THE HOAX

[neostone]

I don't think this point of view has a lot of credibility.

 

What motivation to the "narcs" have to perpetuate a myth that indoor sinse is better than outdoor when it is in fact inferior as this article claims?

 

Because the UVB photon, the sine quo non of THC production, is blocked out of the light stream by the outer glass bulb of all HID lights. BY LAW!

 

Well surely something like this can be easily proved. Where's the evidence?

 

Aside from all of that, the lack of real trippy dope from yesteryear as claimed by the author perhaps has something to do with the fact that in the last 20+ years of smoking he has built up an immunity to the effects of pot so that it doesn't give him the same type of high as it used to.

[Uncle Arthur]

Maybe you should have put the info from the Afghani flower period thread in here too Uncle Aurthur seeing as they are both related? This guy could be onto something?

 

I didn't put all the info on one post as I found it fairly heavy going and there is a fair bit of it. I have edited the original post above to include links to the relevant info. It doesn't seem to be just this guy. There are several sources and they do seem to back it with a lot of science.

 

Are we spreading our own lies? Who knows?

 

IF True, are we spreading our own lies? Is it a conspiracy by the authorities or just a misunderstanding by stupid white man? I for one am going to experiment next season.

[bufo marinus]

dunno about the conspiracy theory? but the UVB photon theory I'd believe.

I always used to say harvest as late as possible when I used to grow outdoors, this was growing sativa plants though. Used to take till the end of May before the stone was at it's peak... that is just a hazy memory though

[Uncle Arthur]

dunno about the conspiracy theory? but the UVB photon theory I'd believe.

I always used to say harvest as late as possible when I used to grow outdoors, this was growing sativa plants though. Used to take till the end of May before the stone was at it's peak... that is just a hazy memory though

 

Yes mate I have to agree with you on both counts. The conspiracy sounds a bit far fethed to me too. Having never stopped growing outdoors though I always find there will be some plants I have to keep growing through the first couple of frosts. They just seem to need that long. This series of articles apears to make some sort of sense to me. I just feel a bit stupid at the moment because if they are right about this then I have been operating under false beliefs for a lot of years. I have also taught a lot of people the wrong things so am responsible for perpetuating and reinforcing lies. It does not sit well with me.

 

I thought I was wrong one other time in my life, but then I realised I was mistaken.Hehehe!

[silent-toker]

who is this guy?

how do we know this isnt the conspiracy?

trickin us into growing seeded bud!

 

maybe the genetic selections made by breeders and strain availability worldwide has changed the effects of todays marijuana?

those regions who cant read, and therefore havent been fooled by the so called conspiracy are also not ordering seeds from over the net!

 

good read thanks uncle

[Uncle Arthur]

who is this guy?

how do we know this isnt the conspiracy?

trickin us into growing seeded bud!

 

The way I seem to understand this information and I must admit I'm still in absorption mode, It doesn't mean having to grow seeded bud. That is only one of the methods to achieve the growth of the capitate-stalked glandular trichome. The other is through parthenocarpia whitch to me seems to translate to Sinsemilla. Its just a difference in photoperiod manipulation and the addition by whatever method of UVB radiation. I don't particulately want to grow seeded heads. And I don't necessarily feel like becoming friendly with hermies either. It would take a lot of convincing for me to change half a lifetime of prejudice against them. Still an open mind is the only one capable of learning. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time that us white folk have changed our minds and done a complete turn around after believing something to be the proven truth for decades. Shit it happens all the time!! Anyway one way or another history will be the judge as allways.

 

Cheers.

[freddie]

This is a hard read. I keep re- writing my post because i"m not quite sure what this guy meant. I think his main points are length of photoperiod, sun verses HPS, over rated indoor clones, and seeded being stronger than seedless?

 

I cant go along with the conspiracy theory but there are some interesting points here.

 

I agree that the old outdoor was probably superior to the indoor of today, especially long flowering sativas. I also rarely harvested my outdoor before May and sometimes as late as June. I now grow indoors and flower with 11.5 hours of light. I harvest reasonably potent gear but if i could i would grow outdoors. I think the indoor/outdoor stones are different.The foreign Dutch seed i now use i don't think is as strong as what i used to get. I also smoke much less than i used to and often have breaks of up to a month so resistance is not a factor.

 

In the 70's when seeded was common we were alwys on the lookout for seedless because we thought it was slightly better quality and because half the weight of what you bought was seed. I don't recall much difference in potency. I also don't recall many seeds in thai sticks? Anyone else remember? The strongest gear i ever smoked was seedless homegrown, harvested late May in the mountains of NSW. The most pleasant smoke happened to be off a hermaphrodite chocka full of seed! So i reckon it's the genetics and i don't believe seeded or not makes any difference although as neostone points out "this can be easily proved". My little cupboard is partly seeded and i bet the seedy branches are not more potent.

 

Interesting read though and definately something to think about. I'll keep an open mind.

[Uncle Arthur]

The seeding mentioned will not in itself produce stronger dope. Either seeding or preferably in my opinion shorter hours (hence sincemilla) will triger the growth of more and fuller capitate-stalked glandular trichomes. These Trichomes will be full of Cannabinoids but without the addition of UV_B not a lot of these will be THC. That I believe is the main point of this whole thing. You do not have to seed to acheive this. Sincemilla is still the preffered option. But we do need the UV-B, and shorter photoperiods. Thats my understanding so far. Still trying to wade through the scientific studies on this subject. (Financed by the way by the US gov.)

 

Here is the sort of shit I find myself wading through at the mo.

 

From

 

 

A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)1

Karl W. Hillig<A href="http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/966#FN2">2 and Paul G. Mahlberg

 

 

 

Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA Received for publication June 19, 2003. Accepted for publication February 12, 2004.

 

 

 

In addition to the qualitative determination of THC/CBD chemotype, a plant can be characterized by the quantitative levels of cannabinoids within its tissues. These levels are likely determined by the interaction of several genes with a plant's environment. Numerous biotic and abiotic factors affect cannabinoid production including the sex and maturity of the plant (Doorenbos et al.,1971 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ; Fetterman et al., 1971 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ; Small et al., 1975 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ), daylight length (Valle et al., 1978 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ), ambient temperature (Bazzaz et al., 1975 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ), nutrient availability (Coffman and Gentner, 1977 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ; Bócsa et al., 1997 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ), and ultraviolet light intensity (Lydon et al., 1987 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ; Pate, 1994 http://www.amjbot.org/icons/ref-arrow.gif ).

 

I have got to say I'm hooked. I intend to get to the bottom of this.

[stonedCrow]

hey great study.

keep us up to date on what you find.

[Uncle Arthur]

I don't think this point of view has a lot of credibility.

 

What motivation to the "narcs" have to perpetuate a myth that indoor sinse is better than outdoor when it is in fact inferior as this article claims?

 

 

 

Well surely something like this can be easily proved. Where's the evidence?

 

Aside from all of that, the lack of real trippy dope from yesteryear as claimed by the author perhaps has something to do with the fact that in the last 20+ years of smoking he has built up an immunity to the effects of pot so that it doesn't give him the same type of high as it used to.

 

Neostone as I said before I am not convinced about the conspiracy (yet!!). The fact of the matter is though that the further I look into this the more I am convinced about the THC development side of things. The evidence abounds if you go looking for it. Scientific studies and papers dating from the early 80's to today. Most of them funyly enough are US gov funded. I could inundate you with info but if you are realy interested google works for everyone I think. Just to wet your apetite have a read through this.

 

 

Chemical ecology of Cannabis

 

David W. Pate

 

International Hemp Association, Postbus 75007,

1070 AA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Pate, D.W., 1994. Chemical ecology of Cannabis. Journal of the International Hemp Association 2: 29, 32-37.

 

The production of cannabinoids and their associated terpenes in Cannabis is subject to environmental influences as well as hereditary determinants. Their biosynthesis occurs in specialized glands populating the surface of all aerial structures of the plant. These compounds apparently serve as defensive agents in a variety of antidessication, antimicrobial, antifeedant and UV-B pigmentation roles. In addition, the more intense ambient UV-B of the tropics, in combination with the UV-B lability of cannabidiol, may have influenced the evolution of an alternative biogenetic route from cannabigerol to tetrahydrocannabinol in some varieties.

 

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/images/gland-01.gif

Figure 1. Resin-producing stalked glandular trichome (Briosi and Tognini 1894).

 

 

Introduction

Cannabis may have been the first cultivated plant. Records indicate use of this crop for paper, textiles, food and medicine throughout human history (Abel 1980). It is a dioecious annual with rather distinctive palmate leaves, usually composed of an odd number of leaflets. Best growth occurs on recently disturbed sites of high soil nitrogen content, so it is commonly found as a persistent weed at the edge of cultivated fields. Mature height ranges from 1 to 5 meters, according to environmental and hereditary dictates. Typically, the male plant is somewhat taller and more obviously flowered. These flowers have five yellowish tepals, and five anthers that hang pendulously at maturity, dispersing their pollen to the wind. The female plant exhibits a more robust appearance due to its shorter branches and dense growth of leaves and flower-associated bracts. Its double-styled flower possesses only a thin, closely adherent perianth, but is further protected by enclosure in a cuplike bracteole (i.e., perigonal bract), subtended by a usually monophyllous leaflet. A single achene is produced per flower and shed or dispersed as a result of bird predation. The life cycle of the male is completed soon after anthesis, but the female survives until full seed ripeness.

 

Cannabis seems a virtual factory for the production of secondary metabolic compounds. A variety of alkanes have been identified (Adams, Jr. and Jones 1973, De Zeeuw et al. 1973b, Mobarak et al. 1974a & 1974b), as well as nitrogenous compounds (ElSohly and Turner 1976, Hanus 1975b), flavonoids (Gellert et al. 1974, Paris et al. 1975b, Paris and Paris 1973) and other miscellaneous compounds (Hanus 1976a & 1976b). Terpenes appear in abundance (Hanus 1975a, Hendricks et al. 1975) and contribute to the characteristic odor of the plant (Hood et al. 1973) and some of its crude preparations, such as hashish. The compounds which comprise the active drug ingredients are apparently unique to this genus and are termed cannabinoids. Cannabinoids were originally thought to exist as the phenolic compounds, but later research (Fetterman et al. 1971a, Masoud and Doorenbos 1973, Small and Beckstead 1973, Turner et al. 1973b) has indicated their existence predominantly in the form of carboxylic acids which decarboxylate readily with time (Masoud and Doorenbos 1973, Turner et al. 1973b), upon heating (De Zeeuw et al. 1972a, Kimura and Okamoto 1970) or in alkaline conditions (Grlic and Andrec 1961, Masoud and Doorenboos 1973). There are over 60 of these type compounds present in the plant (Turner et al. 1980).

 

Much has been published concerning the influence of heredity on cannabinoid production (e.g., Fetterman et al. 1971b, Small and Beckstead 1973), but ecological factors have long been thought to have an important influence by stressing the Cannabis plant (Bouquet 1950). The resultant increased biosynthesis of the cannabinoid and terpene containing resin, in most cases, seems likely of advantage to the organism in adapting it to a variety of survival-threatening situations. This work reviews these biotic and abiotic challenges and speculates on the utility of Cannabis resin to the plant.

 

 

Anatomical distribution and biogenesis of the cannabinoids

The major sites of cannabinoid production appear to be epidermal glands (Fairbairn 1972, Hammond and Mahlberg 1973, Lanyon et al. 1981, Malingre et al. 1975) which exhibit a marked variation in size, shape and population density, depending on the anatomical locale examined. While there are no published reports of glands present on root surfaces, most of the aerial parts possess them, along with non-glandular trichomes (De Pasquale et al. 1974). These epidermal glands seem to fall into two broad categories: stalked and sessile. The stalked gland (Fig. 1, front page) can consist of a single cell or small group of cells arranged in a rosette on a single or multicellular pedestal. Lack of thorough ontogenetic study has led to the speculation that some of this variation may be attributable to observation of various developmental stages (Ledbetter and Krikorian 1975). The sessile gland possesses no stalk and has secretory cells located at or below the epidermal surface (Fairbairn 1972). In either case, the glandular cells are covered with a "sheath" under which the resins are secreted via vesicles (Mahlberg and Kim 1992). This sheath consists of a cuticle that coats a polysaccharide layer (presumed cellulose) originating from the primary cell wall (Hammond and Mahlberg 1978). The resins accumulate until the sheath bulges away from the secretory cells, forming a spheroid structure. The resin is then released by rupture of the membrane or through pores in its surface (De Pasquale 1974). The cannabinoid content of each plant part varies, paralleling observable gland distribution (Fetterman et al. 1971, Honma et al. 1971a & 1971b, Kimura and Okamoto 1970, Ohlsson et al. 1971, Ono et al. 1972), although Turner et al. (1978) have disagreed. Roots contain only trace amounts. Stalks, branches and twigs have greater quantities, although not as much as leaf material. Vegetative leaf contains varying quantities depending on its position on the plant: lower leaves possessing less and upper ones more. Leaf glands are most dense on the abaxial (underside) surface. The greatest amount of cannabinoids is found in the new growth near each apical tip (Kimura and Okamoto 1970, Steinberg et al. 1975), although Ono et al. (1972) seem to differ on this point. This variation in leaf gland placement may be due to either loss of glands as the leaf matures or a greater the endowment of glands on leaves successively produced as the plant matures. Additional study on this point is required.

 

Once sexual differentiation has occurred, the generation of female reproductive organs and their associated bracts increases total plant cannabinoid content. Bracts subtending the female flowers contain a greater density of glands than the leaves. The small cuplike bracteole (perigonal bract) enclosing the pistil has the highest cannabinoid content of any single plant part (Kimura and Okamoto 1970, Honma et al. 1971a & 1971b). Second only to this is the flower itself (Fetterman et al. 1971b). Since it has no reported epidermal gland structures, the cannabinoids present must be due to either undiscovered production sites or simple adherence of resin from the inner surface of its intimately associated bracteole. This conjecture is supported by the finding that the achenes do not contain substantial amounts of the cannabinoids (Fetterman et al. 1971b, Ono et al. 1972). Reproductive structures of the male plant are also provided with greater concentrations of the cannabinoids (Fetterman et al. 1971b, Ohlsson et al. 1971). Stalked glands have been observed covering the tepal, with massively stalked glands occurring on the stamen filament (Dayanadan and Kaufman 1976). In addition, rows of very large sessile glands are found situated in grooves on the anther itself (Dayanadan and Kaufman 1976, Fairbairn 1972) and apparently provide the pollen with a considerable cannabinoid content (Paris et al. 1975a).

 

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the cannabinoid responsible for the main psychoactive effects of most Cannabis drug preparations (Mechoulam 1970). In some varieties of Cannabis, additional cannabinoid homologs appear that have the usual pentyl group attached to the aromatic ring, replaced by a propyl (De Zeeuw et al. 1972b & 1973a, Fetterman and Turner 1972, Gill 1971, Gill et al. 1970, Merkus 1971, Vree et al. 1972a, Turner et al. 1973a) or occasionally a methyl group (Vree et al. 1971 & 1972b). Other claims have been made for butyl (Harvey 1976) or heptyl (Isbell 1973) substitutions, but the latter announcement seems particularly tenuous. THC is thought to be produced by the plant (Fig. 2, next page) from cannabidiol (CBD) which, in turn, is derived from cannabigerol (CBG) generated from non-cannabinoid precursors (Hammond and Mahlberg 1994, Shoyama et al. 1984, Turner and Mahlberg 1988). CBG is also the biogenetic precursor of cannabichromene (CBC). Some of the cannabinoids (e.g., cannabielsoin, cannabinol, and cannabicyclol) are probably degradation products of the enzymatically produced cannabinoids (e.g., CBD, THC and CBC, respectively).

 

http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/images/molecule.gif

Figure 2. Biosynthesis of cannabinoid acids (redrawn after Shoyama et al. 1975): 1 = cannabigerol (CBG); 2 = cannabidiol (CBD); 3 = cannabichromene (CBC); 4 = delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

 

 

Cannabinoids and environmental stress

 

Ultraviolet radiation

Another stress to which plants are subject results from their daily exposure to sunlight. While necessary to sustain photosynthesis, natural light contains biologically destructive ultraviolet radiation. This selective pressure has apparently affected the evolution of certain defenses, among them, a chemical screening functionally analogous to the pigmentation of human skin. A preliminary investigation (Pate 1983) indicated that, in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC. They have also demonstrated the chemical lability of CBD upon exposure to UV-B (Lydon and Teramura 1987), in contrast to the stability of THC and CBC. However, studies by Brenneisen (1984) have shown only a minor difference in UV-B absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed. Two other explanations must now be considered. Even if CBD absorbs on par with THC, in areas of high ambient UV-B, the former compound may be more rapidly degraded. This could lower the availability of CBD present or render it the less energetically efficient compound to produce by the plant. Alternatively, the greater UV-B absorbency of CBC compared to THC and the relative stability of CBC compared to CBD might nominate this compound as the protective screening substance. The presence of large amounts of THC would then have to be explained as merely an accumulated storage compound at the end of the enzyme-mediated cannabinoid pathway. However, further work is required to resolve the fact that Lydon's (1985) experiments did not show a commensurate increase in CBC production with increased UV-B exposure.

 

This CBC pigmentation hypothesis would imply the development of an alternative to the accepted biochemical pathway from CBG to THC via CBD. Until 1973 (Turner and Hadley 1973), separation of CBD and CBC by gas chromatography was difficult to accomplish, so that many peaks identified as CBD in the preceding literature may in fact have been CBC. Indeed, it has been noted (De Faubert Maunder 1970) and corroborated by GC/MS (Turner and Hadley 1973) that some tropical drug strains of Cannabis do not contain any CBD at all, yet have an abundance of THC. This phenomenon has not been observed for northern temperate varieties of Cannabis. Absence of CBD has led some authors (De Faubert Maunder 1970, Turner and Hadley 1973) to speculate that another biogenetic route to THC is involved. Facts scattered through the literature do indeed indicate a possible alternative. Holley et al. (1975) have shown that Mississippi-grown plants contain a considerable content of CBC, often in excess of the CBD present. In some examples, either CBD or CBC was absent, but in no case were plants devoid of both. Their analysis of material grown in Mexico and Costa Rica served to accentuate this trend. Only one example actually grown in their respective countries revealed the presence of any CBD, although appreciable quantities of CBC were found. The reverse seemed true as well. Seed from Mexican material devoid of CBD was planted in Mississippi and produced plants containing CBD.

 

Could CBC be involved in an alternate biogenetic route to THC? Yagen and Mechoulam (1969) have synthesized THC (albeit in low yield) directly from CBC. The method used was similar to the acid catalyzed cyclization of CBD to THC (Gaoni and Mechoulam 1966). Reaction by-products included cannabicyclol, delta-8-THC and delta-4,8-iso-THC, all products which have been found in analyses of Cannabis (e.g., Novotny et al. 1976). Finally, radioisotope tracer studies (Shoyama et al. 1975) have uncovered the intriguing fact that radiolabeled CBG fed to a very low THC-producing strain of Cannabis is found as CBD, but when fed to high THC-producing plants, appeared only as CBC and THC. Labeled CBD fed to a Mexican example of these latter plants likewise appeared as THC. Unfortunately, radiolabeled CBC was not fed to their plants, apparently in the belief that CBC branched off the biogenetic pathway at CBD and dead ended. Their research indicated that incorporation of labeled CBG into CBD or CBC was age dependent. Vogelman et al. (1988) likewise report that the developmental stage of seedlings, as well as their exposure to light, affects the occurrence of CBG, CBC or THC in Mexican Cannabis. No CBD was reported.

 

 

Conclusions

Although the chemistry of Cannabis has come under extensive investigation, more work is needed to probe the relationship of its resin to biotic and abiotic factors in the environment. Glandular trichomes are production sites for the bulk of secondary compounds present. It is probable that the cannabinoids and associated terpenes serve as defensive agents in a variety of antidessication, antimicrobial, antifeedant and UV-B pigmentation roles. UV-B selection pressures seem responsible for the distribution of THC-rich Cannabis varieties in areas of high ambient radiation, and may have influenced the evolution of an alternate biogenetic pathway from CBG to THC in some of these strains. Though environmental stresses appear to be a direct stimulus for enhanced chemical production by individual plants, it must be cautioned that such stresses may also skew data by hastening development of the highly glandular flowering structures. Future studies will require careful and representative sampling to assure meaningful results.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Uncle Arthur