A_Swayze t1_j7v9u5u wrote
Why are they comparing plants grown in different medias? This is bad science.
“The outdoor samples were grown in raised beds using a proprietary mixture of all-natural soil and composts under full sunlight. The indoor samples were grown under artificial light in a proprietary growth medium.”
newpsyaccount32 t1_j7wn87z wrote
first, i'd like to state that i fully agree with you.
second, i'd guess that they did this because these differences are typical to most grow situations. lots of guys growing outside prefer to use soil and compost tea. lots of guys growing inside prefer some sort of media blend with bottled nutes.
basically, these are two opposite ends of the growing spectrum. still, the fact that they did not control all possible variables means that this study is useless for comparing sunlight vs lights.
arborite t1_j7wqas6 wrote
That's true but showing differences exist at all allows them to request additional funding to separate out the variables.
curiousAF_ t1_j7z56cb wrote
Because in the marijuana world, outdoor vs indoor has a number of advantages and disadvantages. Indoor has become the most well known for high THC product whereas outdoor growers have always argued that they produce plants that are more rich in terpenes and cannabinoids. This study is proving outdoor growers correct (even though the marijuana industry already knows this). Furthermore, terpenes and cannabinoids are arguably more therapeutic than THC alone, and this is something scientists have been studying since the 70s (entourage effect).
A_Swayze t1_j7zc2fq wrote
Not controlling variables makes them unable to prove anything. How hard would it have been to grow in raised beds indoors to have comparable data points.
curiousAF_ t1_j7zdxx3 wrote
I understand that, but I think the differences between indoor and outdoor as is, is/was still scientifically questioned.
zero0n3 t1_j7y4e5b wrote
Also what light did they use indoors as a test? HPS? CMH? MH? some LED hood?
[deleted] t1_j7z4o1q wrote
[removed]
epelle9 t1_j7xzy90 wrote
Because they aren’t specifically testing outdoors va indoors in the exact same conditions, but testing outdoor vs indoor in their typical conditions.
zero0n3 t1_j7y4jbb wrote
Except you then don’t know if it was actually outdoors that led to this or say the nutrient mix lacking some ingredient in the indoor mix.
It’s useless data.
epelle9 t1_j7y5ia4 wrote
Well, no studies are perfect, but if thats the soil they are grown when sold, it makes sense to compare them that way, and is definitely useful data.
Mcdiglingdunker t1_j7z5igo wrote
Then those differences should be explicitly pointed out in the materials and methods as well as how they affect the results in the discussion.
There are a lot of proprietary soil mixes and nutrient/fertilizer regimes. Without this knowledge it is impossible for other groups to repeat this work. As such, the data has some use but is lacking enough detail to be less than definite.
[deleted] t1_j7w5a2c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7xjjv7 wrote
[deleted]
doogle_126 t1_j7xwa9r wrote
Uh, because science like a thing called a control? The natural sunlight plant is the control. It's just written science these days conflates the difference between a good paper and a marketing paper.
Marrige_Iguana t1_j7vh3om wrote
Terpenes and other cannibinoids are terpenoids, and most do not have nitrogen in their bonds (main part of being an alkaloid)
tarrox1992 t1_j7vq3qk wrote
But the entire organism is connected and affecting one system could presumably affect the plant's ability to create certain molecules over others. I'm not saying this is the case, but good experiments should control for as many variables as possible, especially something as simple as the growth medium of the plants.
[deleted] t1_j7w2n6v wrote
The proteins that synthesis those terpenes have nitrogen and presumably metals in their structure.
[deleted] t1_j7x28uk wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments