Ahh yes, having ridden motorbikes for many years, falling off and finding parts of my body pointing the wrong way too many times, I can definitely relate to that.
3 Likes
You know perfectly the deal then lol I can be butchered “live” i don’t mind, but needles … holly shit you have to attach me ^^
2 Likes
Anyone have any recommendations for silver nitrate and sodium thio suppliers?
Im looking on amazon and things seem hit or miss based on the comments. Id prefer to order from there though.
Or has anyone just used this stuff? It is a separated 2 part silver nitrate and sodium thiosulfate that you mix together yourself.
Seems solid. Just not quite sure how the shelf life is with liquid forms. I know it’s much better than a pre-mixed sts at the very least.
2 Likes
It’s when you mix them together that the clock starts ticking. It looks to me identical to a bunch of other options - they’re all overpriced for what you get but you should do well with it.
2 Likes
@CARE_giver this is what I’ve found so far
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00M00FNRS/ref=ox_sc_saved_image_2?smid=A2WEV9JNW5ETIC&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00JERVY5A/ref=ox_sc_saved_image_3?smid=A2QI1LLWJGHHE&psc=1
1 Like
Agreed, storing only the strong stock base ease a lot the management without having to re-mix each time from scratch. In stiring (increasing a bit the strenght with the age of the bases), can last up to a couple of years in staying reliable.
1 Like
This paper might be useful in this discussion:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oscar-De-Jesus-Cordoba-Gaona/publication/373652694_Sex_reversal_in_female_cannabis_plants_as_a_in_response_to_male_flowering_promoters/links/64f6245448c07f3da3d875e4/Sex-reversal-in-female-cannabis-plants-as-a-in-response-to-male-flowering-promoters.pdf
It covers a variety of other ethylene blockers besides just STS, both as sprays and direct application, but not injected.
They didn’t get STS to work (!), but Gibberellic Acid seemed to work, and generated viable pollen. It’s pretty cheap, and available on eBay (less than $10 a gram including shipping, enough for years). It’s also biodegradable.
Maybe it’s worth testing for injection into branches for reversing?
5 Likes
Dope document, thanks for the share. And from medelin ^^ lol
It’s unclear why they failed with STS, they don’t mention it at all. I think about temps maybe.
The most interesting in this paper imho is the viability tests of the process : number of males flowers VS viability is what i retain the most from the GA3 vs AVG fight. They dipped the plants (apex) with AVG, i don’t think it will be a problem to inject them.
1 Like
2023 paper too, so nice and recent. I found it while investigating 1-MPC gas, and followed the citation web.
The fact that they didn’t get STS working but still got reversal with GA3 and AVG is a big plus, right? It means that even if the researchers were able to mess up a standard as STS reversal, the fact that GA3 and AVG worked means are probably much much better (unless the researcher are so incompetent they managed to mess up the plant labels while doing the blinding step, and it was actually the STS that worked… 
).
GA3 is really cheap, just bought half a gram for 3.50 euro including shipping. I’ll be testing it out soon too.
3 Likes
I’m always prudent with these papers, not throwing clouds on the people driving it but the lack of context with STS should be take with a grain of salt in the equation. Maybe they just had no choice but planning the experiment at the worse moment of the year, or don’t get funds for an A/C … who the fuck know.
Now i get your point, in imagining they are just bad with STS and that they succeed with GA3 (almost 100% viable) and AVG (still very relative with 50% and <10% viability) … it’s changing quite the perspective of the sacred STS (as the base formula turning around since two decades). Lmao the label’s shuffle, i’ve not thinked about this in bonus ^^ Maybe they locked the ethylen so hard that the plants were just unable to express the inertia stacked, just like the 1-MCP output.
On conclusion too, it’s unclear if they use feminized seeds or not. Now it’s a french that read a spanish native writing in english ^^ Maybe LIT too.
Actually studying the “somatic drifts”, very interesting leads to best manage motherplants, but in all studies i find the initial material is totally fucked (plants shown) and bad maintained already. I totally understand that they care only about the momentum they build themselves during the experiment, i find it even logic but the starting point for us (practically) mean a lot. You don’t start the same way with an infested clone with the viroid, or a clean cut. Just a silly example to share my grid of “safety”.
2 Likes
Most researchers are happy to answer questions from the public, if the questions are clear, straightforward, and asked politely. I would suggest just writing the the lead author and ask if they used feminized seeds.
The big issue is to not give off ‘stoner’ vibes. I see that on a lot of cannabis forums. People meander off topic, make weird rationalisation, or dont follow a logical train of thought.
Anyway, there should be a discussion on DOE (design of experiment), to figure out how to test this most efficiently in this community.
PS. Throw clouds is the right thing to do, always. It even has a name in the scientific community: ‘Journal Club’ 
3 Likes
Hell you itch my curiosity about the Journal Club now ^^ Google say it’s a group of interest reunited to give a critic sight on recent publications. I was thinking it more like a protocol for publications (you can if you’re “reviewed”, something like it). A bit confused, if you don’t mind to explain me the difference;
I don’t feel very good to contact one of them tbh, i will feel better if i was working for Canopy in a fully legal context ^^
1 Like
It’s like this in a scientific research group that runs Journal Club:
Each PhD student has to find a relevant paper to present to the group (usually moderated by a Post-doc, and one new paper per week). They have to fully read, understand and present the paper to the team. The team then usually tries to rip the paper to shreds, critiquing the stupid hypothesis, bad experimental design, dumb conjectures and overall problems in the paper. The student acts as a representative from the papers authors, and explains why they think the authors made certain experimental decisions, and their own interpretations.of the results.
If, after all the attacks, something still seems ok, then the methods or direction of the research will be adopted in the research group (at least if another Post-doc has time and interest).
That’s pretty much how research develops.in academia. It’s deliberately harsh, to weed out bad ideas and bad methods. It’s not an official thing,.like reviewing papers before publication. That’s the job of the group leader or professor.
3 Likes
Damn, it’s quite a dance. Thanks for the explanations i make the distinction now.
1 Like
Also, it’s done privately, without feedback to the original authors. However, if the research team is working in the same field and has deep expertise, and they find a particularly egregiously bad method or clearly fake results, they might write a paper challenging the results. This can lead to a retraction of the original paper if the journal agrees. This is really serious in science, and can be career-ending.
On that paper,.the experimental section says:
Cuttings obtained from female cannabis plants were
sown in 10 L plastic pots using the substrate of coconut
fiber, rice, mushroom, and sawdust in equal proportions;
then, they were placed under a plastic cover and
subjected to a photoperiod of 18/6 h (Day/Night). Out of
the 18 h a day, the first 12 h correspond to sunlight and
the remaining 6 h were provided by 30 W and 5000 K
LED bulbs. The pots were distributed in three rows with
12 plants each at 0.5 m between plants and 1m between
rows.
Seems like a controlled environment, so I would assume temperature was controlled. Would be nice if they mentioned that though! This point would be raised Ina journal club discussion 
5 Likes
Wait you know INRA ? ^^
I ask myself how they deal with conflict of interests. Not to sort out the papers/experiments of people actually in the Club, but like i don’t know “department competition” etc … they are VIP yes, but enough normal to stay enough humans right ? ^^
Might test out this Gibberellic Acid via injection thing myself given how affordable it looks.
1 Like
@Low.Poly or spray it. The method looks weird. They say they dissolve the chemicals in demineralised water, but later they dilute in 10ml distilled water… Whats with that?!
Look more at the method section, they also added Tween-80 to the STS. That’s a surfactant that’s probably added to help the STS enter the leaf. But maybe it also causes it to go bad. They should repeat the experiment without Tween-80.
Maybe Tween-80 is needed for spraying when using GA3?
4 Likes
Sometimes for whatever reason STS will fail, as will colloidal, sometimes they fail to turn, sometimes they turn fine but produce no viable pollen. It’s unusual to have such a consistent failure with sts, so I don’t know what’s up with that. It’s not something I’ve had happen tbh. Maybe they needed to come and ask on OG how to go about it. lol.
I have previously gone the nuclear route with cobalt chloride, and it seems pretty effective, even on stubborn plants, but it kills the tip you apply it to and then flowers grow on the lower tips. I’ve never tried GA, but it’s easy enough to get hold of, and definitely less toxic than cobalt.
Yep, the occurrence of *this *kind of logic is unfortunately alive and well, the haze forum is seemingly ground zero for it lol…
They probably need to consult with the experts lol.
2 Likes
Yeah they should, but it’s usually not easy. Academia works strongly by citations. They are the coin of the realm.
You cite the ideas and experiments that led you down some path, and they collect these ‘points’ and use them to get promotions and grants.
So, how would you cite some dude on Overgrow? If someone had posted just an idea, well ideas alone are a dime a dozen. If it’s a method like STS, where’s the paper to cite showing the dozen experiments varying concentrations, pH buffers and surfactants?
I don’t think experiments done on Overgrow are in any way bad, but they often are not very rigorous. e.g. blinding the experiments, proper note keeping, consistent strain usage etc. And the materials are source from all over the place, and are not lab grade. But without that, it’s hard to cite.
2 Likes