Effects Of Potassium On Cannabinoids

[Melville Hobbes]

Cannabis produces a special kind of fruit, it is called an achene.

An achene (/əˈkiːn/;[1] from Ancient Greek ἀ (a) 'privative', and χαίνειν (khaínein) 'to gape'),[2] also sometimes called akene and occasionally achenium or achenocarp, is a type of simple dry fruit produced by many species of flowering plants. Achenes are monocarpellate (formed from one carpel) and indehiscent (they do not open at maturity). Achenes contain a single seed that nearly fills the pericarp, but does not adhere to it. In many species, what is called the "seed" is an achene, a fruit containing the seed. The seed-like appearance is owed to the hardening of the fruit wall (pericarp), which encloses the solitary seed so closely as to seem like a seed coat.[2]

Examples[edit]
The fruits of buttercup, buckwheat, caraway, quinoa, amaranth, and cannabis are typical achenes

None of the plants you mention are known to benefit from additional P or K closing in on harvest. They are also not considered fruiting plants, as they are harvested for seeds, not for the achene.

An achene (/əˈkiːn/;[1] from Ancient Greek ἀ (a) 'privative', and χαίνειν (khaínein) 'to gape'),[2] also sometimes called akene and occasionally achenium or achenocarp, is a type of simple dry fruit produced by many species of flowering plants. Achenes are monocarpellate (formed from one carpel) and indehiscent (they do not open at maturity). Achenes contain a single seed that nearly fills the pericarp, but does not adhere to it. In many species, what is called the "seed" is an achene, a fruit containing the seed. The seed-like appearance is owed to the hardening of the fruit wall (pericarp), which encloses the solitary seed so closely as to seem like a seed coat.[2]


You described weed perfectly right there... coatings of sweet pulp surrounding the seeds.

The definition of achene directly contradicts this statement.

We in this community are essentially the world's "professional" growers of this weed. We need to be included in any peer review before it is valid. Just going through universities is not going to cut it as far as I am concerned. I don't consider a subject fully vetted until it has passed through the 420 Magazine peer review.

You have an interesting, and certainly unique, definition of "peer".
Unfortunately it's not the definition used for "peer review", nor is it likely to be accepted by any academic journals.

 

[Emilya Green]

None of the plants you mention are known to benefit from additional P or K closing in on harvest.

Not that you know of anyway. Have you seen any documented studies on them?

They are also not considered fruiting plants, as they are harvested for seeds, not for the achene.

The definition of achene directly contradicts this statement.

Read on... there are several types of achenes, and our plant fits right in the description and was mentioned specifically.

You have an interesting, and certainly unique, definition of "peer".
Unfortunately it's not the definition used for "peer review", nor is it likely to be accepted by any academic journals.

If only academics grew pot we would be in serious trouble. Them (and you) thinking that we are somehow separate than them when it comes to "official" studies and the peer review process, is a big part of the problem we face in this community. It is this them vs we mentality that has elevated Bugbee to god like status and individual growers like farside, shed, myself and others to merely being experimental growers who provide nothing to the common knowledge level, when it is actually us who have the lion's share of experience with this weed.

 

[Melville Hobbes]

Not that you know of anyway. Have you seen any documented studies on them?

Nope, I looked, but there don't appear to be any.
However, going by your definition of peer standard agricultural practice should be more than good enough as evidence.

Read on... there are several types of achenes, and our plant fits right in the description and was mentioned specifically.

I was referring to your response to @SmokingWings
I made sure the definition of a achene, and your response to him were all that I quoted there.

If only academics grew pot we would be in serious trouble. Them (and you) thinking that we are somehow separate than them when it comes to "official" studies and the peer review process, is a big part of the problem we face in this community. It is this them vs we mentality that has elevated Bugbee to god like status and individual growers like farside, shed, myself and others to merely being experimental growers who provide nothing to the common knowledge level, when it is actually us who have the lion's share of experience with this weed.

Plenty of them do. I also have firsthand experience in several fields of the depth of knowledge required to attain the qualifications you seem to disdain.
I don't look down on our own experiences and experiments in this community, I just recognize that we don’t have the resources or equipment necessary to really look into some of our standard practices, most of which date back to prohibition growing.
There are many examples in diverse fields where standard practice was found to be useless or detrimental, and people who had spent a considerable amount of time and resources following those practices reacted the same way you are now when their ideas were challenged.

 

[Wastei]

Not that you know of anyway. Have you seen any documented studies on them?

Read on... there are several types of achenes, and our plant fits right in the description and was mentioned specifically.

If only academics grew pot we would be in serious trouble. Them (and you) thinking that we are somehow separate than them when it comes to "official" studies and the peer review process, is a big part of the problem we face in this community. It is this them vs we mentality that has elevated Bugbee to god like status and individual growers like farside, shed, myself and others to merely being experimental growers who provide nothing to the common knowledge level, when it is actually us who have the lion's share of experience with this weed.

It should be noted that you're really good at putting down other people's work while praising your own? I hope that thought ever crosses your mind?

Why someone would bash highly educated people who's done more for the industry and put down more hours than most is beyond me? One thing doesn't have to exclude the other? It's hard putting theory into practice and we should all appreciate someone sharing their data through practice and keeping a journal, no matter their degree.

Through data monitoring and through science experiments is how we've developed our understanding for plants and plant biology. It's still in it's infant state and we don't understand most of nature and most questions is still left unanswered. My point is I think its better to appreciate people striving for greatness, better understanding, self development through change and improvements , not putting them down?

 

[Buds Buddy]

Why someone would bash highly educated people who's done more for the industry and put down more hours than most is beyond me? One thing doesn't have to exclude the other? It's hard putting theory into practice and we should all appreciate someone sharing their data through practice and keeping a journal, no matter their degree.

Have you ever noticed one scientific study says one thing while another study says something completely different ?
So who do you believe ? I've quit listening to any of it & just do what works for me through trial & error.
On behalf of @Emilya Green , I will say any time I've had a plant problem her answers fixed my problems; while many other's didn't.

 

[Melville Hobbes]

Have you ever noticed one scientific study says one thing while another study says something completely different ?
So who do you believe ? I've quit listening to any of it & just do what works for me through trial & error.
On behalf of @Emilya Green , I will say any time I've had a plant problem her answers fixed my problems; while many other's didn't.

Yes, she's helped a lot of people. That deserves respect.
That doesn't mean she's always right.
Just because the way you're doing things works doesn't mean there isn't a better way. Just look at SIP planters.
The information in those studies requires equipment that is prohibitively expensive to verify, and that equipment is largely useless to home growers. I for one am glad they're looking into this kind if thing.
There will have to be further studies to confirm or falsify the results, but immediately saying it can't be true because you don't like what it says is pretty closeminded.

 

[Keffka]

The information in those studies requires equipment that is prohibitively expensive to verify

The thought did cross my mind to grab the Licor 6400 XT after reading the first article so I ebayed it 500$ plus 30 shipping isn’t bad but that’s not a cost I could justify. Yet

 

[Emilya Green]

Yes, she's helped a lot of people. That deserves respect.
That doesn't mean she's always right.
Just because the way you're doing things works doesn't mean there isn't a better way. Just look at SIP planters.
The information in those studies requires equipment that is prohibitively expensive to verify, and that equipment is largely useless to home growers. I for one am glad they're looking into this kind if thing.
There will have to be further studies to confirm or falsify the results, but immediately saying it can't be true because you don't like what it says is pretty closeminded.

First, I didn't say the above was catagorically untrue, but considering its source (academia) I gave it the required perspective. I also hold a high degree and for a time was one of the experts in my field. I was taught to always think outside of the box and find new solutions away from the beaten track. This is where innovation occurs, on the bleeding edge, and not usually in the rigid confines of academia. Yes, they have lots of money and all the best equipment, and their studies are usually at least worth reading, and if you remember, after considering all that was said, I gave this all a good solid hmmmm... and furthermore said that I would be looking into this. Not closeminded at all, and I have probably learned something from this conversation. I learned that you like to argue with me. I learned that academia is catching up to the underground growing community, finally. Cervantes knew. Rosenthal knew. Fox Farms knew. Plants organically grown know. And now the well funded academic study confirms in my mind, feed heavily until the last two weeks or so (because this is a flowering/fruiting plant), and then stop. They also seem to have confirmed that the plants will uptake P all through the grow, so a surge isn't needed at the end. Hooray for the lab coats and I give them a good solid win on that jewel of information. I have probably been killing flavors by pushing P and K right up to the chop. I needed this reminder. Thank god the lab coat crowd is finally able to confirm what was known by the old grow masters all along, but got lost in the mad marketing struggle to sell us more supplements. I am re-reading the "unofficial" grow bible from the 70's again... those old stoners were on to something.

 

[Buds Buddy]

Yes, she's helped a lot of people. That deserves respect.
That doesn't mean she's always right.
Just because the way you're doing things works doesn't mean there isn't a better way. Just look at SIP planters.
The information in those studies requires equipment that is prohibitively expensive to verify, and that equipment is largely useless to home growers. I for one am glad they're looking into this kind if thing.
There will have to be further studies to confirm or falsify the results, but immediately saying it can't be true because you don't like what it says is pretty closeminded.

I grow in SIP's myself. I am pretty much the one who got everyone doing SIP's. There were only a few people doing SIP's before I entered one of mine in a contest. Pulled over 1.25 lbs. from one plant on my first grow. When everyone seen that they jumped on board. Azimuth has done a great job promoting it. RD was one of the original SIP growers before I ever tried it, but it wasn't big until I entered one in a contest. Got plant of the month & plant of the year from it.
So yes, there are better ways. But like I said.... Who's scientific study do you believe when some of them contradict the other study. Because of that, I feel you still have to go through a trial & error process to find out for yourself.
Obviously nutes aren't perfect as they produce them as a one size fits all; when different strains may require a little more or less of certain elements. I personally add Triple Super Phosphate 0-46-0 to my soil. It has prevented a lot of the yellowing in flower. Just increasing the "N" had no effect at all so I experimented & it seems to be working. Only done 2 grows this way so far & am on my 3rd now. I don't know if this has anything at all to do with how my weed turned out..... But everyone I've smoked with says it's the best I've ever grown. I have to agree with them as 1/2 a joint kicks my ass.
I know @InTheShed uses nute calculations & makes his own formulas. As far as adding more "K". For me using Terpinator 0-0-4 .... sometimes it helps & other times it makes my plant look like shit. For that reason I believe it's strain dependent. Some need it.... Some don't.

 

[Buds Buddy]

Yes, she's helped a lot of people. That deserves respect.
That doesn't mean she's always right.

You are correct there & even Emilya has sort of admitted it. When she first started doing SIP's she even said "I'm going to have to re-think my wet / dry cycle". Maybe it's just luck, but I'm leaning more toward it being her knowledge & about 15 years experience that has helped me so much over the 6 years I've been growing. I'm sorry, but I'm partial to Emilya because every time I've had an issue she nailed the issue first time, every time. Besides that she was pretty much my grow tutor through my first 2-3 grows on another site.
As far as open minded goes..... Well, you aren't being exactly open minded either by taking the scientific side & saying she's wrong. You both have your own opinions on it. Only way to know for sure is to try it yourself.

 

[Melville Hobbes]

First, I didn't say the above was catagorically untrue, but considering its source (academia) I gave it the required perspective. I also hold a high degree and for a time was one of the experts in my field. I was taught to always think outside of the box and find new solutions away from the beaten track. This is where innovation occurs, on the bleeding edge, and not usually in the rigid confines of academia. Yes, they have lots of money and all the best equipment, and their studies are usually at least worth reading, and if you remember, after considering all that was said, I gave this all a good solid hmmmm... and furthermore said that I would be looking into this. Not closeminded at all, and I have probably learned something from this conversation. I learned that you like to argue with me. I learned that academia is catching up to the underground growing community, finally. Cervantes knew. Rosenthal knew. Fox Farms knew. Plants organically grown know. And now the well funded academic study confirms in my mind, feed heavily until the last two weeks or so (because this is a flowering/fruiting plant), and then stop. They also seem to have confirmed that the plants will uptake P all through the grow, so a surge isn't needed at the end. Hooray for the lab coats and I give them a good solid win on that jewel of information. I have probably been killing flavors by pushing P and K right up to the chop. I needed this reminder. Thank god the lab coat crowd is finally able to confirm what was known by the old grow masters all along, but got lost in the mad marketing struggle to sell us more supplements. I am re-reading the "unofficial" grow bible from the 70's again... those old stoners were on to something.

The only part of the message you've quoted that was referring to you would be the first 3 sentences.
The rest of it was intended to be more general to people who push back against things like the quoted studies because they don't like the idea that they might have been wrong.
I don't like to argue with anybody, but I do hold you to a higher standard due to your reputation here, and that staff label beside your name. It gives your statements more weight in the eyes of new growers, whether you're right or not.

I grow in SIP's myself. I am pretty much the one who got everyone doing SIP's. There were only a few people doing SIP's before I entered one of mine in a contest. Pulled over 1.25 lbs. from one plant on my first grow. When everyone seen that they jumped on board. Azimuth has done a great job promoting it. RD was one of the original SIP growers before I ever tried it, but it wasn't big until I entered one in a contest. Got plant of the month & plant of the year from it.
So yes, there are better ways. But like I said.... Who's scientific study do you believe when some of them contradict the other study. Because of that, I feel you still have to go through a trial & error process to find out for yourself.
Obviously nutes aren't perfect as they produce them as a one size fits all; when different strains may require a little more or less of certain elements. I personally add Triple Super Phosphate 0-46-0 to my soil. It has prevented a lot of the yellowing in flower. Just increasing the "N" had no effect at all so I experimented & it seems to be working. Only done 2 grows this way so far & am on my 3rd now. I don't know if this has anything at all to do with how my weed turned out..... But everyone I've smoked with says it's the best I've ever grown. I have to agree with them as 1/2 a joint kicks my ass.
I know @InTheShed uses nute calculations & makes his own formulas. As far as adding more "K". For me using Terpinator 0-0-4 .... sometimes it helps & other times it makes my plant look like shit. For that reason I believe it's strain dependent. Some need it.... Some don't.

I know you're one of the first SIP growers on here. That's why I brought it up.
There were experienced growers on here who pushed back against them because they contradicted what they had considered an essential part of growing. It wasn't until they were challenged to do it themselves that they found that it could grow great plants.
As for what you say about nutrients being strain dependent, yes, and not only strain, but sometimes individual plants of the same strain.
Which is why large numbers of clones need to be used to establish a baseline, and then adjusted according to the individual plants.
These studies are trying to establish that baseline, by testing things that we as home growers can't.

You are correct there & even Emilya has sort of admitted it. When she first started doing SIP's she even said "I'm going to have to re-think my wet / dry cycle". Maybe it's just luck, but I'm leaning more toward it being her knowledge & about 15 years experience that has helped me so much over the 6 years I've been growing. I'm sorry, but I'm partial to Emilya because every time I've had an issue she nailed the issue first time, every time. Besides that she was pretty much my grow tutor through my first 2-3 grows on another site.
As far as open minded goes..... Well, you aren't being exactly open minded either by taking the scientific side & saying she's wrong. You both have your own opinions on it. Only way to know for sure is to try it yourself.

Maybe I've come across a bit strongly in my opposition to what looked like a reflexive dismissal of scientific work that could help us to raise the quality of our crops.

Edit: Thumb slipped, but maybe that's for the best. I'm going to leave my reply as is.
Have a good day guys.

 

[Keffka]

This is where innovation occurs, on the bleeding edge, and not usually in the rigid confines of academia

This. While I have respect for institutions and their scientists, their originality and timing is often extremely lacking, and/or profit based. The vast majority of studies are launched due to various anecdotes from the communities that are hands on with the subjects at hand. This tells me that yes, it is nice to have some hard, vetted data, but oftentimes it’s more of a confirmation of what those of us on the ground already knew, or suspected.

Science is done on all fronts and everyone involved is important. From the amateur at home exploring uncharted territory, to the lab coat rockstars in the cutting edge labs confirming or rejecting the findings. It’s nice to see institutions finally taking it seriously, but I suspect a lot of what they’ll have to say, we already know.

Maybe I've come across a bit strongly in my opposition to what looked like a reflexive dismissal of scientific work that could help us to raise the quality of our crops

I’ll tell you what. It’s refreshing to be in a place where others are self aware. Some times it feels like people purposefully refuse to analyze themselves.

 

[Mitchell Florn]

WELL.....AS A REAL LAB COAT GEEK AND A SCIENTIST IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO KNOW ALL THE FACTS....TO DATE THERE ARE WELL OVER 20,000 SCIENTIFICALLY PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES ON CANNABIS ALONE....ADDITIONALLY HERE IS A LITTLE CLIP...


In the mid 19th century...(early to mid 1800's) medical interest in the use of cannabis began to grow in the West. In the 19th century cannabis was one of the secret ingredients in several so-called patent medicines. There were at least 2,000 cannabis medicines prior to 1937, produced by more than 280 manufacturers.

 

[Mitchell Florn]

None of the plants you mention are known to benefit from additional P or K closing in on harvest. They are also not considered fruiting plants, as they are harvested for seeds, not for the achene.

The definition of achene directly contradicts this statement.

You have an interesting, and certainly unique, definition of "peer".
Unfortunately it's not the definition used for "peer review", nor is it likely to be accepted by any academic journals.

I HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN ON PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES....I TAKE MY PROFESSIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND VERY SERIOUSLY SO....THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THE PROCESS IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO DO REAL RESEACH INTO THE PROCESS PRIOR TO MAKING LACKLUSTER STATEMENTS ABOUT SCIENTIST'S, SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND PEER REVIEW. TO BE BLUNT....REAL SCIENCE IS NOT HALF ASS TRIAL AND ERROR PROCESS....REALISTICALLY WE USE WHAT IS CALLED D.O.E.....DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT.....IT'S A WELL THOUGHT OUT LOGICAL, RATIONAL AND ANALYTICAL PROCESS TO PRODUCE THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULTS FOR THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND IT'S PATIENTS.

 

[Roy Growin]

 

[Keffka]

I HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN ON PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES....I TAKE MY PROFESSIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND VERY SERIOUSLY SO....THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THE PROCESS IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO DO REAL RESEACH INTO THE PROCESS PRIOR TO MAKING LACKLUSTER STATEMENTS ABOUT SCIENTIST'S, SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND PEER REVIEW. TO BE BLUNT....REAL SCIENCE IS NOT HALF ASS TRIAL AND ERROR PROCESS....REALISTICALLY WE USE WHAT IS CALLED D.O.E.....DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT.....IT'S A WELL THOUGHT OUT LOGICAL, RATIONAL AND ANALYTICAL PROCESS TO PRODUCE THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULTS FOR THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND IT'S PATIENTS.

Real science isn’t a real thing. You literally just made that up. This is a very one dimensional view of a field that encompasses much more than quoting numbers of journals and insulting others. Science is iterative. You don’t get to the level of employing D.O.E. Without first going through exploration and discovery.

Attempting to assert your authority as a SME by implying your area of experience is somehow more important or weighty than others is part of the very problem we were just discussing.

 

[Mitchell Florn]

ASIDE FROM MY PRIMARY CAREER AS A BIOPHARMACEUTICAL MICROBIOLOGIST FOR +30YEARS I WAS ALSO TEN YEAR'D INSTRUCTOR OF ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY, BOTANY AS WELL AS ATMOSPHERIC, OCEANOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES.....I USED TO PUT 2 SAYINGS ON THE BOARD PRIOR TO EVERY SEMESTER....
#1. TOO SOON OLD.....TOO LATE SMART

#2. STUPIDITY IS FOREVER....IGNORANCE IS CURABLE

SO.....WHERE DO FALL IN THIS SPECTRUM?? I DON'T NEED TO ASSERT ANYTHING....MY INTELLIGENCE IS A GIFT AND I SHARE IT WITH LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS.....75% OF COMMUNICATION IS LISTENING. ADDITIONALLY, YOU STATEMENT .....You don’t get to the level of employing D.O.E. Without first going through exploration and discovery. IS SERIOUSLY MISGUIDED AND FLAWED.

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

Albert Einstein


He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.

Confucius

 

[Buds Buddy]

So why haven't these scientists come up with a Super Nutrient with all their research ? I haven't found one cannabis nutrient line out there that is any better than the next one. They all produce about the same quality of weed. Only real difference I can see is which company can B.S. people into believing their line is better than others so they can charge you more. I've used at least 10 - 12 different nutes & they all produced similar results. I'm talking synthetic nutes, not organic. I have no experience with organic as that does not interest me.

 

[Buds Buddy]

@InTheShed , you may not want to answer & that's OK & understandable. But I have to ask .... What does your calculations say about more "K" during Flower ? I know you use certain ratio's for each (NPK) & your calculations seem to work pretty darn good.

 

[farside05]

@InTheShed , you may not want to answer & that's OK & understandable. But I have to ask .... What does your calculations say about more "K" during Flower ? I know you use certain ratio's for each (NPK) & your calculations seem to work pretty darn good.

If you do not mind me answering that, since @InTheShed and I basically run the same numbers...

More K in flower is really subjective to what the grower was using as a base nute in veg. The research article says that max yield is at 175 ppm K. If your base nute was 100 ppm, upping K to 175 through some sort of booster may increase yield. What the article is also saying is that increasing K also reduces cannabinoids. Max cannabinoids are down at 60 ppm K. So you're trading cannabinoids for yield. You as a grower can choose what you're chasing. Max yield or max cannabinoids based on your feeding of K. Without busting out the calculator, I believe the base mix that you've been running from Shed's recommendations are close to 150-30-175. So you're on a max yield diet.

You want to see what happens at a lower level of K? Like 100 ppm though flower? Will there be a K deficiency? I'm fixing to whip up a fresh batch of nutes and give it a shot.