darkness. Another way to increase THC is to add UV-B lighting during flower. Lights like are used for reptile aquariums put off higher amounts of UV-B light rays. Plants have been grown and tested grown outdoors, using clones, and those grown in areas with increased amounts of UV-B light had higher percentages of THC. An example is plants were grown on a mountain and the plants grown at higher altitude, where there is more UV-B light, had higher levels of THC than the plants grown at lower altitudes. Adding UV-B lighting during flower lets you somewhat create the same sort of growing conditions indoors.

As for an extended period of darkness before harvesting:

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

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

i know sorry to every1 who sees this elsewhere, but when I only post in 1 forum, I barely ever get any responses, and sometimes not enough input when I do get some.

bangthangonme said:

i know sorry to every1 who sees this elsewhere, but when I only post in 1 forum, I barely ever get any responses, and sometimes not enough input when I do get some.

Click to expand...

That can happen to anyone on any subject or question asked. About a year and a half or two years ago I started a thread about air layering and it only received about 5 or maybe 8 replies, tops. Roughly a few months back someone else started a thread about it and it remained on the first page and busy for a good while and received a lot of traffic. It can be timing or the luck of the draw.

But some people see someone who starts multiple threads in different forums as being too impatient to wait for a reply or replies when they only begin one thread on a subject and because of it possibly a bit of a pain in the butt so often times they ignore them for that reason alone, especially if one or more of the threads is begun in a forum where what is asked does not really belong. When that happens they are often ignored or ragged on for posting in an improper forum.

Not everyone here is as tolerant and as warm and generous and kind and giving and magnanimous and munificent as I am. (Now if that one doesn't cause a bunch of eyes to roll and get a few big belly laughs nothing ever will.)

taint said:

I would suggest that it was the additional 72 hours they got,it states the other half was harvested while the so called control group waited 3 more days before the harvest.

Click to expand...

I have seen that argument made before, and I do wish the earlier harvest half of the crop would have been left to grow under normal lighting and both crops harvested at the same time and then tested. It would have given more accurate and more credible results.

But there is no way that there could have been an equal increase in THC levels in the earlier harvested crop even if it had been left under normal lighting for another 72 hours.

Long before it was a known fact that THC works somewhat like sunscreen and it protects the delicate inner glands of glandular trichome heads, and in the process some amount would degraded every day while under light and that most THC is created during hours of darkness many growers, mostly outdoors growers at the time/era, learned that when they harvested their crop before first light it resulted in increased potency. They did not know the exact reason why but they learned that harvesting early in the day, before light or at first light, resulted in increased potency and harvesting late in the day resulted in decreased potency.

Had the crop that was harvested 72-hours earlier been left under normal lighting there may very well have been some increase in THC production, but since some THC would also have degraded during those 72-hours the increase could not have matched what occurred in the crop that was given 72-hours of darkness. Also considering the plants, in each crop group, were ripe and ready for harvest, if the crop that was harvested 72-hours earlier along with the loss of THC through light degradation there would have been an increase in the amount of CBN, which did not occur in the crop given 72-hours of darkness. Since Cannabinol, CBN, is the primary degradation product of THC and is only mildly psychoactive and causes a fuzzy head sensation, drowsiness, disorientation and sleepiness in the smoker, properties that can be considered unpleasant in nature compared to the clear high of the THC, that would not have been a positive and instead a negative since increased levels of THC and it's affects were the goal.

Yeah I hear ya,Tried the dark thing and didn't notice any more differance than waiting thee days...........cept the plants that were in the dark for that 3 days yielded lightly less per plant.

ok ill be more patient. When would you suggest to stop watering to make it dry slightly faster, 2 days before harvest?

taint said:

Yeah I hear ya,Tried the dark thing and didn't notice any more differance than waiting thee days...........cept the plants that were in the dark for that 3 days yielded lightly less per plant.

Click to expand...

Evidently the research and tests performed by The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden were all totally incorrect. They should have saved a lot of time and money and effort and just asked you.

I am sure that your growing and testing environment was much better controlled than theirs and that you had much higher technology equipment to work with for testing the results of your experimentation, not to mention that it goes without saying that your level of education in such types of research have to far surpass that of anyone and everyone involved in what had to be inaccurate scientific research findings.

I always marvel at how someone will attempt something in their basement or closet or store room or grow tent or garage or attic and then rely totally on their physical sensory capabilities to make a judgment and believe what they think to be the results proves actual scientific research to be wrong.

I also get a real kick out of whenever this topic comes up the part of the findings that clearly state; "some varieties had seen an increase of THC of up to 30%, while CBD and CBN remained the same" is ignored and because someone was incapable of physically sensing any difference in the strain or strains they made their attempt with that the deem it to not work with any strains, even though the findings clearly stated; "some varieties" and not all varieties had an increase up to 30%.

With there being well over 3,000 genetically different known strains there would have to be a degree of variance of results but in every case there would have to be at least some increase in the level of THC. As I previously stated, long before it was a known fact that THC works somewhat like sunscreen and it protects the delicate inner glands of glandular trichome heads, and in the process some amount would degraded every day while under light and that most THC is created during hours of darkness many growers, mostly outdoors growers at the time/era, learned that when they harvested their crop before first light it resulted in increased potency. They did not know the exact reason why but they learned that harvesting early in the day, before light or at first light, resulted in increased potency and harvesting late in the day resulted in decreased potency.

During hours of darkness plants operate off of stored energy, a battery backup sort of system, and 72-hours is about the maximum amount of time a plant can continue it's functions without receiving light. While it still has energy it will continue to perform functions and since the plants are in total darkness the only functions that will be performed are those that are normally performed during hours of darkness. THC production is one of the main functions that occur during hours of darkness while in the flowering stage of growth.

During that period of time there can be no loss of THC due to light degradation because there is no light but THC will be produced in some additional amount.

Something that never makes any sense to me when people either say it does not work, even though it has been scientifically proven to work, or that it is not worth what little someone believed they did gain when they attempted it is this. Consider how much money many of us spend on quality genetics. Think about how much money many of us spend on creating the best possible setup we can, including lighting and in some cases fans and duct work for temperature control and ventilation to draw in fresh air and in some cases CO2 setups and in some cases hydro or aero setups and all that goes with them. Think about how much money some of us spend on overpriced 'designer soils.' Think about how much money some of us spend on what in reality are overpriced fertilizers/nutrients. Think about how much some of us spend on other equipment to test pH and EC. Think about the cost of running such setups, electricity for various pieces of equipment, water if you are on a city/town water system (which also means you are charged additional for sewer charges because they are based the amount of water is used). Some use/run other pieces of equipment like air conditioning units just for their grow areas or dehumidifiers and in some cases humidifiers, which they at some point had to spend money on to purchase them. Then consider the amount of time and effort that is put in between the popping of beans until curing is finished.

All that, and more, is done to attempt to squeeze every last bit of potency out of the genetics we grow. All those expenses, all the time, all the effort to attempt to achieve the best possible final results.

Then something that has been scientifically proven to work, to some degree or another depending on what strain or strains are grown, and it is 100% free, it does not cost a single penny and it takes no effort whatsoever beyond that of manually turning off lights, unplugging them, flipping a switch on a timer or pulling pins off a timer ... that is all ... and in return for spending absolutely nothing and doing as close to nothing as is possible there will be some increase in the level of THC, possibly as high as 30%. Since it is free and almost totally effortless why in the wide, wide world of sports would everyone not do it given all that they do that costs them money and takes time and effort all to achieve the goal of increasing potency?

If someone only ended up with a 2% or a 5% increase in THC considering that it is totally free and as close to being effortless as anything could be wouldn't it be worth the additional 2% or 5% of THC ? What about an increase of maybe 8% or maybe 11%? It would be totally free and nearly effortless, so would it be worth doing or not? What if someone is growing a strain that will see an 18% or 24% or the full 30% increase, wouldn't that be worth it since it would not cost the person one single additional penny and almost no effort at all would be required to get it?

I will never understand the logic and rationale some people rely on where they will gladly pay, and in many cases overpay, for many various different things and will gladly put in so much time and go to such effort all in the quest for maximum potency and then they refuse do do something that is not only free and almost totally effortless but also scientifically proven to work to some degree or another and in some cases to a major degree.

The only answer is because people put more faith in the opinion or belief of what some guy just decided was the case after what he did in his basement or closet or store room or grow tent or garage or attic than they put in the proven results of actual scientific research.

ok brick don't get yerself all werked up.
You been around the boards at least as long as I have if not longer.
Whatever floats yer boat,the so called controls in yer experiments wernt actual controls.
The term some varieties means it may or may not werk for you.
No need to respond to me anymore,I hate to see anyone wasting their time and efforts on a lost cause.
On a side note I'm glad yer still around,still the same and in a happy spot.

taint said:

ok brick don't get yerself all werked up.
You been around the boards at least as long as I have if not longer.
Whatever floats yer boat,the so called controls in yer experiments wernt actual controls.

Click to expand...

Anyone with any degree of logic and rationale would realize, understand and accept that research done by places like The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden would carry far more weight than anything someone lacking the PhDs and other degrees the people at those places have and lacking the high tech testing equipment that those places have who are growing in their basement or in a closet or a store room or a spare room or an attic or a garage or in a grow tent would just decide the results of what they did were.

Anyone who does not realize, understand and accept that totally lacks logic and rationale. The live in a dream world where they believe the accuracy of what are only decided upon results that someone does at home is equally accurate to or possibly even more accurate in their findings than what places like The Stichting Institute of Medical marijuana together with TNO laboratories and the University of Leiden do.

How many of those who claimed to have tried giving their plants 72-hours of complete darkness (and most times I have read where someone tried it they tried a variation and only gave their plants 24 to 48 hours or darkness rather than the full 72-hours) before harvesting them just happened to have gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry equipment in their basement or closet or store room or spare room or grow tent or garage or attic to rest their results with?

I guess having seen so many bogus nida studies,then a great many bogus claims made by the experts in the mj field that I have to a large degree learned to trust what my eyes,nose and brain tell me.
I also know the times they are a changing and that I really should be more open to the newer studies done but I reckon I'll always be a cynic regards stuff that's contradictory to my experiance.
I certainly concede that this like everything is a constant learning process and I would like to thank you for taking the time to make yer points.

One of the most fascinating things to me is the folk lore, myth, word of mouth and bizarre opinion surrounding the growing of marijuana. That is not to say that I or anyone I know have all the answers but modern studies and true side by side tests mean something more now than ever as, what Brick Top (and quite a few others here) say - old school myth is being replaced by modern hype "sell the fancy bottle" myth. I smirked at the 72 hour thing but am convinced to try it my next grow - when ever that may be.

im defintly tryin it

I've been doing the 72 hours of darkness for a few harvests now. I cannot physically notice a difference, but the logic makes sense, and I continue to do it. Brick Top made a good point about the amount we invest, and something so free to do would be dumb not to do. My plants looked just as healthy as when I shut off the lights before the 72 hours save slight yellowing from the final flush. After spending a ton on beans(no clones available in my area), a ton on electricity, a reasonably large amount for an awesome setup, and waiting 3+ months for the perfect time to chop it makes sense to wait the extra few-three days.

I wish I had a baseline to make a comparison. I did 24 hours of dark on Auto-AK47, 72 hours on two separate Blueberry grows, and this time 72 hours on Serious Seeds AK47. I alternated hydroponic with completely organic soil, along with alternating from 1000W hps w/ CO2 to T5 tent with external vent. As Brick Top said any single factor would negate a solid correlation between a real experiment with controlled variables and a person who doesn't do it the same exact every single time. Without proton NMR, IR spectra, and mass spec capability none of us are qualified to say. That being said, with the exception of my 2nd Blueberry harvest, the smoke is always killer. I think curing variances give the most notable differences in smoke quality than any other harvesting factor.

to threadjack myself what do you feel is the best curing cycle