New Grower Does Light Shining On Buds Increase Their Potency? Fact or Fiction?

[BII]

It seems that everyone assumes that light shining on buds increases their potency. For example, leaf tucking and pruning is done to increase bud exposure to direct light. Is there any actual scientific evidence to support this? Or is there any consensus among experienced growers having tested this?

Practical implications: If someone does not bother to tuck and/or pluck leaves to better expose buds to light, if leaves are left in place covering buds, will the cumulative THC content in those covered buds actually be less than if the leaves were tucked/plucked and the buds got direct light exposure?

How, what physiological or metabolic processes would result in more localized/tissue-specific (e.g., buds) THC production if the tissue (buds) has more light shining on it? I can't think of anything. If strong light shining on plant parts actually results in increased tissue-localized cannabinoid production, with cannabinoids presumably providing survival advantage to the plants, why have the plants evolved to naturally cover-up most buds with leaves?

 

[Tetra9]

I can't find any peer reviewed studies. From my understanding, it's about using the light more efficiently. Tucking helps because light diminishes exponentially. When large fan leaves are tucked and light can penetrate the canopy and access more and more of its little solar panels, photosynthesis is maximized. After reading about it, and in conclusion, I think people confuse correlation with causation. Aside from quality genetics, the two main things that make for good strong THC - plants remain unpollinated, and are harvested BEFORE THC degradation (milky trichs). Lighting, or lack there of, has no direct correlation with THC potency. Not that I know of anyways.
Awesome question!

 

[gardenhackle]

There is evidence that uv-b light during the last few weeks of flowering can boost THC levels significantly where there is direct exposure to the buds.

 

[Tetra9]

There is evidence that uv-b light during the last few weeks of flowering can boost THC levels significantly where there is direct exposure to the buds.

You know the source by chance? I'd love to read it. (not disbelief - just want to read it)

 

[gardenhackle]

You know the source by chance? I'd love to read it. (not disbelief - just want to read it)

This is one source https://www.thcfarmer.com/community...ncreases-medical-marijuana-potency-3-5.70648/. But there are many sources. When I first glanced over it, I was unimpressed with 3-5 percent increases in THC being reported in side-by-side testing. You wouldn't notice the difference without measuring equipment and even though some extra potency is better than none, 5% increase in average 15% stuff would be an increase from 15 percent to 15.75 percent.

BUT they didn't state it correctly!!!! The 5% increase they are talking about up from 15% to 20% THC content!!!! That's a whopping 33% increase!!!!!

 

[pop22]

It seems that everyone assumes that light shining on buds increases their potency. For example, leaf tucking and pruning is done to increase bud exposure to direct light. Is there any actual scientific evidence to support this? Or is there any consensus among experienced growers having tested this?

Practical implications: If someone does not bother to tuck and/or pluck leaves to better expose buds to light, if leaves are left in place covering buds, will the cumulative THC content in those covered buds actually be less than if the leaves were tucked/plucked and the buds got direct light exposure?

How, what physiological or metabolic processes would result in more localized/tissue-specific (e.g., buds) THC production if the tissue (buds) has more light shining on it? I can't think of anything. If strong light shining on plant parts actually results in increased tissue-localized cannabinoid production, with cannabinoids presumably providing survival advantage to the plants, why have the plants evolved to naturally cover-up most buds with leaves?

Exposing buds to more light is not about increasing cannabinoid content! Its about giving them light to grow bigger, and yes it does work. I've added LED spotlights shining up into the canopy from below in a plant and had tiny popcorn buds get much bigger. I've never seen anyone claim it made the buds more potent

 

[pop22]

This is one source https://www.thcfarmer.com/community...ncreases-medical-marijuana-potency-3-5.70648/. But there are many sources. When I first glanced over it, I was unimpressed with 3-5 percent increases in THC being reported in side-by-side testing. You wouldn't notice the difference without measuring equipment and even though some extra potency is better than none, 5% increase in average 15% stuff would be an increase from 15 percent to 15.75 percent.

BUT they didn't state it correctly!!!! The 5% increase they are talking about up from 15% to 20% THC content!!!! That's a whopping 33% increase!!!!!

There is not one conclusive study proving UV does anything positive. For every "expert" that says it does, another will tell you it doesn't The link to thcfarmer give no testing info at all, no links to any kind of testing and is nothing more than one more " study" that's merely anecdotal. IMO, your wasting money and exposing yourself to harmful rays by using UV lighting. Your better off spending your money one better genetics, or better lighting, and improving your growing techniques if you want stronger cannabis

 

[gardenhackle]

There is not one conclusive study proving UV does anything positive. For every "expert" that says it does, another will tell you it doesn't The link to thcfarmer give no testing info at all, no links to any kind of testing and is nothing more than one more " study" that's merely anecdotal. IMO, your wasting money and exposing yourself to harmful rays by using UV lighting. Your better off spending your money one better genetics, or better lighting, and improving your growing techniques if you want stronger cannabis

Who said there were any conclusive studies? It's one theory and there are advocates and detractors of that theory just like there are for 48 hours of darkness before the harvest, flushing out nutes, harvesting in the mornings, etpc. People have to do their own research and decide these things for themselves because there aren't "conclusive studies" for any of it.

 

[pop22]

when you do your "own study", how do you come to the conclusion it works? How are you determining the results? Are you doing double blind tests? Are you sending multiple samples to a lab? Are you using clones for all tests and for the controls? How many samples are being tested? If you tell me you used UV lights and it made your bud more potent, prove it because " I told you so" isn't going to cut it..more often than not, its wishful thinking and/or placebo effect IMO.

And still my point is that the gains are not significant enough to be worth the expense and especially not worth the risk of exposing your eyes and skin to the dangers of UV. No matter how cautious, people get careless. Think not? Then tell me why the government is working on laws to regulate butane...............

 

[gardenhackle]

when you do your "own study", how do you come to the conclusion it works? How are you determining the results? Are you doing double blind tests? Are you sending multiple samples to a lab? Are you using clones for all tests and for the controls? How many samples are being tested? If you tell me you used UV lights and it made your bud more potent, prove it because " I told you so" isn't going to cut it..more often than not, its wishful thinking and/or placebo effect IMO.

And still my point is that the gains are not significant enough to be worth the expense and especially not worth the risk of exposing your eyes and skin to the dangers of UV. No matter how cautious, people get careless. Think not? Then tell me why the government is working on laws to regulate butane...............

Damn, are you always so fractious and argumentative or does something about this topic make you feel all specially butt-hurt? Anyway it goes, you should work on your piss-poor reading comprehension. I did my own "research" (not my own "study". ---- That reading comprehension thing?!.) into what others have to say since I picked up a solar storm 440 at a steep discount as a refurbished unit and it has a UV-b booster. I don't know if it works or not. I just know that it is a hot "theory" about how to increase potency and since that was the topic of this discussion, your animosity is a little unwarranted.

The theory does seem quite plausible, though. I'm going to use the UV-b booster as suggested by the MFG. if I'm out a couple bucks a month for the little extra wattage, oh well. Meanwhile I never go into my grow space without turning it off.