New Light

ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
@OLD MOTHER SATIVA
You could be right. Like what @cobshopgrow said, it's just my assumption that 285nm is one of the most efficient at stimulating the UVR8 molecule due to its peak absorption at ~280nm. I've been reading that the action spectra peaks closer to 290nm though. I had a 295nm & 310nm picked out to run along side the 285nm, but due to the cost and the success @nachooo had during his run I've done away with incorporating the other 2 UVB WV's. Perhaps prematurely. I'm not a biologist and I don't understand the studies I read completely lol, so I'm just theorizing as best I can.

I should probably make a few different WV UVB plugs to try out.
 
Last edited:
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
lukio said:
sup dude. how much do the THC numbers increase? i read your link on greens in white yesterday, it was interesting - cheers.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_2019-06-03-21-38-51~2.png
Idk how much exactly, I think it will depend from strain to strain. I personally notice a difference but I've never actually done before & after chemical analyses.

Plants were blasted with UVB at a peak of ~300nm (but with a wider spectrum than a 300nm LED), they measured the UVB in Joules per m2 per day. The Y-axis is mg of THC per gram of plant material. The X-axis is the amount of UVB per m2 per day measured in kJ.

According to this data, the difference between the highest daily UVB dose and the lowest daily UVB dose presented a 28% increase in THC levels in the highest dosed buds over the lowest dosed buds.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
lukio

lukio

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
View attachment 4428312
Idk how much exactly, I think it will depend from strain to strain. I personally notice a difference but I've never actually done before & after chemical analyses.

Plants were blasted with UVB at a peak of ~300nm (but with a wider spectrum than a 300nm LED), they measured the UVB in Joules per m2 per day. The Y-axis is mg of THC per gram of plant material. The X-axis is the amount of UVB per m2 per day measured in kJ.

According to this data, the difference between the highest daily UVB dose and the lowest daily UVB dose presented a 28% increase in THC levels in the highest dosed buds over the lowest dosed buds.
Click to expand...
thanks man!

28% is a lot more than i was guessing it would be, thats pretty significant if you're knocking out extracts.

looking forward to seeing your light.
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Lol, 28 percent and no control? Like I've said about the great member kite high (rip) spent a decade on uv & cannabis research with clones ,averaged 3-5%=over control repeatedly. Using top gear of the day and uv meter.

Every goddamn commercial indoor op would be using uv sup if those 25%+ numbers where reality.

Was worth it to him because he got top shelf listing for his crop. Slightly edging out other local growers strains.
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
PSUAGRO. said:
Lol, 28 percent and no control?
Click to expand...
Text:
Screenshot_2019-11-30-01-44-19~2.png

Table 1:
Screenshot_2019-11-30-01-45-33~2.png

You'd have to take up any issues with Dr. Lydon or the University of Maryland. According to the documentation they had control plants for both drug & fiber types.

There seems to be some discrepancy in what I calculate from their graph compared to what their documentation states. According to the graph, there's a 28% increase in THC from 0kJ/m2·day UVB to 13.4kJ/m2·day UVB in drug type plants (25.1% to 32%). But according to the text at the max dose of UVB there's ~32% greater THC content compared to the control. If we multiply the documented 25.1% THC (table 1) for drug type control plants by 32%, we get 33.13% THC. 33.13% and 32% are pretty close and both fall within the vertical lines stated to represent the +/-1 "standard error," or +/-1SE.
USER_SCOPED_TEMP_DATA_orca-image-1444263756.jpeg_1575101629561.jpeg

I'm not comprehending what the R^2 values are or how the regression equations differ from actual results and how they are obtained. It would not be logical of me to distrust the jyst of the data based on the fact that I can't follow the last ~3% of the procedure. I'm assuming the difference between the graphical calcs and the documented text lies somewhere within the last part that I don't understand. IE, I think there's a legitament reason more than I think that there's a possibility of flawed data. These are professionals with much more knowledge than I and I'm missing a motive for disseminating false data so I'm chalking up the "discrepancy" to my amateur status lol.

PSUAGRO. said:
Like I've said about the great member kite high (rip) spent a decade on uv & cannabis research with clones ,averaged 3-5%=over control repeatedly. Using top gear of the day and uv meter.
Click to expand...
Maybe new data and research has come out since then that I'm not aware of. I never knew "Kite High" or his procedures or the quality of his results, so I can't really say.

When I stated 28%, I meant that between 32% & 25%, there's ~28% increase. 32% ÷ 25% = 1.28; 128% (I used 25% instead of 25.1% in my initial calc because I didn't reference table 1, I only guesstimated the graph). Though, if you were to add 3% points or 5% points to 25.1% you'd create a range of 28.1% - 30.1%. Could this be what he meant by 3% - 5% increase?

I don't know what spectrum UVB sources Kite High was using, the intensity, the duration, or what species he conducted on, but if his control plant were a sativa of similar genetic makeup and testing ~25.1% without UVB, then 28.1% - 30.1% would put him around 8kJ/m2·day of 300nm. Do you by chance remember the daily dose he was using?
USER_SCOPED_TEMP_DATA_orca-image-1979925978.jpeg_1575107584640.jpeg

It's my opinion commercial black market grows were concerned about yield and overhead costs more than quality. The mom & pop gardens just didn't have much market share to compete with. Now that it's picking up legality I think mom and pop gardens are expanding and creating a demand of high THC bud due to the current flooded market. If you've never tried UVB I'd suggest giving it a go and determing for yourself, it's what I did and I'm sold, but as far as documented numbers I only have what others have tested.
 
Last edited:
Rocket Soul

Rocket Soul

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Text:
View attachment 4429158

Table 1:
View attachment 4429157

You'd have to take up any issues with Dr. Lydon or the University of Maryland. According to the documentation they had control plants for both drug & fiber types.

There seems to be some discrepancy in what I calculate from their graph compared to what their documentation states. According to the graph, there's a 28% increase in THC from 0kJ/m2·day UVB to 13.4kJ/m2·day UVB in drug type plants (25.1% to 32%). But according to the text at the max dose of UVB there's ~32% greater THC content compared to the control. If we multiply the documented 25.1% THC (table 1) for drug type control plants by 32%, we get 33.13% THC. 33.13% and 32% are pretty close and both fall within the vertical lines stated to represent the +/-1 "standard error," or +/-1SE.
View attachment 4429185

I'm not comprehending what the R^2 values are or how the regression equations differ from actual results and how they are obtained. It would not be logical of me to distrust the jyst of the data based on the fact that I can't follow the last ~3% of the procedure. I'm assuming the difference between the graphical calcs and the documented text lies somewhere within the last part that I don't understand. IE, I think there's a legitament reason more than I think that there's a possibility of flawed data. These are professionals with much more knowledge than I and I'm missing a motive for disseminating false data so I'm chalking up the "discrepancy" to my amateur status lol.


Maybe new data and research has come out since then that I'm not aware of. I never knew "Kite High" or his procedures or the quality of his results, so I can't really say.

When I stated 28%, I meant that between 32% & 25%, there's ~28% increase. 32% ÷ 25% = 1.28; 128% (I used 25% instead of 25.1% in my initial calc because I didn't reference table 1, I only guesstimated the graph). Though, if you were to add 3% points or 5% points to 25.1% you'd create a range of 28.1% - 30.1%. Could this be what he meant by 3% - 5% increase?

I don't know what spectrum UVB sources Kite High was using, the intensity, the duration, or what species he conducted on, but if his control plant were a sativa of similar genetic makeup and testing ~25.1% without UVB, then 28.1% - 30.1% would put him around 8kJ/m2·day of 300nm. Do you by chance remember the daily dose he was using?
View attachment 4429192

It's my opinion commercial black market grows were concerned about yield and overhead costs more than quality. The mom & pop gardens just didn't have much market share to compete with. Now that it's picking up legality I think mom and pop gardens are expanding and creating a demand of high THC bud due to the current flooded market. If you've never tried UVB I'd suggest giving it a go and determing for yourself, it's what I did and I'm sold, but as far as documented numbers I only have what others have tested.
Click to expand...
Getting flashbacks to uni years, t-tests and statistics, p hacking et all...

Contrasting the study with Nachoos grow: he used drasticly less uvb than this study, i thinkit works out as sixhundredfifty-ish Joule over what i understand as one meter. Even if its just half a meter its still only a tenth of what they used in the study and he was happy with the results even though they werent quantified better than breaking out in cold sweats by smoking it. but he also had a full spead of uva, about ten percent of total wattage at end of flower. But i think he got the uvb well distributed over cannopy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top