UVA/UVB the real deal. A must read topic for all growers.
- Thread starter GreenVet
- Start date
screwbird
Member
from what i have seen, on my next grow i will add them on day 1 of flowering. i have no scientific observations to offer but i had a close friend and mentor grow clones of El Monstruo for 3 years. i have finally started my own grow room with clones supplied by my friend. the final product from my walk-in shower and cfl's (including 1 uv-b 150) is superior in every way. she used tents, hps, bottled CO2, and had a 900$ a month electric bill. i have 1150 watts of cfl's 6 inches away, and 2 jugs of yeast and sugar for CO2. My lights burn about 250 watts total. close examination of buds from her grow compared to mine and a couple of bongs convinced us both! she ordered 2 bulbs for her next crop. : UV-B is for me! i'll include some pics when i figure out how to make them small enough to upload.
screwbird
Member
you can avoid all the heat if you use cfl bulbs. the heat they generate is pretty much from the ballast in the base. i have mine approx. 5 to 15 inches away from buds with no problem.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Exactly. 10% of nothing is nothing, not that anyone is measuring. Enough of the junk science:
http://www.academia.edu/227934/Effects_of_prolonged_UV-B_exposure_in_plants
yesum
Well-Known Member
10% of something is something, not that I measured.
That link gives no proof of anything to do with pot, much less the change in cannabinoid profile. I know from smoking I am getting a change in the chemicals involved with getting high. Exactly which chemicals is not that important. More important is that I can feel the difference in many of the strains.
That link gives no proof of anything to do with pot, much less the change in cannabinoid profile. I know from smoking I am getting a change in the chemicals involved with getting high. Exactly which chemicals is not that important. More important is that I can feel the difference in many of the strains.
Opm
Active Member
This is pretty much what I hate about marijuana cultivation forums. It's all a bunch of high people speculating based on speculation.
I want to see scientifically conducted research more prevalent on these forums with data,control groups, and peer review.
Smoking it and judging whether it got you higher is laughable at best. Run a control group, send it to a lab to be tested. Do not change anything but adding the light and send it in again. Next, tell us what you did and then let us conduct the experiment for ourselves.
Is this so hard people?
I take every method I learn on here with high skepticism and then run my own experiments to judge it's validity.
I want to see scientifically conducted research more prevalent on these forums with data,control groups, and peer review.
Smoking it and judging whether it got you higher is laughable at best. Run a control group, send it to a lab to be tested. Do not change anything but adding the light and send it in again. Next, tell us what you did and then let us conduct the experiment for ourselves.
Is this so hard people?
I take every method I learn on here with high skepticism and then run my own experiments to judge it's validity.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
150 -400 uw/cm2 is required for effect...more than 400 decreases production with no added benefit...below 150 and no detectable difference
Best was 10% increase in thc and 7% thcv in lab reports...sats respond better than indies but it is very noticeable in both
Causes a creeper effect as well as more of an uplifting and longer lasting high...in sats really fosters the psychedelic qualities
Have not witnessed an in crease in tichome size nor amount but cannabinoid percentage manipulation is seen with increased psycho-activity...also seems to reduce cbd percentages a tad
only affordable lamps I have found that produce enough uvb for this application
http://www.lightyourreptiles.com/ard3t546in54.html
http://www.reptileuv.com/megaray-metal-halide-uvb.php
Yes I have uvb meters and these are the findings from lab reports such as this
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102675987015-295/NM_BD18_3_19_13.pdf
Thcv was not tested for in this particular case
Best was 10% increase in thc and 7% thcv in lab reports...sats respond better than indies but it is very noticeable in both
Causes a creeper effect as well as more of an uplifting and longer lasting high...in sats really fosters the psychedelic qualities
Have not witnessed an in crease in tichome size nor amount but cannabinoid percentage manipulation is seen with increased psycho-activity...also seems to reduce cbd percentages a tad
only affordable lamps I have found that produce enough uvb for this application
http://www.lightyourreptiles.com/ard3t546in54.html
http://www.reptileuv.com/megaray-metal-halide-uvb.php
Yes I have uvb meters and these are the findings from lab reports such as this
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102675987015-295/NM_BD18_3_19_13.pdf
Thcv was not tested for in this particular case
yesum
Well-Known Member
You are right science guy, it is best. Laughing cause the buzz is so good. In the end I care most about how the smoke makes me feel. The science is interesting but not really critical for most of us.
Terpenes and other chemicals which influence the high may not be measured with tests. Other unknown compounds (if they exist) that may change things in the high will not be measured.
Thc level is mostly genetic and predetermined in the amounts in a strain or single plant. We understand.
Huel Perkins
Well-Known Member
Where are the before uvb test results?
haulinbass
Well-Known Member
he says its laughable because bud to bud on the same plant can all have slightly different effects, too many variables to say thats what made you feel more high. shit I can smoke a joint of some bomb ass shit when im in a bad mood and not feel a thing, but normally it would mess me up. Then there is also the fact most people do this to try to prove what they think, not try and actually figure out the truth. If i believed something devoted two to four months testing it, you can better believe im going to be biased to the outcome. noone wants to be wrong and spending so much time with the possiblity of being wrong will sway anyones mind. Too many stupid arguments over opinion treated as fact.
BTW I dont know and wont pretend like i do
BTW I dont know and wont pretend like i do
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
It is a scientific fact that 80% of subjects report improvements when given placebos. It's a powerful effect.
Opm
Active Member
I am merely pointing out that your feelings, or anyone's for that matter, are highly subjective and to truly measure a change you need independent verification. I assume you are trying to help people with your method and I am just trying to point you in a direction that will add validity to your argument. This is a very young science and there is still a lot unknown about this plant. Most of the information out there is hand me down stuff with no real data to support it. Shouldn't we be trying to advance marijuana cultivation in this forum? Not advance the misinformation? In order to do that we need to have standardized methods that are already prevalent in every other research fields.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
I have the results but they are not published so no easy link...doesn't matter as I can see from the posts following mine that no one wants to really know anything so am not going to waste my time copying and posting them...only the highest results are published by the dispenseries I test grow strains for...they just want to argue semantics or some shit...so do your own discovery...All I know is I will always supplement uvb as from my findings it is more than worth it. Single addition to my environment that actually caused a very noticeable and documented beneficial increase in high potency and type.
Below is the same clones run by the dispensary before I was contracted to test run strains for them and before they also began supplementing uvb.
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102675987015-267/NM_BD16_12_28_12.pdf
This is why they are happy to pay my contractual agreement as well as the cost of the test rooms and equipment I use on their behalf but belong to me.
desertdog
Well-Known Member
Some growers use an hps and a mh in flower for the extra radiation, and color temp that does what the uv does. For years people have kept it a secret. This is how they grow Fire bud. Also dropping temps down to 68 degrees 69 max with lights on and off, or just a little higher off. Using the uv is cheaper on the power bill and helps create the same results, but not as much as adding the MH or MV mercury vapor. The MV is optimum. The plants pick up on the radiation and go into to overdrive to produce more trichs to protect themselves and seeds. The end result is better bud. They point both lamps at a 45 and surround plants with a good reflector like mylar sheets and blast those bitches into the inferno. Some of the fire bud is so strong it leaves me whack on one pull for three hours, just done. Sativa fire is too much for me it fries my bean. With a good strain two four foot two tube UV's will make some sweet fire, don't forget the purple max or snow storm they need the extra potassium for the increased trich production, and extra sugar. The radiation and the cold make it protect the seeds with extra girth and trichs. I am not certain that I have all the tricks figured out for fire yet, but I am getting closer every time someone posts a pic and a story to share that reveals more. They don't come out and say oh do this. At least I have not found a tutorial for growing fire bud. They do brag on you tube and let ya see some shit in the videos that gives the basics to it. I look for anything with a number thermometer, hydrometer, Co2 reading, what kind of AC, just pay attention. Some even use water chillers to cool everything all the time and keep it consistently 68 and you can see the two kind of lights, the mercury vapor is a lighter blue but bright. What really blew my mind is when I saw these cats doing it in green house in the summer in vegas. They were using industrial sized swampers to keep it cold and it produced fire bud. Those dudes didn't say a word just panned the cam. Some of it is genetics and some of it is tricks of the trade. When you see lights in a greenhouse you take notice and say what the fuck is that for in Vegas? Radiation that the plants fear will harm the beans. Some use gutted freezers to produce small amounts of fire. As soon as I get a better power source I am adding the uv's, I am tapped on power pull for my set up. I could do it but why max the circuits? For now I have the Cold on the cheap and soon I will ad the uv's and I will show pics of plants with and without. Done right it is better.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
In actuality blue wavelengths produce similar effects to uvb but not as pronounced. Sulphur not phosphorous is needed to support synthase production. The cold temps are beneficial in the last week or two.
i have used and still do as needed mv sources but have found the mh just as effectual and with light in the spectrums the plants use.
i have used and still do as needed mv sources but have found the mh just as effectual and with light in the spectrums the plants use.
Huel Perkins
Well-Known Member
Stop being a baby and post the results. I asked for them so obviously someone here is iterested if you've got some form of documented proof.
Its too difficult to type in a few cannabinoid levels but yet typing that post was easy enough for you...
Kite High
Well-Known Member
I gave you enough data. Compare that result to the other.