SamuiGrower

The bigger concern is who is consuming heavy metal laden weed. I’m fairly certain by most responses I’ve read here, in this thread, and on the forum, in particular to, pesticides, mold and mycotoxins, is an overwhelming lack of concern or venomous response to any and all negative information to cannabis. How about if you are a prescription medical user? Should you start being concerned now? Thailand has no mandatory testing for safety or quality control of cannabis. Keep reading for a little background first….or just skip to “cheap weed but looks good post” LOL. You are correct, cannabis is a hyperaccumulator plant (amongst others), up-taking heavy metals from soil, water and nutrients. These heavy metals are stored in vacuoles (organelles) in the leaves and flowers. Cadmium in particular. It (cannabis/hemp) has been used in soil remediation for quite some time. Several hundred hectares were planted in the Chernobyl exclusion zone to mitigate the soil. The plants were then uprooted and treated as nuclear waste. The top four elements/metals of concern to cannabis smokers are: Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and Mercury (Pb, Cd, As, Hg). A study conducted over 10 years showed that 7,200 cannabis smokers showed elevated levels of cadmium and lead + 22% and 27% respectively. The FDA and USP has defined 12 elemental contaminants. The top four: lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury are the bare minimum standard in the USA and Canada for mandatory testing for cannabis flower, concentrates and edibles. They constitute known neurotoxins, carcinogens or endocrine disrupters. Some states test for more. For example, California tests for: 68 pesticides, 20 solvents, 6 microbes, 5 mycotoxins and 4 heavy metals previously stated. Some states will perform an 8 element assay, to include: chromium, copper, nickel and aluminum or other trace elements. To be clear, cannabis products that do not pass heavy metal, pesticide, mycotoxin and residual solvent are destroyed and do not enter the seed-to-sale stream. And, just to make it a little frustrating: many of these heavy metals are needed for healthy growth of cannabis - in trace amounts of course. Aluminum is NOT a trace metal needed for cannabis growth but it is accumulated and I use it as an example. Aluminum is the 3rd most abundant element in the earth - about 8%. And bound to silica, as in aluminum silicate and that makes up 50% of the earths crust. Do I need to mention aluminum is considered a heavy metal in toxicity testing? So, now it’s about acceptable levels federally and on the state level, of how many ppbs/ppms of aluminum are acceptable. Safety is political. If cannabis is grown hydroponically, indoors, the potential of heavy metal accumulation is through the nutrients and water it is fed and not the substrate. If grown outdoors, hyperaccumulation is through the soil, the nutrients, water supply and the environment. Pesticides (herbicides & fungicides), are the largest category of contaminants in cannabis, followed by solvents then mycotoxins contaminants. Heavy metals, as evidenced by the above mentioned study is certainly alarming. Even though ‘you never heard of anyone who suffered from any of these contaminants’ does not mean they do not exist or constitute a health/safety concern. The take away: Thailand was ranked 6th among the top 10 countries in pesticide usage, less than 10 years ago. It now ranks 3rd of 15 Asian nations in pesticide usage. Thailand continues to use glyphosates, chlopyrifos and paraquat as well as way too numerous pesticides to mention here. That should be the number one concern to all cannabis users here, in Thailand, be it expat or tourist. Though, these chemicals ‘might’ not be used in indoor CEA/hydroponic growing, be assured they are used in greenhouses and outdoors throughout the country. There is no mandatory testing in Thailand of cannabis for anything: heavy metals, THC, pesticides, toxins, mold, etc. This is the greater concern, part-and-parcel of heavy metal accumulation in cannabis. If cannabis is to remain a viable industry in Thailand (and I highly doubt that it will remain) it needs to be regulated at the health and safety level. Imagine if the consumer base demanded proof of terms like: “organic”, “30% THC”, and “pesticide free”? There would be a whole new market!

That is correct, the THC percentage as well as other cannabinoids will be lower. Just mentioning facts. There is a reason why all ‘batch harvests’ in the USA and Canada are tested for myco, molds and pesticides before selling to the consumer base. Not hearing about something does not give any of us plausible deniability. Just don’t say you have never been told. Respiratory issues due to inhaling myco/mold through combustion or vaping weed is quite documented, just not in markets with no obligation to testing. That is also correct. To make matters worse, the seeds you are buying, if not bred out to have consistent traits of the crosses (male/female traits of the parent line), will have wild phenotype expression - traits of both lineages expressed in the seeds. In other words, plant 6 seeds and get 4 (or more ) completely different plants. This is usually of no concern to the hobby grower but is of little benefit to a commercial grower at any scale. Cannabis is commoditized in a free market based on THC content. This is somewhat unfortunate as most of us here know weed is much, much more than just THC percentages. “Hunting” for the best weed at the best price, as per this thread, is usually a “one off”, never to be found again, trial and error game. This thread is quite popular and I have found it humorous and entertaining. It is however, NOT enlightening by any stretch of the imagination.

You can count on that, but more importantly, temperature, light levels, humidity and nutrition are all important factors as well. No two plants of the same strain will test the same nor will any two parts of the same plant test the same. There is a wide range of cannabinoid, terpene and flavonoid percentage from cola to popcorn buds (top to bottom). Way too much credence is put into THC percentage, especially in a market that has no mandatory testing (like ALL legal markets do). Here, it’s always buyer beware. I would be more concerned about drying and curing practices and, all the while, hope there are no mycotoxins, mold, or insecticides in the flower you buy.

A lovely review of writing style. Perhaps you should read the white paper and not the journalists synopsis. More information: Andrew Moore et al, Cannabidiol (CBD) Products for Pain: Ineffective, Expensive, and With Potential Harms, The Journal of Pain (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.10.009 Journal information: Journal of Pain

The marketing (social media, YouTube, search engines, SEO, et al.) is way ahead of the science. Hypotheses of CBD as an analgesic (pain relief), sleep aid, anxiolytic (anti anxiety) and down regulator of THC remains just that - a hypothesis. There has been no conclusive studies that shows reproducible results based on dose and purity across test groups that outperform placebo results. I have been in the CBD business since 2018 and have been consulting in the space since then. As a scientist, CBD (as well as the other cannabinoids) has been my focus. With that said, there is no conclusive medical or scientific data that’s supports the marketing claims across any cohort study. Recent studies (it is important to gleen results from recent data.) show contrarian results: CBD is no more effective than placebo studies, CBD does not down regulate the effects of THC, is not an effective analgesic, does not promote sleep and in some cases, appears to do the opposite effect as an antagonist. I have attached some posts below, I have made previously, as well some links (papers) relating to CBD in pain studies. I am a proponent of CBD in concert with the other cannabinoids (this, by the way, is the REAL entourage effect) and have realized efficacy is binary: it either works for YOU or it does not. It does not work for all. If it did, it would not be the subject of discussion, the headline would read: CBD is a conclusive sleep aid/pain reliever. https://aseannow.com/topic/1298719-required-strength-cbd-oil-for-a-good-night-sleep/?do=findComment&comment=18161416 https://aseannow.com/topic/1292013-importing-cbd-oil/?do=findComment&comment=18018941 https://aseannow.com/topic/1298719-required-strength-cbd-oil-for-a-good-night-sleep/?do=findComment&comment=18344019 Two articles about CBD and pain https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34223660/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799017

Unfortunately, organic inputs like blood and bone meal need to be broken down and made bioavailable through mineralization through bacteria and fungi. If you have a deficiency they will not help, in enough time to turn around your issue. Elemental deficiencies are corrected through foliar feeding and root drenches. Blood meal and bone meal are two completely different inputs. One provides nitrogen and the other phosphorus. You mentioned you are growing autoflowers. If you are experiencing abiotic stress and nutrient issues, you can count on your plant going into flower immediately producing a single cola (like most of the images on the forum). Autoflowers DO NOT LIKE STRESS.

Observations: Leaf margins curling upwards: You are likely experiencing environmental issues. My experience tells me abiotic stress is causing your problem, nutritionally. Extreme heat, and humidity (or lack thereof) and light stress (too much direct sunlight for a young plant). That stress will lead you to believe they are overwatered, underwatered, too much nutrients, too little nutrients, etc. Yellowing of top, apical leaves: Mass flow of immobile nutrients like calcium will cause lockout of potassium. That is exactly what your problem looks like. This is cause by the environmental stress. Classic! Change your environmental conditions and you will see the plant correct itself. Your plant (at this point) is in too large of a container. You should start in a small(er) container until the plant has about 8-10 nodes. Then transplant. Young plants should concentrate on growing tall and not growing tap roots (a huge energy drain) Adding cal-mag will treat the symptom, not the problem. Boron will present with twisted, new growth (rare). If you are feeding a bottled nutrient A/B mix, find a trace element mix to add, as I’m sure, if you are using a local potting mix, it may be trace element deficient. Lastly, when in the proper sized container, always water to runoff to prevent accumulation of nutrients (your next anticipated issue). This is difficult to grasp (or do) when you have a 15cm plant in a 5 gallon pot and you are inclined to just water around the stem.

I find it somewhat fascinating that a group of cannabis loving connoisseurs, here in Thailand, on this forum, put their faith and trust in the naming conventions and THC content of the flower being sold here. Telling the truth is not a prerequisite to selling flower. With that said, how do you know if you are smoking a Sativa, Indica or hybrid? The short answer, you don’t. Scientifically, those lines have been blurred for a very, very long time. The way YOU feel after smoking it, is by no way a reliable arbitor of a strain or chemotype/cultivar. In 2019, The Journal of Cannabis Research published a paper detailing how genetic tools clearly showed the misconceptions of strain reliability. To summarize that paper…. “We failed to find clear genetic support for commonly referenced Sativa, Indica and Hybrid types as described in online databases. Significant genetic differences within samples of the same strain were observed indicating that consumers could be provided inconsistent products. (Edit: and you are!) These differences have the potential to lead to phenotypic differences and unexpected effects, which could be surprising for the recreational user, but have more serious implications for patients relying on strains that alleviate specific medical symptoms.” Naming conventions (of strains) do not align with common widespread definitions of Sativa, Indica, Hybrids, and Hemp. Strain inconsistencies are clear and evident and not isolated to single sources. Why is that? Because you can call your seed or flower anything you want on the retail end, even in regulated, seed-to-sale markets. Am I intimating there are ‘bad actors’ in the business as well as a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, muddied genetics? Absolutely. 18th-century researchers originally classified cannabis into two species based on the plant's appearance. Researchers now know that on a molecular level, there's no difference between an indica strain and a sativa strain of cannabis. The advent of molecular testing proved the original classification system was inaccurate. Genetic analyses do not support the reported proportions of Sativa and Indica within each strain, which is expected given the lack of genetic distinction between Sativa and Indica. To that end, breeders, growers, dispensaries and budtenders needed a better system to convey the differences between strains, especially to the lay public. Enter the Terpene classification system. Indica, which is said to physically relax the body and give a sedative effect, and sativa, which is said to be energizing and provide more of a head-high. In reality, no scientific evidence supports this dichotomy because on a molecular level, indica and sativa strains don't have pattern differences that set the two "types" apart from each other. As a result, consumers buy strains that don't actually align with the perceived effects they're marketed to provide. So, it must be the entourage effect, right? It was proposed many decades ago as a hypothesis and still remains just that, with no hard data scientifically or medically to empirically support it. There is no purity or dosage that can be medically induced to replicate any consistent outcomes. We certainly know the inhalation of combusted terpenes (smoking) was never ‘baked’ into the hypothesis from the beginning. To further complicate the idea that terpenes provide the UP or DOWN effect, consider this; terpene synthase in cannabis is spatial. No two plants or parts of the same plant produce the same terpene profile. To further add to the ‘confusion’, set, setting, diet, mood, exercise and a litany of other factors all contribute to the perceived effect of the cannabis you smoke. It’s personal and different for everyone. I would put more stock in that belief system than in the Sativa UP/ Indica DOWN constructs. I, for one, am amazed of the phenotype variation in the seeds sold today. I cannot rely on most seed banks (mostly all) to provide stable genetics on the commercial level in which I work. Hybrid crosses are easy to produce and stability is not a factor for most seed banks. A sour diesel strain in NY looks, tastes, and test completely different from one grown in northern Michigan. So, if you’re a hobby grower and you plant 3 sour diesel seeds and you get 3 distinctly different phenotypes, what do you say? Not much, obviously, because it doesn’t matter, right? But if you’re a commercial grower and you grow out a 1000 seeds and it’s clear you have many variants, your only choice is to pheno hunt, create mothers, and clone or feminize to create stable genetics with testing. Emphasis on the testing part. Stable genetics begin with F1 and S1 lineage. Haven’t heard a single reference to that by any grower or seed supplier here. It’s a buyer/grower beware climate for sure. If labels define Sativa or Indica as two distinct groups then the differences should be seen in biochemical markers and genetic assays. A published study in Nature Plants, showed the ‘naming labels’ were meaningless. Strains labeled Sativa were more closely related (genetically) to indicas than sativas. In 1999 the strain, AK-47 won the Sativa Cup in that year’s Cannabis Cup. Four years later the same strain won the Indica Cup. Right. For those of you who say they can definitely tell the difference between a Sativa or an Indica (and I’ve read all the eye-rolling post here), I say bless your hearts. I have zero doubt that you are describing the effects you are feeling. The purpose of this post is NOT to denigrate you or say otherwise. I would love to meet you and offer you a position in my company (lots of travel and benefits). We would sit down over a few bowls of different strains and cans of Pepsi and Coca Cola (labels obscured - of course!) and work out a role for you. There is certainly an argument in saying, there are landrace sativas, here in Thailand from which you can judge the “Sativa effect” There are, but they are not pure, and the THC levels have been so diluted from years of outdoor cross pollination of other landrace strains, that It would be hard to judge them. This is the ‘stuff’ (brick weed) that is so overtly discussed in this thread as ‘hardly worth smoking’, but they are sativas. As a postscript to my diatribe, has any grower ever provided a COA (Certificate of Analysis) of their flower? Have you ever seen one? I pay 10,000 Baht for a COA after extraction (CBD). Has any breeder/seller ever posted one on this forum? I just see photos of schwag with fantasy THC percentages, sellers talking mostly marketing drivel and lots of people whining about the look, quality, effects, prices, etc. - and rightfully so, at that. P.s. these “home test” kits and devices hardly count for anything. HPLC/GCMS or nothing! I have no doubt that there is a connoisseurship here in this forum but WE are definitely not the market - tourists are. Maybe if WE (or regulation) demand COA’s, the quality will improve and so will the market. Wishful thinking for sure

To the posters talking about the “best” weed to use for edibles: good weed, brick weed, shake, high quality, low quality, etc. Think about it like this. You are THC mining. The ONLY concern is yield. Hard stop. Higher quality flower will yield a higher net amount of THC, lower quality or shake, will yield less. You are essentially stripping out ‘whole plant’ minor cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids (in home decarboxylation). There are no characteristics of the plant (cultivar, chemotype, phenotype) left other than THC, the psychoactive component of your edible. My opinion: find cheap, bulk weed and process it - mine the THC out of it. THC from brick weed is identical to the THC in Unicorn Poop Lemon OG Fairyland Sherbert. Again, the only difference is yield.

CBDa is a little more difficult to decarboxylate, requiring longer times and technically, higher temperatures. The issue with ‘home’ decarboxylation of CBDa is the degradation (oxidative) of other cannabinoids. You can expect all terpenes to be volatilized and evaporated off at that point. THCa will ultimately convert to CBN, which has 25% of the psychoactive attributes of THC. This won’t be a problem if THC is not what you are after, as suggested. To your question; it is difficult, without testing, to determine how much thermal degradation of CBD is taking place. Heat, oxygen and light are mostly responsible for degradation. For a 97% conversion efficiency of CBDa, use 127c for 50 minutes or 130c for 20 minutes (technically) I am in the CBD space, and use a lab grade, double-walled, borosilicate glass reactor to decarboxylate CBDa distillate (vacuum rotovaped first to distill off the ethanol first), circulating 130c oil through the outer wall, under constant circulation (both oil and distillate) for 30 minutes. This equates to 95-97% efficiency (tested). We start collecting terpenes off at 100c (mostly monoterpenes).

My post from another topic that might be relevant to this one:

Making edibles with decarboxylated weed is nothing more than a hybrid form of extraction. In a commercial (legal) market, extraction is done by ethanol, hydrocarbon (propane, butane, hexane, etc.) or CO2 extraction, where an extract or distillate is produced as a starting point for edible manufacturing. There are other hybrid technologies available, but they are not so mainstream or scalable as of yet. Commercially, in edible manufacturing, an extract is produced, the solvent removed, and the extract is decarboxylated. A C.O.A. (certificate of analysis) determines the purity. An 80% THC extract means 1 gram of extract contains 80% THC. 1000 mg (1 gram) = 0.800 mg of THC. If your dosage for an edible is 20 mg, you can create 40 portions (cookies, gummies, brownies, etc.). This was pointed out and made clear by @stoner in a previous post. This is the ONLY WAY to quantify purity and dosage. Decarboxylation of weed (flower) by time/temperature is not only inefficient but non-quantifiable and is seldomly, if ever done on a commercial scale, for many reasons, but suits the hobbyist grower quite well. Uneven heating/temperature variability, starting moisture content, time control and particle size of the flower, makes the process wildly inconsistent. The decarboxylation AND the fat/oil extraction are both very inexact. As mentioned in previous posts, degradation of cannabinoids and terpenes is inevitable in dry, biomass decarboxylation. Some posts mention the loss in distinction of Sativa/Indica traits in decarboxylation as well as a “benefit” of a single strain, in do-it-yourself decarboxylation. This is a non sequitur and makes no sense because you are extracting THC for the purpose of ingesting and edible. There is no ‘whole plant, full spectrum, entourage effects’ when decarbing weed in an oven and then extracting THC in a fat. If you are a hobby grower, looking to make your own edibles, you have few choices than time/temperature oven decarboxylation and fat/oil ‘steeping’. There is no need to quantify your efficiency or amount of THC. Experiment and make a product that gets you high. If you are in a legal, regulated market, the process of producing edible begins with extract/distillate. The downstream manufacturing will always be consistent and quantifiable based on batch C.O.A. and then modifying the recipe/formula of the edible. This was pointed out by @stoner (again). High quality or low quality weed is not really important if you are doing home decarboxylation and fat/oil extraction because of the losses due to inefficiency of decarboxylation as well as the fat/oil extraction. If you seek optimal results in home decarboxylation, strive for uniform dryness (you must start with absolutely dry biomass), uniformly ground flower and use one of those ‘fancy’ decarb devices that have been mentioned – it will create a uniform (linear) decarboxylation curve with a high(er) rate of efficiency that is far better than any oven. There are hot pot, rice cooker, slow cooker, mason jar hacks out there – they are all good and better, once again, than an oven. There are multiple time/temp permutations to decarboxylation. The science points to 122C at 27 minutes as the sweet spot. This is defined by decarboxylation efficiency AND degradation of cannabinoid loss. The understanding of what decarboxylation does has been stated in previous posts but I would like to point out the following. There is a 14% loss (roughly) of THC when going from THCa to THC due to the difference in molecular weight. The efficiency of home decarboxylation is probably 85% (moisture, grinding, uneven heating). So the net sum of THC from the start is likely 70% of what you started with. The decarboxylated flower/biomass is then put into oil/fat and this results in another inefficient extraction and loss. I point this out to clarify batch-to-batch inconsistency of home decarboxylation as an inexact science. My last point is about fat, after reading several posts, it requires clarification. All cannabinoids are lipophilic/hydrophobic: they are oil soluble and water insoluble. Not all fats affect cannabinoid bioavailability the same way. They dissolve in fats (butter, oil, etc) and they act as a carrier for edibles. Not all fats are created equally. If you use butter, your ingested edible must first go through first-pass-metabolism through the liver. You can expect 10% systemic efficiency, but you will still get an effect because the THC is converted to a much more potent form (11-OH-THC). If you use MCT Oil (medium chain triglycerides), from coconut oil, mostly made from C8/C10 (caprylic and capric acid), your edible is far more bioavailable and passes through the blood-brain barrier by bypassing first-pass liver metabolism and uses the lipid absorption pathway. The systemic efficiency is now around 30%. If you are concerned about a faster, “better” high, use MCT/coconut oil. I hope this clarifies a few of the points made here and in other posts regarding decarboxylation and making edibles on a non-commercial scale.

Because those strains are high CBD and (very) low THC. May I ask as to what effect you expected?

So here in lies the problem with every cannabis forum around the world: The OP asks, “what’s wrong with my plant”? The responses: Too much water Needs nitrogen Needs seaweed extract Needs Guano Needs earth worm castings Needs molasses Needs humic acid Needs epsom salts Needs blood meal Needs bone meal Needs micros Good grief! The only thing shocking, for me, is nobody said add Cal-Mag. 😂 The above observation is why there are so many failures and lots of mediocre weed. I feel sorry for the OP as well as anyone seeking advice on growing.

You need nitrogen. The issue is organic inputs are not bioavailable immediately and your plant is hungry. Find a basic water soluble plant food that has nitrogen (NO3) in it. Kelp is great for stress and that is what your plant has: nutrient deficiency=stress. Aside from the numerous vitamins, minerals, trace elements and hormones, it has nitrogen as well (but not enough to support a growing plant). Feed all the rest of those inputs mentioned after it’s healthy. You say “a small plant in a pot….” How small is small?

It’s hungry. Feed it.

Easy, yes, but those seeds will have such genetic diversity it will look like a grab bag of good, bad and ugly. When crossing autos in particular, the MxF (male x female) lineage of each strain will produce a staggering amount of genetic diversity. Autoflowering, in general, is a recessive trait and your crosses will produce any number of the following phenotypes: male & female photoperiod seeds, hermaphrodites, males & female autos. As far as the characteristics of purple punch and NL’s in the seeds that are produced - like I said above, good, bad, and ugly. There is far less of a “freak show” when crossing photoperiods because there is no Cannabis Ruderalis (autoflowers) in their genetics. I would like to point out that ALL autoflowers on the market are a cross between C. Ruderalis and C. Sativa/Indica. On a good day, each autoflower strain already has 4-5 phenotypes. So when you cross two autoflowers you can expect 16-25 different phenotypes. Culling out phenos from auto x auto crosses will take 5 generations to produce stable seeds and traits. As I stated in a previous post, it’s easier to work with photoperiods as far as stability. You can do one F1 cross then back cross for S1. Two generations for stable genetics. But since you like ‘the science’ and it’s been a rewarding hobby, have fun. It will be like getting a grab bag of 100 different seeds! ???? Your seeds will provide years of genetic diversity.

Categorically not true and not personal (????). Refrigerated, seeds will last almost indefinitely. If you store them at high temperatures/fluctuating humidity, you can bet germination rates will plummet and seed viability will decline. I have been using genetics (seeds) from the 1990’s with over 85% germination rate. They are refrigerated. The 43,000 Cherry Abacus seeds I imported through Thai FDA approval, have been here well over a year and our germ rates are 90-95%. My company have been logging our metrics since 2014.

No. I have been working on mid to large scale grows (consulting) since 2014, and from my experience, do not find autoflowers reliable enough to work with at scale, economically. I have done trials with them and frankly, find they get wonky with any stress event (temperature, humidity - VPD fluctuation). “Early” flowering (SOG and SCROG style), single cola, ridiculously low yields, phenotype fluctuation AND if that’s not enough, they can herm (express hermaphroditism) as fast as you can say, “ladyboy”. I have done genetic projects. My company developed Cherry Abacus and Cherry Abacus 2.0 with the 2018 Farm Bill, Hemp legalization in 2018 in the USA. It’s a high CBD, low THC, with some decent secondary cannabinoids as well. If you Google it, you will see every Tom, Dick and Mohammed seedbank offering Cherry Abacus. No two are the same because, like I have stated before, the two biggest lies in the cannabis seedbank sector is: the name of the strain and the THC percentage. I have a few million CHAB and CHAB 2.0. ——BUT I DIGRESS!!!! Sorry. ???????????? With that said, I do know this: it will take 5 generations of back crossing to create anything remotely stable with autoflowers. You can expect a lot of phenotypes with unsatisfying characteristics, to put it gently. It will be very difficult to control unplanned cross pollination while you’re trying to find phenos with good characteristics.. I realize not everyone is growing commercially and hobby grows are awesome but do the work with photos (photoperiod C. Indica/Sativa) - it’s much more satisfying and far more reliable. Autoflowers (C. Ruderalis) just aren’t wired the same way. Their carbon footprint, nutritional and lighting expense are the same as a photoperiod and they yield far, far less. Ultimately, it’s this that makes it a non-starter for me. What do I think of those light choices? I take a very dim view of them, pardon the pun. I don’t want to sound preachy BUT do not skimp on your lights. Lights are the primary source of yield and potency they should NEVER be your limiting factor, not even if you plan on growing one plant. It would be a waste of bandwidth to state all the reasons why you shouldn’t buy ‘those’ lights. Buy a standard form-factor light bar style light like Mars Hydro. If your intent is a knock-off ‘cheaper’ option, try alibaba - there are some terrific options, and if you’re interested I would make a recommendation. I wouldn’t consider (in a hobby grow) anything less than 650 watts if you’re looking for quality, dense flower with great bag appeal. Buy a ‘standard’’ PAR (ePAR), full spectrum, 3000-3500 kelvin/color for veg & flowering. Current Samsung LM301B/H diodes and Meanwell drivers. Good=650 watt, Better=800 watt, Best=1000 watt. We trialed these and loved them. They are here in Thailand and I have no affiliation. https://phlizonth.com/products/phlizon-ultra-full-spectrum-led-grow-bar-light-8-bars

I did a consulting project in Northwest Alaska (Arctic Circle). There were “NO SEAL OIL” signs in the hotel and taxis. ???????????? Apparently it stinks to high heaven.

Don’t forget, it takes 8 weeks of flowering (pollination) to produce fertile/viable seeds - same amount time it takes to make buds. TEK = technique SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

Northern Lights responds really, really well! I’ve been using the same NL genetics for 25 years now. Stick with what works - for sure!

STS (Silver Thiosulfate) for producing feminized seeds, I have found, is far more reliable and predictable, especially in high temp/high humidity environments. It is extremely difficult to quantify colloidal silver ppms and can create some unusual mutations. STS is far easier to work with. There are multiple SOP/TEKS on the internet that can be found. Happy to help with any guidance….

Just to be clear, autoflowers, Cannabis Ruderalis, is NOT a photoperiod plant. It will enter a generative state (flowering) through “maturity” signaling and not through ‘short day’ lighting. They are completely unaffected by light and nutritional regimes and any type of ‘crop steering’. To further complicate matters, C. Ruderalis (autoflowers) are extremely susceptible to ANY stress (abiotic/biotic) and can: flower or produce hermaphroditism at the drop of a dime (baht ????). I find them, on a commercial level, to be extremely unreliable and unpredictable. As many of you autoflower growers know, they can not be cloned or manipulated to produce female seeds and their yields are notoriously low.

Gas Lantern Routine (GLR) is a quick go to, used by outdoor growers in equatorial short day conditions (12 hrs light), to keep cannabis in a vegetative state and preventing flowering. It is essentially night interruption. If you have a 12 hour day and a 12 hour night (more or less), you interrupt the night cycle (skotoperiod) with 1 hour of light. The scheme is as follows: 12 hours light (day) 5.5 hours dark 1 hour light 5.5 hours dark. Stringing low wattage led bulbs a meter over the plant top is all it takes.