Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Yeah but you can control so many more variables by growing indoors.

Furthermore proving that we are unable to replicate the sun.

I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone, if a grower wanted these specific alkaloids rather than THC/CBD they would adjust conditions to suit.

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.”

[removed]

Terpenes and other cannibinoids are terpenoids, and most do not have nitrogen in their bonds (main part of being an alkaloid)

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

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.

I don't think we even have figured out all the different cannabinoids yet so don't bet on that just yet. We also are only now just starting to understand study the endocannabinoid systems in humans.

Introvert weed vs extrovert weed

[removed]

Bugs and humidity are then an issue.

Sorry; I'll take my barely weaker indoor bug, insecticide and mold free weed. Also; we'll figure this out. Indoor growers have advanced the plant a century inside of 20 years.

Yeah... but it spreads like a weed and needs to be controlled. Can be pretty invasive in a ton of places.

Like comparing greenhouse tomatoes with homegrown tomatoes.

The proteins that synthesis those terpenes have nitrogen and presumably metals in their structure.

[removed]

[removed]

Yeah, this.

There's one main difference to inside and outside light, and that's UV. I would argue that a change in grow medium and style has a larger effect than simply the added UV exposure from the sun.

[removed]

Fortunately destruction by combustion is an effective measure of control.

This study didn’t even bother controlling one of the few variables they could and that make a massive difference. The soil media is completely different indoor vs outdoor. That’s not a minor fuckup. There’s really no justification not to control for that. Give both plants the same soil composition.

The title is misleading without mentioning that. It’s like studying how different types of exercises lead to more or less muscle mass gain among two groups, but forgetting to mention group A gets workout supplements and group B ate only potatoes the whole time. Bad science.

The indoor growing process does exactly that to increase potency and density. So in this specific case we have not only replicated but improved upon the sun.

you’re joking ? do u know how bright the sun is? you should go check out Bruce Bugbee and his research on cannabis. i thought i knew something. no lights are even close to the sun nor the wave lengths nor spectrum. check out his grow light myths video it will change your perspective

[removed]

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.

[removed]

That's true but showing differences exist at all allows them to request additional funding to separate out the variables.

Yeah if you've ever had fresh outdoor stuff directly from the farm in Mendocino county you know whats up. Although there's nothing wrong with indoor stuff either!

1361W/m^2 at Earths surface is how bright it is, we can easily simulate and supersede that.

Outdoor grow weed is WAY better than indoor. If you can keep it unpollinated anyway.

There’s only two things in the world that money can’t buy and that’s true love and homegrown tomatoes.

So much this. The sun and fresh air is magic.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

As with all research confirming suspicions I don’t always even know I have, I will say, “Makes sense”

I've very glad that more research is being done in regards to weed, it seems very important to me and one of the biggest issues with the war on drugs was how it made no effort to improve out understanding of drugs in order to improve outcomes. I mean obviously the incarcerated people are the biggest issue with the war on drugs, but the lack of research was another big one and I'm glad to see it's being corrected now.

That being said there sure have been a lot of weed-related posts in this subreddit recently. That or maybe they're just the ones most likley to hit the front page or my post feed.

[removed]

[removed]

Trust me its not weaker, Maybe if you compare the beat outdoor ever, with the worst indoor. Its not like its perfectly sunny, or bug free with a nice vpd outdoors for the entirety of the plants life.

I can literally turn my grow light up to the point where the plant is suffering from light burn. Where the solution is to turn the light down, or move it away.

Outdoor might cost less , but its for concentrates, not smoking

Yeah I stayed at a farm out there for a bit years ago and the stuff they grew was so strong I could barely handle it and I'm a long time smoker! They know what they're doing out there for sure.

[removed]

[deleted]

These new cannabis studies posted on here is nothing compared to the knowledge from those in growdiaries

The design of this study doesn't demonstrate that at all. Because they didn't control variables like soil composition and nutrients, the light source might have absolutely nothing to do with it. These results could be 100% driven by nutrient availability, or any of the other variables they didn't control.

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.

You can't spell knew. You post so confidently.

Because they aren’t specifically testing outdoors va indoors in the exact same conditions, but testing outdoor vs indoor in their typical conditions.

Well, if outdoor plants optimally grow in some type of soil, but indoor plants optimally grow in another type, then it makes sense comparing both optimal growths.

Otherwise, you’d have to compare them when grown in soil that benefits one type.

Its kinda like trying to compare Brazilian MMA fighters vs Thai MMA fighters and then saying the comparison is invalid because they ise different styles, well obviously Brazilians use BJJ but Thais use Muay Thai..

Chong says piss on em.

I never imagined I'd read anything like this on a science thread.

Also what light did they use indoors as a test? HPS? CMH? MH? some LED hood?

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.

CMH bulbs were designed by the military for subs and replicate the wavelengths used by the sun.

Here’s some old but accurate info: https://migrolight.com/blogs/grow-light-news/grow-light-spectrum-explained

[removed]

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.

[removed]

Ah, so organic IS better for you!

[removed]

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).

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.

[removed]

[removed]

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.

I understand that, but I think the differences between indoor and outdoor as is, is/was still scientifically questioned.