Don't switch straight to 12/12 according to new study

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

growingforfun

Well-Known Member
gudkarma said:
even at an abrupt 12/12 switch there isnt any flower(ing) hormone present.

that takes 7 to 14 days easy. & the plants are still in veg mode.

? plants aint people ?

fuck they're simple organisms. you supercrop them, you clone them. you toss them into flower.

however, i strongly agree that plants have "memory" & environment plays a HUGE roll.

inducing fall like weather into the schedule imo triggers the flip faster. not just the light cycle.

think bigger more connected variables.
since reducing the idea to a common denominator seems not so biological.

this concept of plant intelligence cant be proven in a human sense with human terms.

its cellular imo.
plants are storing data in their cells about temp, humidity, light, hormones, etc.

its when these triggers accumulate, the plant flips.


smoke em if u got em
Click to expand...
Your wrong, science has proven that plants do math to calculate how fast to grow based on many things. There's something on the topic on the bbc this week but its been known for a while that plants adjust to what's around them to grow best. Plants arnt people but they do most of the same things people do.
 
gudkarma

gudkarma

New Member
ah science hasnt proven anything.
the article states this clearly.

in fact the research is all based on supposition ...invloving variables like starch, molecules T & S , day , night, & more.

plus they dont even mention temp, hormone activity, or anything related to flowering plants.

go back to the original article : http://phys.org/news/2013-06-sums-night.html

it's a hypothetical argument ...about precise adjustments plants do to prevent starvation at night.

they think a plant regulates starch consumption via a mathematical equation. LOL. 0's & 1's.
no way. not with regard to flower. there's many thing that take place when a plant flowers.

maybe a plant has a tummy & brain too ?
funny

something very basic on plant hormones : http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/145.html
 
gudkarma

gudkarma

New Member
and after you read this : http://www.howplantswork.com/2011/06/30/the-mystery-of-the-flowering-hormone-solved/

wrong becomes right.

"The latest scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that florigen is actually a protein called FT coded for by the gene Flowering Locus T in Arabidopsis. (Please see refs. 2 & 3 below for current reviews of the subject.) Briefly, FT is produced in the leaves and is transported via the phloem to the shoot apical meristems (SAM). Here FT acts like a molecular “alarm-clock”, evoking a complex genetic scenario, which culminates in flower formation. (Please see my YouTube video for an overview of the genetics of flowering.)"

no offense.
too quick to judge.

plants have systems.
these systems work in concert to regulate growth.
that's the only similarity to humans.
and that's a weak one.

too say plants are intelligent on a human scale (having even one IQ point)...
fucking hilarious.

plants cant do math, per say.
its the only way those researchers can understand (translate) the process.

[video=youtube;g5iLN5T35BU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5iLN5T35BU&feature=youtu.be[/video]
 
gudkarma

gudkarma

New Member
[video=youtube;Gil3VOQq6k4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=Gil3VOQq6k4[/video]

this vid is awesome.

and this (lecture) scientist NEVER mentions starch or math or intelligence with regard to flowering.

it's proteins , genetics , hormones , cellular biology.
 
G

growingforfun

Well-Known Member
gudkarma said:
[video=youtube;Gil3VOQq6k4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=Gil3VOQq6k4[/video]

this vid is awesome.

and this (lecture) scientist NEVER mentions starch or math or intelligence with regard to flowering.

it's proteins , genetics , hormones , cellular biology.
Click to expand...
I don't want to nitpick too much because I bet we agree more than we disagree but this vig has no relevance to the topic, it's about what would be shown in a intro level wildflowers class such as the one offered at the local community college detailing plant structure. I'm not sure if the other links you posted are more on topic or not since I haven't watched them and I'm not sure if I care to since I can see it working both in nature and in my garden I have the results I need. Fortunately for me I have been able to do results first hand and get solid facts and saw this topic so I though I'd pass the info along.
 
G

growingforfun

Well-Known Member
gudkarma said:
and after you read this : http://www.howplantswork.com/2011/06/30/the-mystery-of-the-flowering-hormone-solved/

wrong becomes right.

"The latest scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that florigen is actually a protein called FT coded for by the gene Flowering Locus T in Arabidopsis. (Please see refs. 2 & 3 below for current reviews of the subject.) Briefly, FT is produced in the leaves and is transported via the phloem to the shoot apical meristems (SAM). Here FT acts like a molecular “alarm-clock”, evoking a complex genetic scenario, which culminates in flower formation. (Please see my YouTube video for an overview of the genetics of flowering.)"

no offense.
too quick to judge.

plants have systems.
these systems work in concert to regulate growth.
that's the only similarity to humans.
and that's a weak one.

too say plants are intelligent on a human scale (having even one IQ point)...
fucking hilarious.

plants cant do math, per say.
its the only way those researchers can understand (translate) the process.

[video=youtube;g5iLN5T35BU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5iLN5T35BU&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Click to expand...

I went back and watch this and it's about basic plant structure during the flowering cycle. I would consider this very basic information and not on topic for the discussion. The part where it talks about plant hormones is true, it's actually the basis of our topic. The topic being that this manipulation of light, in a way more consistent with nature, more effectively produces plant hormones.
 
Mad Hamish

Mad Hamish

Well-Known Member
I've been pondering the 12-12 cycle for a while myself. At first when I read about indoor growing it made very little sense to me. Out here in South Africa, herb starts to flower around December/January and the slower ones around Feb, to finish (if quick) end March, and slow sativas end around Mid-april to early May. In December, we have sunlight by 05:30 (pretty bright then really) in the morning until 20:30 at night. January it's not much different. So plants start flowering during really long days and a lot of the time finish before it's diminished all the way down to 12-12. In March we have sunrise around 06:00 and still sunset around 19:30 and I've had fully mature full-term Cheese nugs the size of my calves by then.<br><br>&nbsp;I personally predict the plants will hit flower WAAAAAY before you hit 12-12 if you slowly taper off on the daylight hours.&nbsp;<br><br>&nbsp;And I am yet to see an indoor grow, mine or anybody's, give colas half as tall as I am. You grow an oldschool Haze outdoors here and almost every branch has a main nug as long as my arm.&nbsp;<br><br>&nbsp;There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if conditions such as exist outdoors in grow season in South Africa were re-created indoors, you'd see the same monster-plants. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE TO BE UNREASONABLE AS A USEFUL WAY TO GROW because:<br><br>1- NOTHING penetrates like African sun. I don't even want to contemplate how much power you will need to get light all the way down a 3-metre bush. With the movement of the sun overhead, every branch gets it's fair share of potent sunlight. The costs in replicating this would be SEVERE, both in ballasts, bulbs, movers and so on as well as electricity.<br><br>2- They get HUGE. You would need the most luxurious of grow-rooms and a team of helpers when it comes to staking etc.&nbsp;<br><br>3- 8-week strains take 12 to flower at least, and so on. They really do take a lot longer to finish than indoors when grown outside in the long days. I've found some 'cheats' that work on smaller plants like inducing flowering early indoors or using a tent or whatever, but then you lose out on the massive yield. So it becomes redundant. You want it fast, flower immature plants or make yourself a lot of work later by keeping the daylight hours at a minimum, but you lose bigtime.<br><br>Plus I see no signs of harm to plants that just get flipped straight into 12-12. They really bloom a LOT faster. Don't know about starches and all of that.<br><br>And I have to add that, regardless of extreme bud mass and huge size, unless you have a NICE BIG outdoor area to grow, a 2 square meter SOG done right is still waaaaaay more productive, if you take into account that the big outdoor bud only comes once a year and you compare the production per method per YEAR. Once you average it over time, plain good ol SOG is still king, if overall yield is your concern...
 
buddygrow420

buddygrow420

Member
I am definitely going to do this...knock off 1 hour a day until 12/12...seems more natural to me and what could it hurt!
Thanks for posting this.:weed:
 
legallyflying

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
Vincent VonBlown said:
Right, the plant can sense the dark cycle, so it adjusts after the first night. So there might be a very miniscule gain... But not worth the effort in my opinion...
Click to expand...
Actually they can't just "adjust" over night. Plants have a circadian rhythm just like animals do.

I got off the 12/12 bandwagon long ago. I go from 18 on to 16 on and then a few days later 14/1. Never had a plant not start to flower at 14 plus you get two more hours of light. Then I go down to 12/11 in about week 6. Then 10/14 in the last two weeks

I have experienced better results that way. Bigger yields and faster ripening at the end.

Great article. And great find
 
T

T.H.Cammo

Well-Known Member
Most everybody seems to be relating thier own personal experiences, or opinions. Let's look at this from a logical and historical perspective!

Everybody used to "Taper Off" the light cycle when switching from Veg to Flower, twenty or thirty years ago (and by "Everybody" I mean that was the accepted, common, practice). And then, a few people started switching to 12-12 "straight away" (without tapering off) - and they said "Hey, this seems to work without too much hassle".

Before long, lots of growers just switched to 12-12 without "tapering off", the "Collective Wisdom" decided that "Tapering Off" wasn't worth the hassle. When "Pot Growing Websites" (like overgrow or rollitup) came to the Internet, it was common practice to just "Switch" the light cycle - that had become the accepted, common, practice.

I have to wonder, if there really is some benefit to "Tapering Off", why did "we" ever switch in the first place? Was everybody wrong to stop "Tapering Off"? I DON"T THINK SO! It seems that everytime someone uncovers a "Maverick Theory", a few people pay attention - maybe some will even try it themselves. If several people have success with the "new theory", the idea just "Snowballs". Pretty soon everybody is talking about this "new theory", but you can't fool everybody - EITHER IT WORKS OR IT DOESN'T!

All the "Tried and True" methods rise to the top (like cream). All the Bogus methods, eventually, end up on the "Myth Pile". I predict that "Tapering Off" the Photoperiod will, eventually (and once again), be deemed a waste of effort. Let the games begin.
 
legallyflying

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
I don't know how much collective wisdom has trickled down from the ages...I can remember people claiming that pounding nails in the stem would make it secret more resin. I do know that plant research has grown leaps
and bounds in the last 30 years..like shit loads. I can remember watching a movie as a kid about photosynthesis and this animated plant moved behind this screen and the narrator said "we don't exactly know how photosynthesis works"

I read a very interesting paper about circadian rhythms and plant respiration and transpiration cycles when trying to solve the whole 24 hours of light or 18 debate.

It takes several days for a plant to adjust to changes in day length. And in the natural world, change usually happen pretty damn slow. If 12/12 isn't a shock, then why is it that if you accidentally give plants light during the dark cycle that the chance of herming goes waaaay up?

I don't know, I told you what I have done and my results. Take it or leave it. I'm over "the game" of trying to educate people, the information is out there.

As far changing the light cycle a couple times being a "hassle". That's about the stupidest thing I have heard in awhile. Believe me, I have some big gardens and walking over to my main timer and pushing a thumb or two full of tabs down has to be THE easiest thing of all the garden chores. Hell, I honesty can't thing of anything that is easier really? Maybe adjusting the temperature on my AC? That is slightly easier.
 
Mad Hamish

Mad Hamish

Well-Known Member
In the end I reckon it depends on your goals. Personally, I want to continuously harvest and use clones of a pheno I enjoy, so tome me tapering off the light-cycle simply does not suit my goals, and I doubt my actual physical area I have to use for indoor growing will make for a lot of headaches with bigger plants. Like I said, I've seen how huge they can get with more light!!
But, if my goal was to do ONE grow a year or maybe two, and get the MAXIMUM possible out of each run, it would be incredible wise to shoot for more size and supplement light etc. In that case I would gladly experiment with tapering light-cycles. Yeah it IS easy to do, walk to timer, press down studs or lifte 'em up, done.
I feel much of the time people forget that we all have a different goal and that our thinking is indeed biased because of that. Cool thread, nice seeing different sides of a topic always, yay-sayers and nay-sayers alike. As long as one keeps perspective and don't go confusing your personal goals with another's, it's all just good info and strong opinions...
 
Mad Hamish

Mad Hamish

Well-Known Member
Mad Hamish said:
In the end I reckon it depends on your goals. Personally, I want to continuously harvest and use clones of a pheno I enjoy, so tome me tapering off the light-cycle simply does not suit my goals, and I doubt my actual physical area I have to use for indoor growing will make for a lot of headaches with bigger plants. Like I said, I've seen how huge they can get with more light!!
But, if my goal was to do ONE grow a year or maybe two, and get the MAXIMUM possible out of each run, it would be incredible wise to shoot for more size and supplement light etc. In that case I would gladly experiment with tapering light-cycles. Yeah it IS easy to do, walk to timer, press down studs or lifte 'em up, done.
I feel much of the time people forget that we all have a different goal and that our thinking is indeed biased because of that. Cool thread, nice seeing different sides of a topic always, yay-sayers and nay-sayers alike. As long as one keeps perspective and don't go confusing your personal goals with another's, it's all just good info and strong opinions...
Click to expand...
I apologise for all the spelling errors... Stoned as a date and English is not my first language.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
aeafafwe said:
I just read an interesting article about a study that found that plants "remember" how long "night time" is and change how quickly they're using starches so they don't run out before "day time". If the length of their "night time" changes quickly they will run out of starch too early. I'm not sure how bad that is for the plant, obviously it's not a huge problem since everyone does it, but it seems like it'd be a lot healthier for the plant if you increased the dark cycle by 15-30 minutes a day.http://phys.org/news/2013-06-sums-night.html
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing phytochrome accumulations which drive the flowering response with the production and depletion of starches, simple and complex sugars manufactured during the day via photosynthesis. I've tried it both ways - changing the photoperiod by about 30 minutes per day until the plant flowers and flipping to 12/12. Saw no difference.

Regarding depletion of starches, as I said in my tweeks thread regarding starch utilization as applied to day/night temp differentials, drop the temps from day to night at least 10F, preferable 20F. This way the plant will not use up too much of its resources, starches, to the process of respiration during the night when it's not making food for the plant. It will go more towards cell division/elongation. This very important factor wasn't even mentioned in the study. All inputs must be considered - water, temps, RH, etc.

UB
 
Situation420

Situation420

Well-Known Member
legallyflying said:
Actually they can't just "adjust" over night. Plants have a circadian rhythm just like animals do. I got off the 12/12 bandwagon long ago. I go from 18 on to 16 on and then a few days later 14/1. Never had a plant not start to flower at 14 plus you get two more hours of light. Then I go down to 12/11 in about week 6. Then 10/14 in the last two weeks I have experienced better results that way. Bigger yields and faster ripening at the end. Great article. And great find
Click to expand...
How do you run a 14/1 and 12/11 light schedule? what timers r u using? im confused
 
Situation420

Situation420

Well-Known Member
althor said:
Yeah, so where is your control to compare the differences to? If you don't have a control for comparison then what you are saying really doesn't make any difference.
Click to expand...
My control was using the same mothering plant for 3 generations then doing the gradual light reduction just as a means to save electricity but noticed that compared to the first 3 times the 4th trial looked like i was in week 2 of flowering by the end of week one. The flowering spots were all over rather than just at the nodes themselves and had mature pistils rather than developing ones in the same amount of time. I'm just going by observation and that was the only change i made to my system which resulted in a larger yield with denser buds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top