light and airy buds??

genfranco

Well-Known Member
Could be the perspective of your lighter in the b/g that makes it look smaller than I'm thinking it is. The bucket that the budstalk is sitting on in my pic is your typical 9L bucket, about 300mm dia. The stalk is about 450 or 500mm long. Ones that size usually yield about 1-1.25 oz for me.


Do a parallel test, running several with and several without molasses in the same crop. If you're lucky, there'll be no difference, simply because vascular plants (not just cannabis) can't use complex carbohydrates as a nutrient and simply will ignore the stuff. The downside is the potential to feed pathogens.

Do what I did- head for the web, search for peer-reviewed data from the horticultural or botanical college of a large university that substantiates any claim that sugars are useful as a plant food. Ignore all data from growers and sellers of sugar sauces. You will find what I did, which is a whole not of nothing in support of use of sugars as a nutrient.

If you don't get mould & fungi, whatever you're using for pathogen control is working.
So you have done this test?. Al B you know i have gotten some tips from you in the past... but there are credible growers that state that these sugars ...actually Mollases gives you about 20% increase on girth... now 20% isnt much... but it is... Mr HIgh times jorge cervantes has run these tests and he says your wrong al B.....

So whats up...:hug:
 

genfranco

Well-Known Member
I have allways grown with 400 HPS indoors and i think im still missing something... I think C02 is key ... i havent bought it yet... but i feel that would make a bigger diference than sugars... ya know?
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
So you have done this test?. Al B you know i have gotten some tips from you in the past... but there are credible growers that state that these sugars ...actually Mollases gives you about 20% increase on girth... now 20% isnt much... but it is... Mr HIgh times jorge cervantes has run these tests and he says your wrong al B.....

So whats up...:hug:
I'll suggest to you that Señor Cervantes is more writer than grower. He compiles information given to him by growers, which he entertains as noteworthy, but I seriously doubt he's tried everything he's written about.

Soon as you find me some peer-reviewed botanical science that says vascular plants can use sugar as a nutrient, I'll try it. Until then, I have just as much reason to fertilise with chicken feathers, which I also know plants can't eat. I don't have to jump off a cliff to prove I can't fly.
 

genfranco

Well-Known Member
Are there any peer - reviewed botanical science that says they dont? RIU is peer reviewed and there are tons of people that say they feel it makes it better... then there is the whole books and such.... isnt that enough? I mean on the flip side there are plenty of breeders that dicourage adding anything like that to your plant... that good soil mix and water is all it needs. So you might have something there... BUt if there are soo many people stating that they swell more and they seem sweeter?... Hell a bottle of molases is $2.50 ... I havent heard to much of people seeing there plants die because of the use of it... and not all of these growers used anything to prevent anything... Just good soil mix.

Im with it either way... I use ro water and thats it for the most part... i do give it a shot here and there of nutrients and stuff.. but alwways allow at least 3 waterings so it flushes excess ... Good luck people..
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Are there any peer - reviewed botanical science that says they dont?
Is there any peer-reviewed botanical science that says cannabis plants can't eat chicken feathers?

RIU is peer reviewed
No, it's not!

see Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and there are tons of people that say they feel it makes it better... then there is the whole books and such.... isnt that enough?
Nope! I feel lots of things (and sometimes they smack me when I do!). It's entirely possible for a large number of people to get it wrong all at once and keep being wrong!

BUt if there are soo many people stating that they swell more and they seem sweeter?...
Ok, presume for a moment that your plant COULD take up sugars through the root system. Have you ever inhaled burning sugar smoke? What's nice about it? Burning sugar does not taste sweet!
 

genfranco

Well-Known Member
OK Al B. I just dont see your hate against it.... if people say it works... then let them do it... on the other hand you know by now if it was a bad thing that they would be saying not to use it... I mean maybe you should put some chicken feathers in your next grow and prove your theory... These people actually do put the feathers (molasses) and they say it works... so why bash what you havent even tried... I thought you had tried it before and it caused a negative effect or something... so you never tried it? but are sooo against it? How about this AL b... how about you tell us a tried and true formula...

I got one: never fails and provides awsome crops.
 

beargrillz

Active Member
sugars introduced into the soil CAN be taken in my the plants IF they piggyback on other macromolecules. i asked this question to my plant science prof. in passing and will get a detailed answer after thursdays lecture. just thought id throw that tidbit into the mix. having too much sugar in the surrounding area of the roots could cause the cells to purge water from themselves or become so turgid that no new uptake of water can happen. while a 1 time does of milk or very dilute sugar solution may give an intial boost continued exspore seems less than beneficial
 

calicat

Well-Known Member
Thats definitely understandable. They may not have been finished. I have 3 more growing and I WILL NOT pull them early. Any tips on the final stages? What's this I hear about molasses? Is it just regular store bought molasses? How is it fed?
This is how I use molasses. I start it during the third week of flowering. I mix it in with my nutrient cocktail @ 2 tablespoons per gallon of water. I use south pacific molasses. The best I believe is blackstrap molasses. I have heard of people that use Grandma's syrup with good success. The potential of bud yield can range from 5-20% if all other conditions are being met as well.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
OK Al B. I just dont see your hate against it....
Let's get clear on this point; I don't 'hate' molasses. There's simply no evidence that plants can use sugars as a nutrient. There's as much evidence in support of fertilising with chicken feathers.

You don't go through your kitchen cupboard and chuck stuff in your grow until you find things that kill plants, do you? Tried oregano yet? Self-rising flour? Holstein hoof shavings? Why not? You don't know for sure they don't raise potency by 4 squillion percent!

OF course, that's ridiculous.

The way you run an op is to use things for which there IS good botanical science in support if their use.

Since plants can't use sugars as a nutrient, they do not belong in your grow, it's that easy.

sugars introduced into the soil CAN be taken in my the plants IF they piggyback on other macromolecules.
Bullshit. Show me your source.

i asked this question to my plant science prof.
If you did, s/he'd be pretty amused that you didn't know what s/he really is. What do you think a 'plant science prof' is called? :lol:

This is how I use molasses.
How do you use chicken feathers? I hear Welsomers have nice ones. :lol:
 

stunned

Green Thumb of God
In the last two weeks I use Cha Ching from fox farms it seems to harden the buds and increase density in the final stretch. I have no scientific proof but my yield weights have improved and my strains haven't changed.
 

jsgrwn

Well-Known Member
The more light that get to the buds the denser they are going to get. I would try to water with molasses to help densin the buds.But one of the main factors is light describe the area around your plants, this maybe the main factor. Im not sure but i believe soil also plays a factor in the density of the bud.
there is a tentative rule here, much advise given by strangers can damage your crop. yes light plays a major role in density, but there are several other factors to take into consideration. these are heat, nutrients, nutrient poisoning, co2(which is really only needed if you are growing in a closed environment), length of flowering time and ph. this is not to say that all info from strangers is foul but i have seen quite a bit. i would deff let your plants finish out, and as far as light being the cause, this is a problem from early in the plants life when it decides for itself how far apart to place the node regions.
late
 

jsgrwn

Well-Known Member
Al B, you out there? Tried to private message you but you obviously know that didn't work for me so I'm gonna see if you get it this way. What do you know about this? B.S or will it work?:

Top Tip for you all,
Do you want to double the crystal growth on your plant/s??
All you need is a spare timer, spare strip light/s, and ultra violet bulb/s!

Did you know the uv rays from the sun encourage crystal growth?
This is a natural defence system for the skunk plant to protect itself from uv rays, THC-rich resins act to protect the plant and its seed from both higher light intensities and ultraviolet presence.

The way to encourage this growth without harming your plant or weed is to allow ur plant/s short daily bursts of uv rays.


All your plant/s need is 30 mins of uv rays a day during the latter stage of flowering in 3x10 minute bursts spread throughout your daily light cycle.
The uv lights directly stimulate THC production.
More THC= :eyesmoke:

TRY IT OUT!!!
Then plus rep me on harvest day LOL
another good example. see HID lights give off uv rays already. this gentleman is trying to explain the facts about UVB light which is stronger in metal halide than HPS lights. so you can use on of each for best results of just a MH for slightly less weight and higher THC content.
late.......
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
In the last two weeks I use Cha Ching from fox farms it seems to harden the buds and increase density in the final stretch. I have no scientific proof but my yield weights have improved and my strains haven't changed.
If you really want to get science-y about it, do what scientists do. Run a control group and a test group, in parallel. This will eliminate any other environmental variables and allow you to make amore informed decision as to what the effects are of your changes.

there is a tentative rule here, much advise given by strangers can damage your crop. yes light plays a major role in density, but there are several other factors to take into consideration. these are heat, nutrients, nutrient poisoning, co2(which is really only needed if you are growing in a closed environment), length of flowering time and ph. this is not to say that all info from strangers is foul but i have seen quite a bit. i would deff let your plants finish out, and as far as light being the cause, this is a problem from early in the plants life when it decides for itself how far apart to place the node regions.
late
This is so well said that it should be posted at the top of every forum. +r, mon. Well done. :)

another good example. see HID lights give off uv rays already. this gentleman is trying to explain the facts about UVB light which is stronger in metal halide than HPS lights. so you can use on of each for best results of just a MH for slightly less weight and higher THC content.
late.......
You presume here that UV makes one whit of difference. No one has ever probed the reasons why cannabis plants make resin, but it's highly unlikely that it is a response to UV light. Most plants which make sticky substances do so to trap & kill or discourage insect attackers. Maybe you should add some bugs. ;)

Again, here's a good case for a parallel test. Set up a control and a test group and provide them all with the same conditions, except for lighting.
 

jsgrwn

Well-Known Member
crystallization is up for debate, personally i think it is to capture the pollen from males and absorb it to propagate. this is very similar to how wheat is altered and pollinated.
anyways, the key to what i wrote is "UVB" , the B part. not just UV but UVB light. just so you know, once i learned the following from ed rosenthal (marijuana grower extrodinaire) i did a controlled test with the same strain, plant count, and nutrient cycle. and the MH bud had about a 2
% higher THC content if my memory serves me right. and the difference in yield was very small. if it wasn't 2% i know it was slightly higher anyway. here is a direct cut and paste quote from ed r.
MH lamps emit more UVB light than HPS lamps, although still in very small amounts. The amount of UVB light plants receive is directly related to the quality of the buds. The more UVB, the higher the quality.

Buds grown under MH light will not be as big as buds grown using HPS lighting. However their quality will be as good or better.


anyways Al B, thanks for the rep
late, rep for u Al b
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
js, I certainly appreciate your quotation of Rosenthal; he's been traditionally a good source of good data. No doubt, Ed Rosenthal & Jorge Cervantes deserve an awful lot of respect & credit for carrying the torch for cultivators for so many years, but some of the things they've written over time really deserve a closer look.

I'd like to see a number of growers do parallel tests to establish a larger sample on the UV matter. While MH does indeed put out a bit more UV than HPS, when you look at spectral representations of sunlight at temperate latitudes vs HPS or MH, you find that the relative UV content expressed as a percentage of total luminous energy in all of them is all fairly similar.

University quality research on cannabis, with elements like large samples and double-blind comparisons, is often impossible to come by as many governments actively prohibit or interfere with it, as happens with NIDA in the USA. NIDA is responsible for providing cannabis for research and has a tradition of providing precisely none.

I approach most things, cannabis growing included, from a perspective of skepticism. Unless I can find some good data to support a practise, I'm more apt to leave it out as mess with it.
 

jsgrwn

Well-Known Member
Al, I am the same way brother. I try things on test crops. with the UVB thing i decided to grow 2 full crops because there was not really any risk to the crop just from using a diff light. and the results were MH-higher THC , slightly less weight and HPS- a bit less THC and more bud. but i rarely test out theories on my plants, especially with nutes (like molasses).
furthermore, i agree with you. older research does need a closer look because things change along with our world.
late
 
Top