UVb an experiment

I tend to grow small plants, SOG size, so I usually don't veg very long. For this experiment I tried to veg as long as possible to maximize any effect that might happen during veg growth. The lighting seemed to work out well for all chambers and got to veg for 6 weeks while maintaining plants of just 10-12".

First general obsevation at the end of vegative stage;
All plants stayed short, compact, node spacing was tight and looked good. But the chamber with UVb looked healthier, the leaves where fatter (we've seen this before) and the amount of leaf growth was a tad more then the other 2 chambers.

At the end of flowering; the chamber that saw UVb from the beginning had the heaviest green wieght, followed by the chamber that had UVb for flowering. The leaves of the UVb/flowering chamber got thicker (like the first experiment I ran) as they progressed. The 2 chambers that used UVb, again just plain "looked" healthier then the no UVb control chamber.

Now the most interesting part, did it (UVb) put more trichomes on the plant? Well yes and no; for the chamber using UVb from the beginning, 3 of the 5 strains showed a remarkable difference in trichome production.
The biggest difference was in the Pure Power Plant, everyone (myself, the fellow doing the work, and my partner from another grow) agreed there was a big difference in the amount of trichomes on these plants. The Shiva Skunk and the Cheese also showed more trics, not as dramatic as PPP but we were all in agreement there was a significant difference from this chamber compared to the other 2 chambers. The White Rhino was more diffucult to call. Since it was sooo frosty even in the controlled chamber, we came up with a split decsion. I felt there was really no improvement, my partner thought there was a slight improvement and the grunt said "I can't tell". We all agreed abt the "apricot", there was no improvement in trichome production.

Chamber #1; UVb for veg/flower: more trichomes on 3 of 5 strains run. The heavyest finished weight. Trichomes went cloudy then amber at finish.

Chamber #2; UVb for flower only: no significant trichome production improvement. Less finished weight then chamber #1, but more then chamber #3. Trichomes went cloudy then amber at finish.

Chamber #3; No UVb: trichomes, well we got what we got. The finished weight was the least of the 3 chambers. Trichomes slowly got cloudy and never went amber. (well I did find 2 ambers on the WR using the "eyeclops")


Well there you have it. The question that I have for myself is, can UVb from the begining, make the same difference in my own grows where I usually just veg for 7-10 days or in aero/fog trays where I go from the clonner to flower tray directly? Guess I just gotta try it and see.

Hope this all makes sense (cents) to everybody. Any questions, please feel free to ask. :thumbsup:

I was pulling for Chamber #1 the whole way....:stoned:


question:...does 6500k T5 fluoros have any UV?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

I was pulling for Chamber #1 the whole way....:stoned:


question:...does 6500k T5 fluoros have any UV?

---

Howzit D.P.?

Not so's you'd notice.[ATTACH]258646[/ATTACH]

It's the glass tube.
Make 'em outta quartz and they'd leak UV from the ends.

Big mahalo O.M.

The leave thickening was expected.
That's what the thylakoids do.

But more trichs was not expected.
I want side by side pictures or it never happened.;)

Aloha,
Weeze

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

when oldmac was younger...rocks were still soft....:rastabanna:....:D

---

now that I'm older.....the rocks are hard.....but I'm always soft. :(

Hey Dutch; an easy way to check for UV from any bulb or light is to place a pair of "transitition" eye glasses under the light for a few minutes or so and see if they darken.

Yo' Wee'zard; I told you the results where interesting. It looks like RustyTrichome's friend (I think that's who he said ran UVb from begining) is/was onto something. I wish I had a UVb light meter tho so I could quantify how much UVb I'm actually using.

Sorry, no pics. Problem was this experiment started just after I got out of the hospital from my bypass, was displaced from my home (tho I went there every other day) and was not suppose to drive for 2 months. According to the doctor, in an accident a deployed airbag would re-crack my chest plus steering a car (the doc put his hands at 10 & 2) would put opposing forces on my chest that might keep it from healing. My solution was to take out my '76 Eldo conv that has no shoulder belts, no airbags and you can steer it with one hand (really one finger). BTW it also has no cup holders, but has 4 ashtrays and 2 cigerette lighters.....ahh a very differant era. :D

Well, John Lydon did demonstrate a marked increase in psychoactive cannabinoid content in plants exposed to UVB back in the 80s.

I still have a copy of the abstract of the redo of the study in 2008 - UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES - Lydon - 2008 - Photochemistry and Photobiology - Wiley Online Library

I figured the UVB exposure from the beginning would've produced the best results, as the plant has had more time to realize that this is going to be the typical exposure it's going to get, and as such, it needed to produce more protection for the calyxes (and the possible seeds within) by gettling larger and producing more trichomes, and more fan leaves.

Want pics, but good comparison.

The results I see here are IMO BLUE results... Not actual ultra violet results.. Hence thicker leaves and such..

Old Mac... You should try 420 Actinic T5 bulbs... You'll get the same results as those UVb bulbs and be much safer IMO...

Thicker leaves and more trics are the results I'm getting from the T5 420 Actinic fish tank bulb..

One thing I didn't see here is that the potency was better from chamber 1... Sure more overall weight and more trics in 3 of the 5 strains but was chamber 1 the most potent of the three chambers?

If I had to guess... I would say not much better then chamber 2.. Of course chamber 3 will be less potent by default because it couldn't ripen all the way (trics going from cloudy to amber)..

Old Mac if it's extra potency your looking for.... I'm afraid you'll have to experiment with Far Red...


Great experiment OM.. :thumbsup:

Hey Dogznova, great to see you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

The results I see here are IMO BLUE results... Not actual ultra violet results.. Hence thicker leaves and such..

You mentioned that, oh abt 13 pages and a year ago, with the first experiment. ;) I'm a slow learner, but as I mentioned recently I've been using some SunPulse PSMH bulbs over a couple of my "fogfognugen" trays; using 3,000k bulbs for most of flower then using a 10,000K for the last 10-14 days. Works great to "toast" some trichomes and is alot safer then UVb, like you said.

Old Mac... You should try 420 Actinic T5 bulbs... You'll get the same results as those UVb bulbs and be much safer IMO...
Thicker leaves and more trics are the results I'm getting from the T5 420 Actinic fish tank bulb..

I use a T5 super actinic bulb over my clonners to root cuttings. Guess I'm already starting plants with a good wavelength.

One thing I didn't see here is that the potency was better from chamber 1... Sure more overall weight and more trics in 3 of the 5 strains but was chamber 1 the most potent of the three chambers?

I didn't post the results of the taste test yet. It got a little confusing, so went for a blind taste test. The blind testers came to a conclusion...but sighted testers did not.


If I had to guess... I would say not much better then chamber 2.. Of course chamber 3 will be less potent by default because it couldn't ripen all the way (trics going from cloudy to amber)..

That's pretty much what we found, chamber 1 was most potent, but not by any great amount.

Old Mac if it's extra potency your looking for.... I'm afraid you'll have to experiment with Far Red...

I've been using far red supplemental lighting for over 3 years now. In fact I had been using Phillips clear red party bulbs and switched over to GE Reveal Halogen bulbs at someone's suggestion.....wait that was you.:thumbsup: I'm not sure how much it adds to potency, but it does speed growth and keeps plants short, compact and tighter buds.


Great experiment OM.. :thumbsup:

---

Hello khyberkitsune,

Thanks for posting the link to the science paper abstract. I love science papers, I have a slew of them dealing with light, co2 etc. It's incredible what real scientists have found, my only two problems are 1- trying to understand them and 2- all of them are stuck in 2 unusable computers. Wonder if I can import them to this (new) computer from my old one...maybe USB port to port? (sorry, that's me thinking out loud)

BTW I got a real kick out of your blue panel LED flower experiment, interesting stuff. Everybody here is humping blue light. LOL :D
Attenion K-mart shoppers, there's a blue light special...
.

I'm actually working on a blue-dominant tri-band panel with controllable UVB (sadly the UVB must come from a mercury-based tube right now.)

We'll have to see how it runs.

And blind testing is the best, especially double-blind. I prefer double-blind testing to any other test.

Thanks for telling/showing me JUST how much farther along you are in testing then me..... Damn it... lol

You the man OM...

Something tells me I want to try your meds.. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

I'm actually working on a blue-dominant tri-band panel with controllable UVB (sadly the UVB must come from a mercury-based tube right now.)

---

why does the UVB come from a mecury-based tube?

-shake