Do you add to flower time after correcting a nute issue?
- Thread starter moodyhank
- Start date
Gquebed
Well-Known Member
LolThere are different types of mutations, this is important.
Human life is the length of time our dna can replicate before breakdown and mutations. Somthing about telemeres there you should read.
Environment stresses or forces faster replication why its applicable a lot.
Phages have been re-writting bacteria since the dawn of evolution, not hard and very common. Us humans have a xyXY dominant recessive (no idea were trans and self defind genders think they differ here) but plants can be far more complex which is why no one has ever cracked the hermie problem or genetics i guess.
Oh and im getting to that age where im hoping i dont have shit genetics or some recessive alzhimers (stupid word for dyslexics again) disease hidden away somewhere
Im at that age too.
Crossing my fingers.... lol
Dr. Who
Well-Known Member
Here is an opening to point out that a plant will or can "shift" how it runs, even it's physical traits. This comes from environmental conditions.
This is called "Environmental shift"
"Genetic shift" Only occurs when 2 different strains of DNA are combined by sexual reproduction.
Flowki
Well-Known Member
Optimal conditions would implicate the sun and X climate but where exactly on earth?, since many areas of sun and climates are evidently not optimal, as we subjectively observe. Even what could be considered the most optimal place in nature for mj objectively in reliability of reproduction, might not be optimal to us humans once we apply subjective goals.
That leads me to some questions.
People have reported that cmh reduces flower time, I won't say it's fact but lets assume for now it is. Is it reducing flower time because of the spectrum? and will it only reduce flower time by the value that it closer resembles the sun/natures most optimal place?. Or, is the sun in nature not optimal to us subjectively?, could we reduce spectrum, change light light cycles, increase raw energy/co2 etc etc and make a plant finish sooner and heavier than could ever be achieved in nature, objectively.
If you remove what you don't need and focus on what mechanisms drive what you do, then you will surpass nature in that subjective goal, at the reduction of the other attributes. Or maybe nature already accounted for this and plants only have a set limit of attribute counters that can be divided in varying quantity to any category. Lets say a plant has 100 points, put them where you want, but only 100. I guess the varying climates and mj responses to them could back that a little. For example, if your goal was to grow a mj plant in a cold country you could, the plant would not be huge but that isn't the goal, the goal is to grow it in a cold country, so subjectively all your points are in that trait, and you won. Ehh, it became a ramble sorry.
That leads me to some questions.
People have reported that cmh reduces flower time, I won't say it's fact but lets assume for now it is. Is it reducing flower time because of the spectrum? and will it only reduce flower time by the value that it closer resembles the sun/natures most optimal place?. Or, is the sun in nature not optimal to us subjectively?, could we reduce spectrum, change light light cycles, increase raw energy/co2 etc etc and make a plant finish sooner and heavier than could ever be achieved in nature, objectively.
If you remove what you don't need and focus on what mechanisms drive what you do, then you will surpass nature in that subjective goal, at the reduction of the other attributes. Or maybe nature already accounted for this and plants only have a set limit of attribute counters that can be divided in varying quantity to any category. Lets say a plant has 100 points, put them where you want, but only 100. I guess the varying climates and mj responses to them could back that a little. For example, if your goal was to grow a mj plant in a cold country you could, the plant would not be huge but that isn't the goal, the goal is to grow it in a cold country, so subjectively all your points are in that trait, and you won. Ehh, it became a ramble sorry.
Exactly, "Environmental shift" is a great example of nature's influence on the epigenome.
Dr. Who
Well-Known Member
Yes I agree you are such a pleasure. You translate my human science to your plant science, LOVE IT!
