|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
LizardWizard
GnomeGrower




Registered: 01/07/15
Posts: 13,688
Loc: the parking lot
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Solipsis]
#25586951 - 11/02/18 02:05 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I bet you know very well I'm not up for that discussion
-------------------- The best things in life can be smelled on one's fingers.
|
Solipsis
m̶a̶d̶ disappointed scientist



Registered: 12/28/09
Posts: 3,398
Loc: the Neitherlands
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
|
Fair enough, agree to disagree I wasn't looking for yaysayers, just well founded arguments so that we can avoid bias.
but nvm if it is not salonfähig
|
Tits on a bull
Stranger


Registered: 07/18/18
Posts: 569
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Solipsis]
#25587718 - 11/02/18 07:35 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Solipsis said: Very interesting and yeah the more you learn about it the more you gotta respect the dedication etc 
Can anyone shine a light on the use of plant hormones like 6-BAP or tria or brassinolide for cannabis that isn't irrational polarized "everything must be organic" ideas but actual rationales such as what ends up in the product even if you don't apply it on bud, toxicity + how much you will actually be consuming (they tend to be incredibly potent), so in short actual backing up with science of both pro and con arguments? (no offense)
What are some possibilities for regulating growth in unusual ways for example, what are your experiences?
There acceptable levels for lead in my drinking water, but I wouldn't add the shit to my water
-------------------- Stop talking about being enlighten. Crybabies, bitches, and people worried about ratings can never reach enlightenment! NEVER!
|
LizardWizard
GnomeGrower




Registered: 01/07/15
Posts: 13,688
Loc: the parking lot
|
|
yeah, that.
-------------------- The best things in life can be smelled on one's fingers.
|
Solipsis
m̶a̶d̶ disappointed scientist



Registered: 12/28/09
Posts: 3,398
Loc: the Neitherlands
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
|
I would if it had a point and it would be in some ultra low ppm amount that is considered safe by independent research. Why? Because you unknowingly ingest so many things which are technically toxic but which are dealt with fine by your body because the concentrations are not toxic. That's life. Toxicity is not black and white but purely a matter of concentration.
Therefore it wouldn't make sense to stand on certain principles, aside from the reason that often people are not interested in figuring out toxicity concentrations and all that and just wanna stay on the safe side and not be bothered.
It's a strategy but not truth.. cause it can be similar to saying: 'no I don't want to accept these few bacteria into my home or body' when the reality is that the air is filled with them.
My argument is not pro-poison and I am not trying to attack anyone, all I am saying is there are safe and unsafe levels for everything and you would probably be scared if you knew all about what your body is exposed to but usually you don't have to be. Thus my stance is: consider each situation on it's own and look into all the research data on the chemical. Then use a safety margin, the less information there is on a substance the bigger the safety margin you should use, indeed to the point of avoiding the substance completely.
But yes everyone is definitely entitled to personally exercise even much more caution than that, i just don't see how it would be defendable to advocate.
P.S. lead is an essential trace element, you need it to live / be healthy! it's just very tiny concentrations that aren't hard to reach because extremely tiny amounts of it are in plenty of foods.
And sorry about what I am doing to this thread.. getting back to cannabis would be alright
Edited by Solipsis (11/03/18 07:18 AM)
|
El Torcho
Time for tea?


Registered: 04/16/15
Posts: 1,365
Loc: Lone Pine Hill
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Solipsis]
#25588485 - 11/03/18 07:31 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Solipsis said: I would if it had a point and it would be in some ultra low ppm amount that is considered safe by independent research. Why? Because you unknowingly ingest so many things which are technically toxic but which are dealt with fine by your body because the concentrations are not toxic. That's life. Toxicity is not black and white but purely a matter of concentration.
Therefore it wouldn't make sense to stand on certain principles, aside from the reason that often people are not interested in figuring out toxicity concentrations and all that and just wanna stay on the safe side and not be bothered.
It's a strategy but not truth.. cause it can be similar to saying: 'no I don't want to accept these few bacteria into my home or body' when the reality is that the air is filled with them.
My argument is not pro-poison and I am not trying to attack anyone, all I am saying is there are safe and unsafe levels for everything and you would probably be scared if you knew all about what your body is exposed to but usually you don't have to be. Thus my stance is: consider each situation on it's own and look into all the research data on the chemical. Then use a safety margin, the less information there is on a substance the bigger the safety margin you should use, indeed to the point of avoiding the substance completely.
But yes everyone is definitely entitled to personally exercise even much more caution than that, i just don't see how it would be defendable to advocate.
P.S. lead is an essential trace element, you need it to live / be healthy! it's just very tiny concentrations that aren't hard to reach because extremely tiny amounts of it are in plenty of foods.
And sorry about what I am doing to this thread.. getting back to cannabis would be alright
Are you going to fund the research? Is the research going to include enough people to include every type of background condition, environmental condition, genetic condition, admixture condition, effects on weakened immune systems, etc.. so that you know the actual truth of how a chemical will react in anyone's body and not just a generic 'it won't kill you under this concentration' statement? How long will these studies be, in order to properly gauge long term risk?
--------------------
"Well it sounds trivial, but the key insight is . . . . . you don't know shit" ~Dennis McKenna "There is more to human existence and to reality itself than science can ever give us access to." ~His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama
|
Solipsis
m̶a̶d̶ disappointed scientist



Registered: 12/28/09
Posts: 3,398
Loc: the Neitherlands
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: El Torcho]
#25588502 - 11/03/18 07:48 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly, I want to know just the same to arrive at an informed decision. If you didn't think I want that you still misunderstood my angle.
I do think it is quite complicated to make a good decision and on the basis of how much data you can do it, yes. But anyway I would start with: how heavily do various of these compounds spread to all parts of the plant when you do a foliar application and how long do they stay there before being metabolized away again?
At some point you could calculate and say: well if you apply this amount of 6-BAP in such and such a way you can expect to ingest this much of it if you smoke an x amount of the bud and it is comparable to eating say 1 broccoli from a typical supermarket which was also dipped in 6-BAP. It is not saying you should eat 6-BAP at any dosage, it would not be a recommendation or argument of any kind per se but it does provide nuance and it lessens a polarized view. Saying: 'well i don't eat broccoli either unless organic' would be missing the point of first understanding and comparing scientifically and neutrally.
My point/stance is: I'd be interested if someone has info/data which can help us to at least understand it, without saying anything (yet) about whether it is good or bad.
Best analogy I have is: let's not devolve a discussion into 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'guilty until proven innocent' but let's just focus on a trial and not even a verdict.
Edited by Solipsis (11/03/18 07:54 AM)
|
LizardWizard
GnomeGrower




Registered: 01/07/15
Posts: 13,688
Loc: the parking lot
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Solipsis]
#25588610 - 11/03/18 09:23 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Research is rarely thorough enough the first 10-20 years, and how could it be, when some health effects take decades to develop. Though in the meantime, things will or can become lauded for their perceived greatness, all because some poorly funded and highly publish-pressured scientist is making his or her way in the world of science.
I think you want an answer that is more informed or more positive than what's availableat the moment.
Secondly why not is because there are better ways that are known to be safe available, to reach the desired end goal.
And third if there ever was an independent study about it, chances are still high it is not as correct as one might think. Multiple leading science magazine editors have already expressed their concern about the veracity of scientific claims, stating that perhaps over half of published science is actually unsound.
For all those reasons, I'd rather be on the safe side. Nature does things best anyway.
-------------------- The best things in life can be smelled on one's fingers.
|
El Torcho
Time for tea?


Registered: 04/16/15
Posts: 1,365
Loc: Lone Pine Hill
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Solipsis]
#25588643 - 11/03/18 09:38 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm still confused on what solipsis is wanting to know/debate even. I've even re-read everything.
At first you asked if anyone had any interesting ideas on regulating plant growth, but now you seem more focused on finding out what lasting health effects ingesting plants given these chemicals would be. Are you just wanting to know what these specific chemicals will do to plants and the harvested material and don't want people clouding that with 'why dump chemicals when you can do the same thing with organics' type comments?
As in, why dump all those synthetic auxins, hormones, cytokinin, etc.. on your plants when you could just use kelp tea?
--------------------
"Well it sounds trivial, but the key insight is . . . . . you don't know shit" ~Dennis McKenna "There is more to human existence and to reality itself than science can ever give us access to." ~His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama
|
LizardWizard
GnomeGrower




Registered: 01/07/15
Posts: 13,688
Loc: the parking lot
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: El Torcho]
#25588661 - 11/03/18 09:43 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
He's asking why NOT as far as I can discern, without wanting an answer that's based in gut feeling, but instead wanting answers based in science, because he feels like science is a much more safe or logical system to adhere to when deciding what's a good idea.
-------------------- The best things in life can be smelled on one's fingers.
|
El Torcho
Time for tea?


Registered: 04/16/15
Posts: 1,365
Loc: Lone Pine Hill
|
|
Well there is science done on what adding 6BAP to certain plants will do. There is science done on what 6BAP will do to animals and other living things in terms of health. There are regulations in place that govern how to use 6BAP in agricultural settings. I don't know of any science done on 6BAP and residual levels of such in cannabis, and the effects of such on humans.
So he's asking a question there's no science on at the same time only wanting peer reviewed answers to?
One of those....
--------------------
"Well it sounds trivial, but the key insight is . . . . . you don't know shit" ~Dennis McKenna "There is more to human existence and to reality itself than science can ever give us access to." ~His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama
|
flyontoast
Farming food; farming time


Registered: 08/20/16
Posts: 258
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: El Torcho]
#25588911 - 11/03/18 11:45 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Does anyone have a good forum recommendation for breeding and seed production out there? Other than growery.org
--------------------
My trade list Looking for strong terrestrial fruiters for an outdoor beds experiment: Agaricus Bitorquis, Agaricus Augustus, Agaricus blazei/subrufescens, Stropharia Rugoso-annulata, Clitocybe Nuda (blewits), and any species or other genus that you think work outdoors. Also, any commercially viable Pleurotus, cold or hot strains. Thanks for the Q&A, trades, and all the posters & teachers that have come before us
|
Solipsis
m̶a̶d̶ disappointed scientist



Registered: 12/28/09
Posts: 3,398
Loc: the Neitherlands
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
|
I'm interested in both those aspects. I'm not opposed to 'doing the same thing with organics' or dead set at using chemicals per se. But if using organics means using a plant which just contains the exact same chemical then of course it would be silly to make a real distinction unless there is a reason to believe the organics contain other compounds which change the activity in some way. I am fine avoiding a chem if there is an organic which is different and safer but has the same effect but i am also fine to do the exact opposite cause natural compounds can be just as toxic.
For all i know some of these PGR / hormones have been known for many more decades than that so it's certainly not impossible that enough time has passed for chronic effects studies. Also i am not quite so worried if application requires ppm amounts of a chem which has been tested in animals at concentrations 1000x higher or more and is also found on produce.
I didn't say i want peer reviewed answers? Just not to bother with answers which are full of bias against and devoid of information on why something would be bad. Information about effects in animals is not nothing, it can be helpful info and also if people looked into it contribute to an opinion about it being worrisome even if just worrisome indications.
But just never mind then, I guess maybe it is a bit of a sin even to just ask about any and all unbiased info on the subject when perhaps in the grower culture people pride themselves on growing clean and organic (which is not a bad thing in itself) and careless money grabby growers can be rather known to have no regard for a safe product for their customers. I would see how that could make people uninterested or allergic to the topic.
Just as an example tho, what i just found fascinating info is that promoting certain kinds of growth can just be counterproductive even if you would not expect it - like for example getting really fat buds but not the trichomes to match.
Edited by Solipsis (11/03/18 05:25 PM)
|
Oggy
Stranger Danger


Registered: 12/05/14
Posts: 1,276
Loc: Planet Remulak
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Solipsis]
#25589749 - 11/03/18 06:11 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
2 weeks since bringing my harvested plants inside to reveg and they're infested with spider mites already.
guess it's time to just try to acquire seeds
--------------------
|
LizardWizard
GnomeGrower




Registered: 01/07/15
Posts: 13,688
Loc: the parking lot
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Oggy] 1
#25590839 - 11/04/18 06:10 AM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Why were you trying anyway? It's not like there's a lot to gain from revegging..
-------------------- The best things in life can be smelled on one's fingers.
|
LizardWizard
GnomeGrower




Registered: 01/07/15
Posts: 13,688
Loc: the parking lot
|
|
Built me a grow barrel for starting seedlings with a 65W HLG QB120:
-------------------- The best things in life can be smelled on one's fingers.
|
Ran-D



Registered: 12/19/10
Posts: 16,305
|
|

Gorilla Glue
|
ferrel_human
stone eater



Registered: 06/26/09
Posts: 16,318
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Ran-D]
#25591555 - 11/04/18 12:28 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ran-D said:

Gorilla Glue
-------------------- Nature is my church and walking through it is gospel. It tells no lies and reveals all to those who look, and listen, closely. -Karode
 Looking for Mimosa tenuiflora seeds. Buttons for trade
|
Oggy
Stranger Danger


Registered: 12/05/14
Posts: 1,276
Loc: Planet Remulak
Last seen: 6 months, 27 days
|
|
Quote:
LizardWizard said: Why were you trying anyway? It's not like there's a lot to gain from revegging..
well i dont have any more plants and i havent found any seeds since this one. i had a mother plant that unexpectedly died, so I would like to replace it with a cutting from one of these two harvested plants.
i'm not sure if i should save them. i'm worried that they may turn into hermaphrodites from that shock of harvest and then being immediately brought inside the house to reveg, and the growth looks weird as hell. also the spider mite problem. but on the other hand i haven't seen anymore seeds and can't buy them in VT yet so this may be my only option for home grown for a while.
--------------------
|
cosmofish



Registered: 03/01/09
Posts: 223
Loc: British Columbia
|
Re: Cannabis Growers [Re: Oggy]
#25592297 - 11/04/18 06:21 PM (5 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I've done revegging a couple times, the growth does look super weird at first and the branches will remain kind of gnarly looking but you can get a second harvest if that's your only option. Turning hermie is probably pretty likely but it's better than nothing
|
|