THC, CBD, Terpene test results – UVA vs UVB vs none

Bignutes said:

The UK is not even remotely ideal for quality outdoor bud

Click to expand...

Hahaharshhh we had a good summer once! ive smoked outdoor from all over and its never the better product, imo.

I think extracts are where the answers are. i believe the priciest grams are around $100 in the states? i think outdoor "full spectrum" hash is pretty pricey in America... is it pricier than indoor? i dunno...anyone?

ive heard outdoor terps trump indoor...? mostly from the outdoor growers...

@Rocket Soul that sounds real great, man i need to try me some 800m mountain weed.

Had some tasty Guatemalan once, was in a place called Flores. Realllly great high and unique smelling...really peppery. i kept some seeds that i found in the bud...one day i'll pop em...one day when i'm prepared for the super mega long flower time...

Humple said:

But how do we know that wasn't due to peeps happening upon genetics that just happened to scratch their unique physiological itch rather than it being due to the light source?

Click to expand...

yeah exactly, man. Im up for taste tasting though, for science

Prawn Connery said:

Australian bush weed is as good as anything I've smoked. Perhaps I'm wearing nostalgia-tinted glasses,

Click to expand...

those glasses are THIC

ive got fam in Aus, ill take the hydro errytime

@Prawn Connery got a question for you so saw this and im more looking into the uvr8 and what it can do for the plants when fully stimulated.

ive heard that uvr8 is used to sense uvb and that is used to initiate stress in the plant, That causing the plant to produce more resin to coat itself to protect itself from the uvb. so is it an idea to hit it with 285-nm so it fully stimulates the cell receptors fully if u get what I mean and correct if im wrong here , Trying to learn.

2com said:

Uh, I don't. Sharing my view does not equal "taking offense". You just insinuate that I do.

I have. I didn't say it wasn't friendly. I think you're reaching now. I didn't think I was unclear.

Why are you asking me? These would be questions for you to answer, not me. "Good enough to shut me up?"...What? Haha

Me too! Who said they shouldn't? I didn't. But now it's like you're suggesting that "I (or someone) disagrees with this statement". Like a straw man of some sort. Nobody made that argument. It's almost like you're responding to some comment other than the one I posted.

Also, what are the false claims being made here by GLA, Prawn..? Absolutely, point those out. Or maybe you're generalizing. I don't know who these (fictional) people are though, who think or have voiced that venders should not be accountable for their claims. Haha. Wasn't me.

I thought my wording/comment was clear, and just my view. It's almost like you're responding based on how it made you feel, and not the actual content.
I'm not saying you can't participate in discourse. And it's good to be "skeptical" and all that, I'm the same. If you want to know what I actually was saying, just re-read my actual comment.

(Btw, some of these "?'s"/questions are rhetorical. I don't expect a back and forth and I'm done now. I'm not trying to "attack" you. I respect your input.)

Back to the data and topic
Peace.

Click to expand...

Haha, "not good enough for you" were your words, friend, not mine. So I was asking what you meant by that. And just as some of your questions were rhetorical, so were some of mine, though it seems as if you may not have taken them that way, especially when you take those rhetorical questions as straw man arguments. As for my appeals being a bit much and me doing nothing but telling them it's not good enough for me - I get it, that's your perspective, but it's certainly not mine. You say you're not offended, and I'll take you at your word, but your irritation comes through loud and clear. Strikes me as odd to be irritated with non-personal internet opinions, but to each their own peeves, I suppose!

Prawn Connery said:

Yes, the 620+ region that CRI90+ white phosphor LEDs produce certainly gives results. The main reason LED manufacturers use 660 is because it is currently the most efficient LED spectrum in terms of umol/j. 630 is pretty average. In fact, a good white phosphor LED like Nichia's V3F1 is more efficient than a 630nm mono – and you get all the other colours thrown in. That's something else I discussed with Randomblame at the time: was it better to get our reds from phosphors or from monos? We decided on phosphors, because they don't just peak at 620nm (V3F1) or 660nm (Optisolis), they provide efficient light all around those spectra. Admittedly, the Optisolis are only around 50-52% efficient and the V3F1 CRI90 are around 55-56% – both in 2700K – but they both have a very high QER, so umol/j was calculated at 2.60-2.75 umol/j. The boards themselves ended up around 2.50 umol/j, as the Sunlike drag them down. They are around 48% efficient and 2.20 umol/j tops as the UV pump is not as efficient as typical blue pumps. The UV-pump Optisolis (5000K+) are also around 47% efficiency

Click to expand...

If you read again, you will see what I was referring to was info from 2014

lukio said:

those glasses are THIC

ive got fam in Aus, ill take the hydro errytime

Click to expand...

Two words: Mullumbimby Madness

I don't even think it's the best outdoor strain in Oz, either. We had stuff back in the day we used to call "tripping weed" because we saw people trip the fuck out on it.

I've been to the UK and smoked what you blokes seem to like and most of it was heavy shit that made me want to curl up in a ball.

OK, I'm embellishing a little bit here It was still heavy shit and not really my cup of tea, but I'll also admit I've only smoked a small sample of your weed over a few months.

PhatNuggz said:

If you read again, you will see what I was referring to was info from 2014

Click to expand...

You did too, my bad. But he was probably still on the money back then. Even these days I hear some growers say they think 620-30 is ore important. Mind you, there are others who say the magic number is 680, as that's where the Chlorophyll A absorption peak lies. Perhaps that's why around 420nm seems to work well, as there is another Chlorophyll A peak there.

Gond00s said:

@Prawn Connery got a question for you so saw this and im more looking into the uvr8 and what it can do for the plants when fully stimulated.
View attachment 4485061
ive heard that uvr8 is used to sense uvb and that is used to initiate stress in the plant, That causing the plant to produce more resin to coat itself to protect itself from the uvb. so is it an idea to hit it with 285-nm so it fully stimulates the cell receptors fully if u get what I mean and correct if im wrong here , Trying to learn.

Click to expand...

Hi mate, I will try to answer this better tomorrow, as I'm really high right now and it's way past my bed time. The short answer is we believe just about any light can stress a plant if you exceed DLI and leaf temps, but the UVB>Blue range carries the most energy, so it stands to reason it has the potential to stress the plant most. Still not a huge amount is known about UVA/B effects on cannabis apart from a couple of recents trials and a couple of old ones. The UVR8 photoreceptors (tryptophans) do control photo-morphogeneic and photo-protection (stress) responses in plants, but I guess the million-dollar question is can you get similar results with other spectra? Namely UVA and near-UV. I can't remember everything right now, so I'm going to have to go back and read more about it when I'm straight.

Back in the old days, plant stressing was pretty common, as outdoor growers believed it improved their product. They couldn't really provide stress by controlling the sun, but they could do other things to the plants, such as driving nails through stems and forcing the plants to grow into awkward shapes. I don't know f it every really worked, but the concept of stress having an effect on potency has been around a long time.

Prawn Connery said:

Mullumbimby Madness

Click to expand...

haha gotta love the ozzy names - sounds great!

Prawn Connery said:

It was still heavy shit and not really my cup of tea,

Click to expand...

The UK is absolutely flooded with choice these days. We export the bloody stuff...lol!

lukio said:

haha gotta love the ozzy names - sounds great!


The UK is absolutely flooded with choice these days. We export the bloody stuff...lol!

Click to expand...

This was UK skunk back in 2000 in London. I'd been living in Asia and mostly smoked outdoor landrace sativas and central asian hash (Pakistan, Nepal etc). To this day, I've never been a big fan of skunk.

diggs99 said:

Good thread everyone, lots of great info, most i cant even understand....i just wanna grow bro

Click to expand...

Yea - absent the time, I hear you.
I just wanna grow too, bro. And gain more *experience at it.
I need to prioritize my decreasingly available time better, not to mention - health.

Peace.

Prawn Connery said:

Hi mate, I will try to answer this better tomorrow, as I'm really high right now and it's way past my bed time. The short answer is we believe just about any light can stress a plant if you exceed DLI and leaf temps, but the UVB>Blue range carries the most energy, so it stands to reason it has the potential to stress the plant most. Still not a huge amount is known about UVA/B effects on cannabis apart from a couple of recents trials and a couple of old ones. The UVR8 photoreceptors (tryptophans) do control photo-morphogeneic and photo-protection (stress) responses in plants, but I guess the million-dollar question is can you get similar results with other spectra? Namely UVA and near-UV. I can't remember everything right now, so I'm going to have to go back and read more about it when I'm straight.

Back in the old days, plant stressing was pretty common, as outdoor growers believed it improved their product. They couldn't really provide stress by controlling the sun, but they could do other things to the plants, such as driving nails through stems and forcing the plants to grow into awkward shapes. I don't know f it every really worked, but the concept of stress having an effect on potency has been around a long time.

Click to expand...

Because if I’m right it’s a photo receptor that is activated when in the UVR8 range. Imo it just gives the plant the extra push idk

hybridway2 said:

All i have wanted in my spectrum for a few yrs now that is not present is 380-450nm.
As the Australian said (sorry forgot your real name) there's allot going on there. 420 has always spiked my interest. 450 + 470nm has been a factor in purps & bag appeal.
I have been saying for a few yrs now that it is easier for me to grow under higher K temps.
@Rocket Soul 's above graph may be showing exactly why that is.
Plain Cobs & Qb's at 3k or lower is no easy flower for me.
I believe UVA can replace UVB in the garden for now. Until we have better knowledge of how to use it. 450 + 470nm has done a great job at increasing terps, colors & appeal over my lower K-Temp white leds. Could swear higher thc then my HPS bud was. But never did a test other then smoke & service reviews. Literally label same strains under different lighting, color coded with minor spelling change. Then take note of what label color/marking, strain they prefer. Hence telling me the lighting they prefer to smoke buds from under. Was writing led or hps at first.
My understanding is that even if UVB is used at low light levels it can be considered useless for thc increases if not applied properly. Contradictory to what many believe due to the evolution of our plants under the sun. Which i understand but as we all know, outdoor weed is just not as good. Maybe because of the commercial production of it but i feel it is from prolonged exposure to UVB, aside from elements too.
My Deep research (that's right,No links) & tons of experience experimenting with UVB (yeah right) shows that it is best to use it on a timer, allowing the plant random or controlled bursts. This theory someone will prove for me soon. Is that the plant builds up a resistence to the UVB if it is on all day, therefore rendering it useless for increasing thc production. That does not mean it will not work Synergistically with the rest of the full spectrum to create more desirable or plant responses as long as there is a small enough amount being applied that the plant can withstand 12 or 18hrs of it.
So, in order to increase your THC/Cannabinoids using UVB you would want to put it in a timer & adjust that time accordingly based on output or DLI.
Furthermore, to answer previous questions from maybe another thread, UVB is Not worth the Diode addition to a manufactured Grow-Light yet though unfortunately. Its not feasible. DIY is another story. The LG/UVB Diodes would require a different drive current then the rest of the light adding expense, would need its own separate oversized/active heat sinks to last over 3 yrs. Before 20% sets in (projected).
Then you would have to hope the grower uses it properly. So, its a Nay for now.
Australian, have you seen other whites that include 380-450nm? Last yr. I remember seeing at least x3 or x4. Some of which had quite a bit more below 450 then the Optisolis's & one had a chunk from 380-410 more then the others. Wish i remembered the names. Optisolis's were of the highest electrical efficiency amongst them though.

So your boards are a Broad Red 35kish 90cri Nichias with interweaving strips of 5k Optisolis's? Makes a Highlight Board?
Sorry if i missed that. Sure its old info.

I dig these. Didn't i see something about it not being an extra fee to send to the US of A? Maybe i could get some for a 4x4 before this next run in about 10-14 days?
Sound possible if i order now?
@Grow Lights Australia, am i blocked or something? Can't @ you? Hu!!!!.
Holla!

Click to expand...

Well I disagree about the feasibility aspect (LED lights are often times over $1K!), as well as wanting to call UVA an equivalent (when so much more UVA is needed). There is scientific papers done by research experts describing UVR8 and HY5 transcription which is centered ~295nm.

I do agree that 380nm to 440nm is typically missing, as well as 470nm - 490nm. Chlorophyll B is pretty narrow around 450nm, so typical LED is good for chlorophyll b, but there's lots of photoreceptors with wider absorption bands, which means if all the WV's were present, like under the sun, these other absorptive bands would be absorbing more energy to trigger morphological responses. The sun emits more 480nm than 450nm but our LED have almost no 480nm. I'm sure you've noticed a difference in your pants under fluoro compared to LED? Fluoro have peaks in 480nm-ish and 405nm-ish (WV lacking from LED), and I think are big reasons why.

EDIT:
If you've downloaded the SPD simulator I posted, there's a sheet at the bottom called "HY5" (I think), but its a page calculating which WV (between 280nm and 3 something I can't remember) triggers HY5 expression more so. I think it was the 280nm that was the winner over the 3 something, but not by a whole lot. 295nm wasn't calculated but looks like it'd be ~double the effectiveness, though 295nm are expensive! :/

Prawn Connery said:

Here's how Or_Gro recorded the Arcadia bulbs with the other lights off. Looks like the Sekonic cuts off around 395-400nm

View attachment 4484844

Click to expand...

cobshopgrow said:

thats a massive discussion here! nice read.

may got something wrong, but regarding what a Sekonic can measure i can help.
he hardly register 365nm leds, but have no problem to measure down to 380nm itself.
View attachment 4484851

Click to expand...

It looks like there's a bit of a "blue corner" in OrGro's readout maybe? I don't have a sekonic, so I don't know their limitations.

hybridway2 said:

that the plant builds up a resistence to the UVB if it is on all day, therefore rendering it useless for increasing thc production.

Click to expand...

Well I think a plant builds up secondairy metabolites which then can absorb said radiation before it damages cellwalls or DNA of the inner plant structure. Perhaps cannabinoids are a part of this shield - at least its proven that they'll get broken down by UV radiation, and that a plant subsequently refills it, making Trichs longer.

Outside the UV delivered to a plant is not qually distributed at all. It varies greatly day by day. And there's surely more UV when the sun is at the zenith than low above the horizon. So a few strong hours indoors seems, well, at least natural, and would give a plant some more time to initiate repair or refilling processes.

I've already seen plants that were accidently wasted due to a bad controller - UV clf shined whole night - sunburnt as you've never seen, a complete tent nearly lost, bleached and dried out leaves that crumbled to dust upon touch... I've seen this outdoor, too, esp. when vegging indoors under non-UV emitting light - all leaves get bleached white, fall off, but new leaves grow back right into the same sun, and stay healthy.

Grow Lights Australia said:

One thing that surprised me was Einstein's theory of light that proves photosynthesis is directly related to photon absorption and not spectral energy. This doesn't seem to make sense at first because a blue light photon contains more energy than a red light photon so it's easy to assume that blue light would elicit a greater response in plants than red light, but that is not the case. Einstein's universal law states that one photon is required to elevate one electron to a higher state regardless of how that photon is created. I'm not about to argue with Einstein!

So if all photons are equal, but blue photons require more energy than red photons, then obviously red photons are a more efficient driver of photosynthesis. I am talking purely about photons vs photons, as we know that chloroplasts absorb different spectra based on their pigments and some spectra are absorbed more efficiently than others (most green light is reflected, for example, even though it is also a very efficient driver of photosynthesis due to how far it penetrates the leaf cell structure and how many chloroplasts it activates).

Einstein's theory, in combination with the spectral absorption curve (McCree), explains why red light is such an efficient driver of photosynthesis. Because it has a very high quantum efficiency. So if red light is the most efficient driver of photosynthesis then it must also be the most efficient driver of any photomorphogenic response that relies on photosynthesis – and that would include flowering.

The point of all this is that if red light improves overall yields compared to other light, then it MUST improve flowering yields. You can't have fruit or flowers without leaves, stems, branches and roots! So anything that increases the efficiency of plant growth must also increase its efficiency to make fruit and flowers by default.

I hope that makes sense.

Click to expand...

I have alot of trouble with some of these scientific studies because you'll find both methodic errors - and esp. also interpretational errors from readers etc... so I personally wouldnt go so far as to make absolute sentences judging from a single study. For example, there's been this study comparison flower-weight Mh vs HPS --> outcome HPS wins hands down! because this is established because what most users look at is the result. Ofc its not without error, but in a forum where so many people from all over the world come together and share experiences, I guess there'll be some red line established in this "ground knowledge".

But coming back to the study & your post - did these studies really give both chamber species the exact same amount of potential for photosynthesis, so that this variable can be zeroed out and reasons found elsewhere. But what - a HPS puts out more photons, esp. in the 600w regime its 90k HPS lumen vs 60k CMH or 50k MH. So maybe they measured PAR out but then theres your mentioned quantum photon efficiency, has this been accounted for? And difference leaf surface and what not... then an MH has alot of different spikes... just to make an example

I would find it better for studies if LED monos are used... however, there are so many things to be considered it's basically mindblowing to try include them all... from UVB to green plants have so many different peaks in the uptake of light in certain regions, I wonder how they all interplay with each other, or what they tell a plant about its surroundings individually...

I also have a hard time understanding why a red 660nm receptor should tell a plant that it's "day" when inf act the blue light is hitting a plant even later, twice each day. Then there's this difference in canopy penetration and photon efficiency. The ones that's best absorbed is also absorbed quite swiftly, but it heat that part of the plant up but leaving nothing to the rest.... which, depending big plant/ tiny plant may just be both good depending on the situation...

Furthermore, some folks out there simply try to mimic the sun while others try to manipulate a plant with delivering special light frequencies. I also wonder if this manipulation is different from plant to plant, that is, it seems that having the ability to turn special frequencies on/out is mandatory.

And you don't really need to ask for cannabis-specific studies because many plant function the same. Yes, they mostly LOOK different

Prawn Connery said:

I don't know if you saw that grow, but there was a lot of info in it. It was 85 fucking pages long! Which is why it's just taken me ages to find all these spectographs, but they were in there. These are all at fairly even umol/j EDIT: I don't think those wattages included the supplemental lighting, which makes sense.

Also, I don't know why Or_Gro didn't include any spectrographs of the other tents with the UV running, I think maybe because his Sekonic doesn't read UV so he probably figured it didn't mater, but I've included another reading at the bottom which is combined High Red boards with the same Arcadia 6% UVB 30% UVA lamps that Or_Gro used. You can see in the last spectograph that the UV component hardly registers on my Lighting Passport which has a similar range to the Sekonic.

View attachment 4484835

View attachment 4484843

View attachment 4484837


This last reading is @Frank Cannon's room, which is similar to Or_Gro's, except Frank has High Lights and Arcadia 6/30% UVB/A lamps and Or_Grow had QB228s and QB96s with his Arcadias and did not run any UV in his High Light UV board tent.
View attachment 4484842

Click to expand...

Thanks man, I don't have access to the other place anymore, and I haven't seen the grow thread. Those SPDs help give me a better pic.

One thing I observe atm is either the fluoros were really low output in UVA and lower (less than 400nm), or there's a different spectral response in the 2 sekonics posted (cobshops and orgros).

Rocket Soul said:

What part caused too much? Extra violet or CO2?

Click to expand...

If I remeber correctly, Random was proposing there was too much blue, and I believe his mitigation suggestion was increasing ambient. I can post the thread link but I'd have to dig them up.

Prawn Connery said:

Yes, the 620+ region that CRI90+ white phosphor LEDs produce certainly gives results. The main reason LED manufacturers use 660 is because it is currently the most efficient LED spectrum in terms of umol/j. 630 is pretty average. In fact, a good white phosphor LED like Nichia's V3F1 is more efficient than a 630nm mono – and you get all the other colours thrown in. That's something else I discussed with Randomblame at the time: was it better to get our reds from phosphors or from monos? We decided on phosphors, because they don't just peak at 620nm (V3F1) or 660nm (Optisolis), they provide efficient light all around those spectra. Admittedly, the Optisolis are only around 50-52% efficient and the V3F1 CRI90 are around 55-56% – both in 2700K – but they both have a very high QER, so umol/j was calculated at 2.60-2.75 umol/j. The boards themselves ended up around 2.50 umol/j, as the Sunlike drag them down. They are around 48% efficient and 2.20 umol/j tops as the UV pump is not as efficient as typical blue pumps. The UV-pump Optisolis (5000K+) are also around 47% efficiency

Click to expand...

Haha this is where I disagreed with Random. There's far more efficient 630nm chips than PC. We disagreed on a few things, but I miss the guy. Hope he's doing ok. He got a lot of us started and hyped about LED, myself included.

dont think the spectral response is different between the 2 C-7000, cant really imagine, both show like displayed down to 380 and are calibrated accordingly.

watching close, there is may a blue dot to the very left on ogros, not sure.

i dont know the spectrum of his UV equipment used, i could imagine the next peak of the fluoro is about at 360nm, which the Sekonic do not capture and wee see the rest of this spike, the dot.

ChiefRunningPhist said:

Well I disagree about the feasibility aspect (LED lights are often times over $1K!), as well as wanting to call UVA an equivalent (when so much more UVA is needed). There is scientific papers done by research experts describing UVR8 and HY5 transcription which is centered ~295nm.

I do agree that 380nm to 440nm is typically missing, as well as 470nm - 490nm. Chlorophyll B is pretty narrow around 450nm, so typical LED is good for chlorophyll b, but there's lots of photoreceptors with wider absorption bands, which means if all the WV's were present, like under the sun, these other absorptive bands would be absorbing more energy to trigger morphological responses. The sun emits more 480nm than 450nm but our LED have almost no 480nm. I'm sure you've noticed a difference in your pants under fluoro compared to LED? Fluoro have peaks in 480nm-ish and 405nm-ish (WV lacking from LED), and I think are big reasons why.

EDIT:
If you've downloaded the SPD simulator I posted, there's a sheet at the bottom called "HY5" (I think), but its a page calculating which WV (between 280nm and 3 something I can't remember) triggers HY5 expression more so. I think it was the 280nm but not by a whole lot. 295nm want calculated but looks like it's be ~double the effectiveness but 295nm are expensive though :/

Click to expand...

not sure about this next thing imma say but I read this somewhere the uvr8 when activated helps reduce stretch im not sure about this one but would be cool to know if it does or not.