Jump to content

THC-Farmer

Members
  • Posts

    576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by THC-Farmer

  1. No, thank YOU brotha! Glad to be here!
  2. Ummm... Not that it's any of my business or that anyone cares, but I'm surprised no one else pointed this out. Isn't it a bit obvious that the reason that the plants grown in soil are smaller is merely because the size of the containers the plants grown in soil are in are much smaller than the plant grown in the hempy bucket? It appears to me that the plants grown in soil were grown in dinky little 2.5 or 3 gallon pots while the hempy bucket is a 5 gallon bucket... Look at those itty bitty white pots compared to that big bucket man... lol Seems to me, an extremely unfair advantage if you're trying to compare cultivation methods...That's no comparison. CHEATER! lol...
  3. This is sad, pathetic and worst of all destroys entire lives that could have been, if left uninfiltrated by law enforcement, a very peaceful, happy and productive one. This poor kid wasn't informed of what would happen if he turned his parents in. Now he'll probably grow up either hating his parents for the rest of his life, or hating law enforcement for the rest of his life. Either way it disrupts lives and skews the line between love and responsibility... These sick bastarrds are pathetic and useless, with thier drug resistence programs and fear mongering. Makes my blood boil man...
  4. That's precisely what all this actually is... They are affraid to lose status quo. The justice system benefits from Cannabis prohibition too much to even consider changing anything. The question is, who sees these benefits and why? It sure isn't the American people...
  5. LOL, Love the music!! Beautiful gals you have there. Keep up the good work brotha!
  6. Drug policy should be based on science, not ideology. Between now and 2012 it's up to you and your friends, communities, governments, newspapers, to advocate for evidence based drug policy and strengthen the call for policies driven by evidence. Join the movement to end the failed war on drugs, sign the declaration and share it with your networks today. The Vienna Declaration is a statement seeking to improve community health and safety by calling for the incorporation of scientific evidence into illicit drug policies. We are inviting scientists, health practitioners and the public to endorse this document in order to bring these issues to the attention of governments and international agencies, and to illustrate that drug policy reform is a matter of urgent international significance. We also welcome organizational endorsements. SIGN THE DECLARATION
  7. The Mainstream Media’s Promoting Marijuana Myth Makers and Prohibition Junkies By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director The longtime government supporters of Cannabis Prohibition are very nervous about the upcoming binding ballot initiative in California which appears on track to be approved by millions of state voters. There is much evidence for this assertion: A few weeks ago the Los Angeles Times published a so-called unprecedented ‘jointly’ signed letter by all of the former drug czars (aka, Directors of the Office of Drug Control Policy) crowing against cannabis and the voter initiative in California that is likely going to pass this November 2nd. Ironically, or not, when readers go to the Los Angeles Times’ webpage to read the former czars rant-n-rave, they’re pitched cannabis-related Google ads. It is hard to imagine Cannabis Prohibition surviving too much longer when pro-cannabis ads ring government propaganda! This week the Wall Street Journal regrettably compromised its usual rhetorical commitment to ‘less government’, more ‘free markets’ and ‘personal responsibility’ by publishing an absurdly argued op-ed from every previous administrator from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) calling on the Obama administration to actively oppose the democratic will of the voters in America’s most important state politically and economically if they choose, as it appears likely they will based on recent polling, to legalize cannabis for responsible adult use, sales and taxation. Why the ‘we don’t like big government’ and free market-oriented editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal decided to shill for a federal government agency, who, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget is little more than a bureaucratic sacred cow, has one of the worse performance records in the history of otherwise bloated inside-the-beltway bureaucracies that the Journal editors usually relish skewing is beyond me. Firstly, the rant from these former ‘head narcs’ against the Democratic Obama administration comes mainly from partisan Republicans. Second, as has been noted in NORML’s submitted letter-to-the-editor at the Wall Street Journal (which we understand will be published on Monday, October 11) and at Reason, these former DEA heads make a flaccid and intellectually dishonest assertion that a state must be saddled with a failed federal public policy like Cannabis Prohibition in contradiction to the popular will of it’s voters. Really? Is this true? Then why do states like California, Colorado, New Mexico, District of Columbia, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maine have systems in place to authorize the retail sale of medical cannabis and to tax the product as well? Is the sole focus on ‘legalization’ by these former anti-drug technocrats a left-handed acknowledgement that medical cannabis use and sales are in fact lawful and taxed commerce at the state level now, while at the same time trying advance the unpersuasive argument that states sanctioning and taxing non-medical cannabis is now going over some kind of impermissible line of state autonomy? Or worse, a violation of international treaties? One can understand on the level of myth-making, propagandizing, brain-washing, indoctrinating, embracing pseudo science and possessing the most tin ears politically why these men (and a woman) who’ve represented the ‘big lie’ to the American public and Congress for so long are reticent to 1) acknowledge that they were at all wrong in opposing cannabis legalization (even notably medical access and industrial hemp), 2) that they’re logically afraid of rightly being branded as ‘liars’ and 3) having to cop to the hundreds of billions of tax dollars that have been both wasted and left uncollected for decades…to say nothing of the 21 million arrests and millions of incarcerations since 1937. One can almost feel bad for these individuals for a nanosecond when considering how badly pop culture is currently treating them, and how I personally believe history will likely cast dark shadows over their championing of Cannabis Prohibition. What do I mean by ‘casting dark shadows’? Here’s two prime examples from the list of former DEA heads: After making a reputation at the DEA for opposing NORML’s administrative law victory in challenging the DEA’s mis-scheduling of cannabis in Schedule I, Jack Lawn went on to fame and fortune as the CEO of the Century Council–the main non-profit organization funded by the hard booze lobby to promote ‘alcohol awareness and to deter youth access and drunk driving’. Peter Bensinger, who has a business partnership with former drug czar Robert DuPont providing anti-drug advice to fortune 500 companies and drug testing services (including to members of Congress), also has a daughter who used to be a spokesmodel for Miller Beer. Yep…you can’t make this stuff up! These lame and too-late-to-the-game monologues by all of these former government agency heads who made careers (and small fortunes) lying about cannabis and demonizing cannabis consumers and patients in the Los Angeles Times (shame on you!) and the Wall Street Journal (doubly shame on you!) are likely going to be as successful as the last and great ‘unprecedented’ attempt by Cannabis Prohibition’s A-Team to thwart the direct will of the citizens regarding setting a new path to end prohibition, when, every living US president (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1.0 and Clinton) signed a 1996 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times (so much shame for this paper’s historical support for Cannabis Prohibition!) against a then supposedly radical and society-threatening Prop. 215–which the voters approved in California at a higher rate than they did for returning President Clinton back to office. As has been predicted recently by a number of polling firms and political scientists in California, the state’s voters may well endorse in greater numbers for legalizing cannabis in three weeks then they will in supporting any major political candidates for elective office. One would think that these mainstream, duopoly political candidates would finally say ‘Uncle!’ and end their stubborn and unfounded opposition to a long-sought end to cannabis prohibition in California if only out of the pure embarrassment of how wrong they’ve been in bucking public sentiment and the free market. Something tells me I probably shouldn’t hold my breath. Source - NORML Blog - http://blog.norml.or...bition-junkies/
  8. New Report: U.S. Government Data Demonstrates Failure of Cannabis Prohibition By: The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) October 7, 2010 [Vancouver, Canada] – The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) today released a new research report that demonstrates the clear failure of U.S. marijuana prohibition and supports calls for evidence-based models to legalize and regulate the use of cannabis. The British Medical Journal, one of the world’s most influential medical journals, published a supportive commentary to coincide with the report’s release today. The new report, entitled Tools for debate: U.S. federal government data on cannabis prohibition, uses 20 years of data collected by surveillance systems funded by the U.S. government to highlight the failure of cannabis prohibition in America. The report has deep relevance for California as the state prepares to vote on the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis proposition and, potentially, legalize cannabis. “Data, collected and paid for by the U.S. government, clearly shows that prohibition has not reduced cannabis consumption or supply. Since prohibition is not working, we need new approaches to better address the harms of cannabis use,” says Dr. Evan Wood, founder of the ICSDP. “Scientific evidence clearly shows that regulatory tools have the potential to effectively reduce rates of cannabis-related harm.” Despite dramatically increased law enforcement funding, the U.S. government’s data demonstrates that cannabis prohibition has not resulted in a decrease in cannabis availability or accessibility. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, federal anti-drug expenditures in the U.S. increased 600% from $1.5 billion in 1981 to over $18 billion in 2002. However, during this period, the potency of cannabis increased by 145% and the price of cannabis decreased by a dramatic 58%. According to U.S. government funded reports, in the face of increasing enforcement expenditures over the last 30 years, cannabis has remained almost “universally available” to young Americans. Cannabis use among U.S. grade 12 students increased from 27% in 1990 to 32% in 2008 and approximately 80-90% of grade 12 students say the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain. “From a public health and scientific perspective, the evidence demonstrates that cannabis prohibition has not achieved its intended objectives,” states Dr. Carl Hart, a co-author on the report and Associate Professor of Psychology at Columbia University. “The fact that cannabis prohibition has also enriched organized crime groups and fueled violence in the community creates an urgency to implement evidence-based alternatives that may be more effective at controlling cannabis supply and access.” In addition to describing the failure of cannabis prohibition, the report notes that legalization combined with the implementation of strict regulatory tools could be more effective at controlling cannabis use and reducing cannabis-related harms. Research demonstrates that similar regulatory tools have been successful in controlling the harms of tobacco and alcohol when strictly enforced. The report also discusses the regulatory tools available to governments, including conditional licensing systems; age restrictions; product taxation; retailer operating and location limitations; marketing prohibitions; and packaging guidelines. While the report urges an evidence-based approach to cannabis regulation and notes the comparative successes several European countries have had in decriminalizing cannabis use, it also notes the limitations of models in place in Netherlands and Portugal. People who use marijuana in these two European countries do not face prosecution, but the production and distribution of cannabis remains illegal and largely controlled by organized crime. “Legalization and strict regulation are more likely to be effective at eliminating the role of organized crime in marijuana production and distribution, because the profit motive is effectively removed,” said Dr. Wood. In his commentary published in today’s British Medical Journal (bmj.com), Dr. Robin Room notes that regulatory tools developed at the end of alcohol prohibition in the 1930s can also be used today to successfully control cannabis. “The evidence from Tools for Debate is not only that the prohibition system is not achieving its aims, but that more efforts in the same direction only worsen the results,” says Dr. Room, Professor of Social Research at the University of Melbourne. “The challenge for researchers and policy analysts is to now flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes.” Dr. Wood is one of the six international illicit drug policy experts who authored the report, which has been endorsed by over 65MDs and PhDs in 30 countries who are members of the ICSDP Scientific Network. The full report is available online at www.icsdp.org. A related ICSDP report released in April 2010 demonstrates that the illegality of cannabis clearly enriches organized crime and drives violence, as street gangs and cartels compete for drug market profits. In Mexico, an estimated 28,000 people have died since the start of the drug war in 2006. U.S. government reports have previously estimated that approximately 60% of Mexican drug cartel revenue comes from the cannabis trade. The full 26-page report, “Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review,” is available online at http://www.icsdp.org/research/publications.aspx .
  9. The very first thing you should do is purchase some pH 7.0 calibration solution and test the pH readout on it. Those types of meters are never accurate at all. I've tried the RapiTest versions and can honestly say they are absolute garbage. I bought one just to test it out. I have pH 4.0 calibration solution and pH 7.0 calibration solution. Upon testing it in both solutions the readings were WAY off. In the 4.0 solution the meter was reading 6.9. In the 7.0 solution the meter was reading somewhere around 9. I would be just as skeptical about this one as well. You get what you pay for in this situation. I do not recommend either the RapiTest pH meter nor the LusterLeaf. Both are incredibly inaccurate and unreliable. Milwaukee makes an excellent pH pen for a cheap alternative. http://cgi.ebay.com/...=item1e5e59ff4d <<-- $30.98 w/free shipping. The pH600 is the exact meter that I use and have been using for about 2 years now. It is still very accurate. It needs to be calibrated about once or twice a week. But I check it before I use it every time. It's a champ. Still reads 7.0 like it was brand-new... I highly recommend this product.
  10. lol Yes, Vote for Dave Leyton!! He's the man for the job!
  11. Ok I want to butt in here for a minute... (Sorry BG...) First and foremost, I'll reiterate, thank you very much for sharing what little information you have shared with the community. It's always nice to have someone willing to share thier methods with others. On the other hand though, you seem to be attempting to market your knowledge and/or cultivation method/s... That's not too popular around here. After careful review of your images I have came to the well observed conclusion that I see nothing out of the ordinary in your garden. Although your plants are indeed healthy and thriving, there's nothing depicting a 2lb plant in any of your images. Quite honestly some of your bigger plants have poor calyx structure, ie. they aren't dense or full enough in my opinion. There is no way that any of those plants you have illustrated via your MMMA Gallery are wieghing in at 2lbs WET, let alone dried. I'm not whining, I'm not being childish, I'm not trying to be condescending or anything of the kind. I'm being professional and polite. I have analyzed the illustrated claims and I'm not impressed. Now if you showed us something like Heath Robinsons plants, then maybe some of us would be intrigued enough to ask for your consultation. But at this point, all you've done is toot your own horn providing nothing to present your claims with. That's bad business... PS - I grow big plants too... Mine are usually larger than yours.
  12. Oh absolutely, without a doubt. But there are so many variables in that type of equation that it only complicates things trying to imagine why you would have a situation like that... Now there's an idea for a valiant project! I'll be the affects tester and I'll catalog all the information, you run the mass-chromatography machine, ok? lol
  13. Even if the Bubba Kush had a higher trichome count than the Nevilles Haze, the higher THC content within the trichomes of the Nevilles Haze plant is going to produce a more pronounced and noticeable affect. With a higher THC content within the trichomes, it would require less trichomes to notice the affects. It depends on so much more than just the THC content though. That's my point. It boils down to personal preference really and what each individual prefers as far as THC, CBD, CBG and CBN content and the affects each different combonation could produce. With so many different strains producing so many different levels of all the compounds that create the different affects on our body it's truly personal preference... Genetics play a huge role in trichome count, THC content within the trichomes, and cannabinoid compounds within the plant itsself. Generally speaking, a higher THC content is going to elevate the affects of the rest of the cannabinoids. We all know that... But if we were to calculate the THC content based on the mass of the whole plant or just a small piece of it, the results would vary so much that the testing would be too inconclusive to draw any kind of statistical data from that information. BubbleGrower, I really hope I can get this URL to work. Lets try this again, shall we? http://greenhousesee...thc-photos.html (Ok the URL is functional. I fixed the original as well.)
  14. Also, check this out - http://greenhouseseeds.nl/shop/green-house-thc-photos.html The BEST trichome photos you will EVER set eyes on. I guarantee it.
  15. Lets get hypothetical for a minute... Look at it this way - A trichome on a Bubba Kush plant contains 13% THC content based on a GC readout of one trichome. A trichome on a Nevilles Haze plant contains 20% THC content based on a GC readout of one trichome. Take multiple samples. Run multiple tests. Find a mean. Determine the average. You could now scientifically say that the Nevilles Haze clearly has more THC content than the Bubba Kush simply by the content of the trichomes themselves. But here's the deal. Potency itsself, as a word, is difficult to credit all the effects to by implying it's from one chemical. A plants overall potency can be determined based on a multitude of chemical compounds. So basically, THC content and potency are two different things, depending on how you percieve potency... THC content percentage is based on the average of a set number of samples of just the trichomes. THC is the main psychoactive compound. A higher THC content simply means it's going to be more psychoactive. The overall affect on the consumer however, also depends on the other cannabinoids within the rest of the plant matter. Some people may consider a plant with high THC content and low CBD content, not very potent because the high THC content and low CBD content doesn't deliver the affects they desire... While someone else may consider a plant with highTHC content and low CBD content as very potent becaue they prefer that affect.. Potency varies from person to person sImply because of the affects attributed to the different chemical compounds and the personal preference to each. This is a very difficult thing to quantify but this is the basic idea of how most modern breeders go about determining the chemical make up of thier plants. If you take a look at Greenhouse Seed Companys website - For example - http://greenhousesee...-feminised.html You can see how they break down the different chemical compounds within the plant and also post an individual THC, CBD and CBG percentages. Those three percentages are not based on the same area of the plant. THC content is derrived from the trichomes while the other compounds are found within the plant matter... So two seperate types of samples must be analyzed. This enables the consumer to make a more educated selection on the affects they may encounter with the product. Other than that, the only other way to determine what's potent and whats not is to spark one up and see if you like it. If THC content was based on the amount present in a whole sample, plant matter and all, it would be based on the sample size. Being based on the sample size would make it even more difficult to quantify. If 1 gram of Nevilles Haze contains 20% THC how much does 4 grams contain? You see? You have to eliminate the sample size variable... The only way to do that is to measure THC content at the source, the trichomes. Also, if you visit this link you can see a multitude of statistics that GHS offers - http://greenhousesee...statistics.html If you scroll down to the bottom you'll find a THC percentage chart for all thier strains... GHS states "THC-Values are calculated with mass-chromatography and are averaged on several samples". When I first saw that it bothered me. I had to know what the samples actually were of. Franco himself told me that THC percentages are derrived from the samples of trichomes only.
  16. Either way it will reduce your overall yield. Removing branches reduces potential bud sites, thus reducing overall yield. Removing a few of the smaller lower branches isn't going to impact your overall yield dramatically, no. But it will inevitably be reduced, technically... There's no real benefit to doing this with Cannabis plants. Outdoor growers will remove some of the lower branches to help keep pests off the plants. But it's not going to increase your yield or the plants potential. You're taking away from the plant. It's not going to reward you for that.
  17. Yea... The percentile is based on the contents of the individual trichome. So each trichome would be 19% THC. It's not based on the rest of the plant matter at all. Terpenes in Resin read-outs on Gas Chromatography machines show the different chemical compounds within the plant matter and give a good idea of what thier concentrations are within that matter by controlling the vaporization of the matter. Good breeders will actually take a single trichome and run it through a GC machine to break it down. It's important to know how to decipher the read-outs on this as well.
  18. Are you guys even aware of what these percentages are of? 19-20% of what? I want to see if any of you can answer this correctly.
  19. Either way there's no such thing as a "sucker leaf"... Leaves don't suck energy from ANY portion of the plant. They provide the energy TO the plant. That's my point. The leaves either provide energy to the plant or they dont. If they don't, they die and fall off.
  20. This has been discussed in great detail many many times. http://michiganmedic...flower-opinion/ I stand firmly against trimming and pruning of healthy leaves. There is seriously no need to remove healthy leaves. In fact, removing healthy leaves is anything but beneficial. It is bad for the plant any way you cut it. First and foremost there is no such thing as a "sucker leaf", a "water leaf" or any of the other old hippy terms for the Photosynthetic leaves. All those terms and "techniques" are all old hippy tales aka Science Fiction. The leaves on ALL plants serve 2 purposes mostly, 1- Collect Solar Light energy and 2- Provides the plant with a way to exhale or exhaust the spent molecules (oxygen) after Photosynthesis has occured via the Stomata... This is Science Fact. Consider the leaves as Solar panels collecting the Light energy and providing that energy to the plant for Photosynthesis. The leaves provide the plant with this energy so it can split Molecules to create the necessary Sugars to construct the Cellular growth. The more solar panels the plant has, the more energy the plant can provide for Photosynthesis, thus resulting in more vigorous growth. As soon as you start removing those leaves from the plant, the plant will slow down, or completely halt growth all together depending on how much is removed, in an attempt to recover the loss of "solar panelling" because it can no longer support the growth it has already constructed with the amount of leaves it had before they were carelessly removed. Removing healthy leaves will only slow the growth of the plant down and in extreme cases will even stunt the growth severly. This in turn will reduce your overall growth rate and will inevitably be detrimental to your overall yield as well. Granted, removing a leaf or two isn't going to have a terrifyingly noticeable affect, but regardless the fact is, the more you remove will indeed slow the growth. The more leaves that are removed the more the plant has to recover and that recovery or regrowth of leaves stunts the overall growth of the plant. Now removing leaves that are unhealthy or not needed by the plant is perfectly acceptable and is good practice (illustrated above by BubbleGrower). Typically these are the yellow or brown leaves that appear to be dying naturally and not of deficiency; occaisionally some plants will indeed drop a few leaves that are either not getting enough light to photosynthesize or have been used to it's full potential and the plant has stopped providing water and nitrogen to the leaf. It's best to allow the plant to decide what it needs and what it doesn't. It will grow much more natural and express much more vigorous growth this way.
  21. I'm very suprised to see this pop up here. Not very many people are aware of this stuff. I highly recommend this product! http://www.bountea.c...?id=1&page=Home < ---
  22. This is a trick question man.... I know it... How about Detroit?
  23. Just as welcome as anything else! Honestly there are really only two benefactors of having a hermaphroditic plant or plants... Regaurdless of the information below, you ALWAYS want to segregate known hermies ASAP. The must be quarantined, yes, because they can indeed pollenate your entire garden given proper air-flow... But this does not mean they are useless!! A couple things you can do with hermaphroditic plants - Personally I would quarantine the plant, remove the pollen sacs very carefully and then finish it out if you can and get what ever bud you can off it. Thats one thing you can do with it. If you notice it in time (before the pollen sacs open) you have yourself some pollen which is absent of male chromosomes. This means it is 100% female chromosomal pollen. You can save the pollen and use it to breed feminized seeds on any plant you want. Now, granted, any cross you do get will have many different phenotypes as the genetic cross is not stablized. But you will have guaranteed female plants no matter what you do. Now, here's something to think about though. If the plant that turned hermaphroditic did so very easily, chances are you don't want to breed with that plant. Those are bad genetics and any successor may garnish the same hermaphroditic tendancies. But if in fact you want to take your chances with the genes and produce some feminized seeds crossed with the plant of your choice, it's very very simple to do. First, you want to locate all the pollen sacs you can, but do this ONLY after you have removed the plant from the grow room and quarantined it. Once you have located all the pollen sacs, gently clip them off and put them in a plastic baggie. It's good practice to wear gloves of some sort or make SURE you wash your hands before you go groaping on your gals because sometimes the pollen can get stuck between your finger print groves and when you touch the flowers, bam, pollenation by molestation... lol... Then what you want to do is take the baggie full of pollen sacs as far away from the grow room as you can. Then take all the pollen sacs out of the baggie. You'll want either another plastic baggie to do this or some kind of a small glass vile. Glass viles work the best for long term storage. Gently open each pollen sac and tap off all the pollen from each one onto the plastic baggie. Once all the pollen sacs are empty do your best to get it all inside the other baggie or the glass vile. Seal either one up and pop it in the refridgerator. To pollenate the plant you wish to cross with that plant, simply grab the baggie or vile of pollen and a Q-Tip. It's best to bring the plant that you want to pollenate out of the grow room to do this. But then you find a good healthy branch, dip the Q-Tip gently into the pollen, swipe the Q-Tip over some of the buds and viola! In a few weeks you'll have a custom feminized cross. However, like I mentioned before, these seeds, although guaranteed female, may vary greatly in thier genetic traits. Yes, absolutely! The quality should be roughly the same as it normally would. Although, overall growth and production may be affected if the plant actually pollenates itsself because it will take on seed production as well. You may experience a reduction in yield but overall potency should remain the same as long as the plant is left to mature as per normal. Personal choice. It can't hurt! Although it takes quite a bit of bud to make oil. Sorry to hear that. It happens to the best of us. Just be glad you don't have my luck. The very first time I decided to grow my own bud, I planted 10 regular seeds I had ordered from Attitude Seed Bank. 9 of them turned out male. 1 was female but it turned hermaphroditic. The genetics were Big Bang from Greenhouse Seed Company. This happened about 3-4yrs ago. Yes they can pollenate EVERYTHING in the garden that is female if they are left in there!! As far as there being time to generate seeds, well, 2 weeks is enough time to definitely develope a few but nothing to be overly concerned about. You may find a fully developed seed or two in there. Anything else will more than likely not have enough time to develope. But it all depends on whether or not you noticed the hermaphrodites in time. Have they opened the pollen sacs yet?
  24. Looks like my bed every night... Minus the zebra stripes...
×
×
  • Create New...