Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
9022

UV-B resultater

Recommended Posts

9022

Ønsker med denne tråden å høre om folks erfaring med UVB, om det virkelig fungerer.

Har aldri trodd jeg ville vurdere UVB, men så fant jeg dette:

"

Abstract

The effects of UV-B radiation on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two greenhouse-grown C. sativa chemotypes (drug and fiber) were assessed. Terminal meristems of vegetative and reproductive tissues were irradiated for 40 days at a daily dose of 0, 6.7 or 13.4 kJ m-2 biologically effective UV-B radiation. Infrared gas analysis was used to measure the physiological response of mature leaves, whereas gas-liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of cannabinoids in leaf and floral tissue.

There were no significant physiological or morphological differences among UV-B treatments in either drug- or fiber-type plants. The concentration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), but not of other cannabinoids, in both leaf and floral tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants. None of the cannabinoids in fiber-type plants were affected by UV-B radiation.

The increased levels of Δ9-THC in leaves after irradiation may account for the physiological and morphological tolerance to UV-B radiation in the drug-type plants. However, fiber plants showed no comparable change in the level of cannabidiol (a cannabinoid with UV-B absorptive characteristics similar to Δ9 THC). Thus the contribution of cannabinoids as selective UV-B filters in C. sativa is equivocal.

"

Hele artikkelen er her, men koster penger:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract

Boka heter: "Photochemistry and Photobiology" og er fra 2008.

Den omhandler "UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES"

Det lille vi ser (Abstract) sier jo rett ut at UV-B øker konsentrasjoen av THC! (men ikke andre cannabinoider).

Og forfatterne er botanikere, ikke cannabis-dyrkere!

Forfatterne:

John Lydon2: USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Laboratory, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA

Alan H. Teramura: Department of Botany, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

C. Benjamin Coffman: USDA-ARS, Weed Science Laboratory, AEQ. I, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA

Edited by 9022

Share this post


Link to post
Ganjalf

Article first published online: 2 JAN 2008

Photochemistry and Photobiology

Volume 46, Issue 2, pages 201–206, August 1987

Share this post


Link to post
9022

Article first published online: 2 JAN 2008

Photochemistry and Photobiology

Volume 46, Issue 2, pages 201–206, August 1987

Takk. Du er og blir en kverulant, men jeg liker det ;-)

Rett skal være rett.

Så forskerne fant dette ut for ca 26 år siden, men det endrer jo ikke hva de oppdaget. Men kanskje de tok feil, og dette er hvor myten stammer fra?

Jeg er ikke her for å forsvare UVB-bruk, boken/artikkelen, men for å finne ut om folk flest på NorCan bruker UVB-lys nå i dag - fordi det hjelper, eller om pærene ligger og støver ned fordi de ikke er til noen hjelp.

Jeg kjenner ingen i miljøet, så er avhengig av nettet for å få svar på ting som dette.

Men forstår nå at tråden ikke kan gi meg svar, det er alt for mange variabler at om UVB bare har en liten fordel eller ulempe, så blir den ikke oppdaget i all støyen. (og få samples (dyrkere)).

Jeg må nok være forsøkskanin selv likevel. Men kom gjerne med meninger om UVB er verd det, takk.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×