Talk:Cannabis cultivation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Does the article include any reference to or description of cultivation for non-drug purposes? Laurel Bush 10:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC).

New topic, we need more images. Preferably not from the DEA— sort of growroom snuff photography, if you think about it. =(

Things that come to mind,

• better sex-identification photos
• better cloning photos, showing when, where and how to clip
• vertical and horizontal reflectors

-SM 13:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is almost entirely about cultivation for drug purposes (despite nods in other directions in the opening paragraphs). Most of the content should be at

11:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

Don't bother. Should the seminal article on Cannabis (industrial) cultivation appear, it would be better called Hemp cultivation. Since there isn't one anyway, let's leave well enough alone.

Thanks. Very helpful. Laurel Bush 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

You know, I see a lot of very good cultivation information in

Avriette

09:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, industrial hemp cultivation is a different endevor, and should have a separate article. What is not to like in having a first-rate marijuana-focused article. It is not bias, it is focus. -SM 19:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is already long enough; I think that adding in hemp cultivation details would make it unnecessarily large. Having a focus is good - if someone is interested in hemp cultivation there is no reason they should be looking through cultivation for consumption. The same is true for the reverse situation. I'd say the articles should stay the way they are. Triddle 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, what's wrong with moving this to "Marijuana cultivation" and having a Cannabis cultivation page that "disambiguates" the varied desired results. Surely, the cultivation for hemp is different than for the production of oil, or silk. Additionally, this article has many mentions of other types of cultivation. It would prune the size of the article to remove all the verbiage pertaining to other motivations for cultivation. And before you question my bias, please look at my edit history on this article.

Avriette

21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The debate about whether articles should be titled marijuana or cannabis has been going on for a while; I'll try my best to sum it up. The argument goes that Marijuana is a strictly American term (and is considered derogatory by some). The preferred term seems to be cannabis. The title is not that important to me but I think if this article is moved to

Marijuana cultivation that it'll just wind up back here again. Triddle

21:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wikibooks?

Since this article (and the entire cannabis resources category thing at the bottom) are more of how-tos than encyclopedia articles, I think they should be moved to wikibooks. What do you think? 67.160.30.127

I disagree. The topic itself merits an article here. The how-to nature of it is of concern, but is a byproduct of our expert contributors sharing their knowledge, but not grasping the finer points of encyclopedic tone. The current pattern of growers contributing, then editors redacting is useful and appropriate. Consigning this to Wikibooks would require a redacted version in its place (the topic itself merits an article here), which would swell again into a how-to. -SM 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. In addition to the howto stuff in the article (which, while not exactly encyclopedic, does cast useful information into the article), there is a lot of other information about botany and general growing. For example, while the article explains that mylar or white latex paint is necessary in getting high yields, it also explains why it is necessary. Because the article contains so much information in this fashion, I think the only way to "fix" it would be to make each subcomponent a brief mention with a {{main|foo}} link from it. That would make it very difficult to read, requiring the user to hop all over the encyclopedia to get the entire meaning. I don't have a problem with an expanded version being placed in wikibooks (hey, nothing is stopping you, be bold). However, this article is a very useful article for an encyclopedia. That having been siad, I'm 100% open as well to a peer review or a featured-article review process for this article, to get the tone more in line with what people feel is appropriate here. I am not really able to do it myself as I think I'm a bit too attached to it, and lack objective perspective.

Avriette

21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well, however I have started a wikibook entitled "Growing Medicinal and Recreational Cannabis" because I was already working on a how-to for this particular subject; I used a bunch of it for the wikipedia article (mostly lighting and atmosphere), but it is already too long for an encyclopedia article, and I am far from finished. Much of the extraneous detail from the lighting and atmosphere sections,as well as a few others, are contained in the wikibook. I think that the indoor section is too long for an encyclopedia, and if an editor were to condense at least that section, the article would be more accesible to the average reader. Also, I don't know how to link to the wikibook, so if someone else could do that, that would be sweet. -BEDN

Just add {{Template:Pro-cannabis user}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, your user page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians.

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For those who wish to make a simpler statement, I use the second one. HighInBC

The sentence

When cultivated outdoors, the chosen areas are those which receive twelve hours or more of sunlight in a given day.

is puzzling: there is no place on this planet where more than twelve hours of sunlight can be expected on a random day, which is what I understand by "given". If it means "on at least some days of the year" (which makes plenty of sense, given that high latitudes are preferred) the sentence should be rephrased. —Tamfang 17:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, half the planet receives more than twelve hours a day at any given moment. StrangerInParadise 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And does that contradict anything I said? —Tamfang 01:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If a plant is cultivated outdoors (and it is not very near the equator) than it needs to undergo vegetative phase of growth during the summer in order to flower properly. This is not because the summer months have more than 12 hours of sunlight, so does autumn in many places. Plants cultivated outdoors do not require 12 hours of uninterrupted darkness. If they did, plants grown in northern climates would freeze before they could finish flowering (and the moon would screw them up). Among the factors that contribute to flowering outdoors are: longer nights (though not necessarily 12 hours), different light spectrum, different angle of the sun, lower average temperatures, and a greater day/night temperature difference. Incidentally, nobody actually knows exactly how reproduction is induced in Cannabis when grown outdoors. But to get back to my point, perhaps you should just say that the plant is grown in the summer and harvested in the fall to simplify things.

there is no link to any message board for people to discuss cannabis cultivation, would a link to, http://cannabishq.com/forum/index.php?action=collapse;c=2;sa=collapse;#2 be ok? Chq 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

well i haven't gotten any responses so i'll post it at the bottom of the list of external links if its not ok i will remove it Chq 02:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I revised the HID lighting section to be more technically accurate. I also removed the following statement from the discussion of HPS lighiting "and simulate a more autumn-like light spectrum"

This is often repeated, but false. The spectrum of natural sunlight does vary somewhat throughout the year, and this is more noticeable at higher latitutes then in the tropics. This occurs because the atmosphere selectively filters light, and absorbs more blue then red. Thus light that passes a longer distance through the atmosphere will appear more red than light that passes a shorter distance through the atmosphere. This can be observed every day: sunlight is more red at sunrise and sunset then at mid-day. On a seasonal basis, the angle above the horizon is closest to 90 degrees at the equinoxes, and farther from 90 degrees at the solstices. Most cannabis cultivars are short-day plants that initiate flowering in late summer, when natural sunlight is at it's most blue. After the equinox, sunlight becomes progressively less blue (and appears more red), becoming most red at the winter solstice, well after most cannabis has been harvested in the temperate regions.

The actual reason why HPS lighting enhances growth rates (at any stage) is that, for a given wattage, MH emits predomininantly blue light having fewer, more energetic photons; whereas HPS produces predominantly red light having more, less energetic photons. The quantum yield of photosynthesis is the same regardless of the "color" of the photon, so HPS emitting more photons stimulates more photosynthesis.

23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  I need to say, that last sentence contains patently false information. The quantum yield is very different dependent upon the wavelength of light absorbed. There are two graphs which are very commonly known to biologists, one depcting the photosynthetic absorption spectrum of various plant pigments (such as

beta carotene, and other pigments found primarily in algae) and another depicting the photosynthetic action spectrum of a specific plant, which depicts the plant's ability to efficiently use various wavelengths of light. An example can be found on [this page

] on the Maricopa Community College's website (the first result I found with google), about 40% down the page. So the quantum yield of photosynthesis is NOT the same regardless of the color of the photon, it actually depends very heavily upon the color (wavelength) of the photon. This is one of the reasons that plants do not grow well under purely green light for instance, because the quantum yield of a green photon is very little. Consider for a moment that the predominant pigment in most plants is chlorophyll A or B, a pigment which we see as green because it mostly reflects green light (up to 90%).

  The actual reason why HPS lighting enhances growth rates is that, for a given wattage, they are both: more electrically efficient than other lamps, producing more watts of light per input watts of electricity; and they are more photosynthetically efficient, with more of the emitted light being in the red-orange area of the spectrum which chlorophylls (both A and B) are more sensitive to. Furthermore, HPS lamps produce light into the far red, stimulating phytochrome, which itself is a pigment that mediates the flowering response of some plants. HPS lamps have been studied as producing up to 39% efficiency according to [this report] created by a scientist at Iwasaki (a major Japanese manufacturer of HPS lamps) in order to specifically investigate the quantum yields of various lamp technologies for the purposes of growing plants. (see [this table] as well, containing efficiency numbers)

--Jared81 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Jared81. Unfortunately, none of your external links worked for me. Tazawa part 2 can be found at http://ss.jircas.affrc.go.jp/kankoubutsu/jarq/33-3/tazawa2/tazawa2.htm. The site TOC lists part 1, but it is not accessible.

I did not mean to imply that the action spectrum of photosynthesis can be represented as a flat line, but rather that any photon that is absorbed by the light-harvesting complex has the same net effect, regardless of wavelength. This is confirmed at the leaf level by the work of Katsumi INADA (1976), "Action spectra for photosynthesis in higher plants." Plant and Cell Physiology, 17(2), 355-365, in which it was reported that nearly identical action spectra and quantum yeild curves were obtained for 33 species of plants in response to varied spectra in the range 344–758 nm. The main difference noted was that plants that absorb a lot of green have less photosynthetic action in the UV and blue portion of the spectrum, and plants that absorb less green have more action in the UV and blue. For two lamps having the same radiant flux (in watts), one emitting mostly blue light and the other emitting mostly red light, the one producing more red light emits more total photons (produces higher photosynthetic photon flux density), and is therefore more efficient in terms of plant growth.

It should be noted that the spectral distribution of HPS light is mostly in the green-yellow portion of the spectrum rather than in the red, even for lamps marketed for horticultural applications. It is not necessarily true that HPS has higher radiant efficiency than MH (as shown in multiple tables in Tazawa part 2), and it is true that the highest PAR efficiencies currently available are MH (Hortilux Blue and SunMaster). However, increased radiant or even PAR efficiency does not necessarily translate to increased photosynthesis because quantum yield is actually a function of PPFD, not PAR watts, as explained in the previous paragraph. This is consistent with Tazawa's Plant Growth Radiant Efficiency (PGRE) ratings. The results of Ed Rosenthal that were recently alluded to in this article (without a citation) do not support the conclusion that HPS is always more efficient than MH, and in fact such a conclusion is explicitly contradicted by Tazawa's results. One limitation to Tazawa's PGRE ratings is that lamps are classified by CCT, which does not directly correspond to spectral power distribution.

Chondrite

20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The person that wrote this article must have spent many hours of labor and love doing so, it should be left well alone as it's proficient in what it is trying to convey and rarely 'muddles the picture', so what if it deals with more than one 'topic', they're all interwoven and (it)provides quick and easy access to those that wish to delve further. To split this article or merge it with others would significantly distract from the main theme(s) —The preceding

)

I agree that it should be merged. It makes sense for them to be in the same article, considering how closely related the subjects are. If the article grows beyond a reasonable size it could be split off again though. Harley peters 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. HighInBC 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

why no pics of a fully grown plant?

This article could even be deleted... 66.246.72.108

Thaks for the tip, we are probably going to keep it unless you have some sort of... reason for deleting it. HighInBC 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to dry it out (no pun intended-no, really) so it's a bit more...encyclopediac. I will not change any content without a consensus here first. Resonanteye

Ok. Finished my first easy scan-through and what I see is: an exhaustive list of lighting, watering, and pruning techniques which are ireelevant to an encyclopedia entry on this plant and its cultivation. This could be pared down to a few paragraphs explaining and listing, rather than reviewing and criticizing and joking about various methods.

This style applies to almost every subject in the article. I dislike paring anything too heavily for content, but this actually may demand it. Does some green thumbed genius want to maybe make a whole new page about what lights are good, what fertilizers, etc, for indoor cultivation techniques?

I don't want toi really remove content but I am going to make a fat shift in things and try to organize a bit more neatly, so that it reads less how-to and more "this is what"

If anything seems to extreme or wrong, or loses necessary content, by all means revert or fix it.

Lots of POV and original research in this one too. But that is someone else's problem. Hope it helps Resonanteye 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This page is about the cultivation of cannabis, not light biulbs and fans and what they are called and how they work, I think. So I did a major edit. If it's too much, fix or revert it and let me know. I got to the outdoor section and had to quit, technical issues. Resonanteye

I'm back for another run at it. Once again,I'll "watch" for changes, but if you have any feedback on how I'm editing please leave me a note on my usertalk page. Resonanteye

I got all the way from "outdoor" to "mother plants" before I had to go do something else. It's almost like reading about chocolate. Except it's written like a how-to. I hope my edits are helping. This article needs a ton more sources cited, though, and I can't do that... Resonanteye 08:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I am not proposing to move this article, I think it is coming along fine the way it is.

However there is a vast quantity of information being posted here, much of which is getting trimmed away in order to be an appropriate size for wikipedia. But on wikibooks this information could be compiled into a much more complete "how-to" sort of book. But is this possible?

I noticed from this talk page that it was attempted before in the wikibook "Growing Medicinal and Recreational Cannabis". I am not sure on wikibook policy for a topic like this (I've looked, havn't found). The information itself is not illegal, however actually carrying out the instructions in the book would be illegal, in the US at least. What is wikibooks policy on this sort of thing? (I dont know my way around over there, which is why I am asking here). The article I mentioned was speedily deleted as can be seen here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion/Archive_8#Growing_Medicinal_and_Recreational_Cannabis

It should be noted that it was deleted by a single user who simply stated "this is not material similar to that used in textbooks in accredited learning institutions". Which I rather doubt is official wikibook policy, as there are few accredited learning institutions which teach Lucid Dreaming, Overcoming Procrastination, Character creation ans Shaving. This user went against the community consensus, which was neutral and in favour of merging it with another book (pointing out that it was well written in textbook style).

So, to summarize: Would a how-to on growing cannibis be against wikibooks guidlines, or are there any other reasons why it could not be done?

Would anyone else be interested in this? I've barely looked at wikibooks before this issue, so I do not know how things are done there. But if someone (or me if I had to) were to create such a book, I would certainly be willing to add to it, move information from wikipedia and other sources, and in general attempt to make it as formal as possible. Would others help?

Just to be clear on this, I know this was attempted before, and deleted. I disagree with this, as the deletetion was due to a single user acting against community consensus. I think it should be revisited unless it is explicitly against standing wikibooks policy.

Comments? Harley peters 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikibooks, but if they don't want it, I have a wiki you can use. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have obtained permission for two images,

22:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the pictures. The flower is the quintessence of what cannabis cultivation "looks like", so I'll weigh in on that. This flower is quite good in that spot (thanks again for restoring it). I found the young flower even more compelling. -SM 13:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for a younger flower, and I too, find it more compelling for the article. However, people are not always so interested in taking pictures of the young flowers, and I don't cultivate. :)

Avriette

21:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How young do you need them? I cuold provide photos from seedling to 2 months young (without flowering). Freecannabis

I can provied pictures of plants at any age other than seedlings as i clone. Just tell me what you want. I also havent figured out how to post pictures, i'll work on that tonight. Harris77 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis has NOT been "decriminalised" in the

. The penelties were recently reduced (reclassification to Class C) and SOME regional police forces have adopted a policy of not prosecuting those found with small amounts for personal use but this falls well short of "decriminalisation". In the ) 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Is this Plant Bianual?

I came to Wikipedia because I wanted to know if Cannabis is a One year, two year or more plant or if it has to be fertilized to create offspring for the next year as it dies. I dont know my self and It would be nice to know. 11:30 GMT+2 Feb 12 2007

—The preceding

) 10:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Cannabis is an Annual plant. It completes its life cycle within a one year period. When grown outdoors, cannabis plants generally complete their life cycle between spring and fall.

_{--Big.thompson 12:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)}

Under normal conditions, it is annual, but can be kept as a perennial if suitable conditions are maintained year round and is not allowed to flower. Alternatively, if the plant is kept in the vegetable state, it will never flower and continuously grow, unless it happens to be C. sativa subsp. sativa var. spontanea (ruderalis) or has the hybrid gene.

_{--MunkyJuce69 3:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)}

Indoor cultivating section is more of sub info than a topic on its own. It would be too spercific to move it aswell.

I support one very large article concerning Growing Cannabis. I do not see the need to split up each topic into small stub articles then make readers bounce around over 10's of pages to get all the info. Lets just keep it all on one kick ass page Harris77 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

god, smoke more weed man. you are so uptight :p :) :) :y 68.190.191.115 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't medicine be included as a purpose in the intro paragraph? "Cannabis is grown for a variety of purposes, including as a source of materials for use in various products, such as food, clothing, cosmetics and fuel and for the production of cannabis drug materials." --

) 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to go ahead and make the edit then. --

) 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The term grow-op was new to me so I looked it up on Wikipedia. It actually redirects to this article but nowhere is the term mentioned. I'd like it if the article told me about some terms like these, how old they are, how established, whether they are slang or not, which countries they're used in. I've never heard it in Australia but came across it in the context of a novel by a Canadian author. — Hippietrail (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's likely to be North American slang. It's short for GROWing OPeration. Any cannabis garden--particularly indoor gardens-- can be referred to as a grow-op. -ANON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.154.145 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

there are at least 2 references made to yields as grams/watts. the watt is a unit of power, not a quantity of energy.isn't a more appropriate parameter grams/watt-hours, or even kilowatt-hours if the reader is to relate this factor to economics?Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The existence of three different articles (Cannabis (drug) cultivation, Indoor Cannabis cultivation and Outdoor Cannabis cultivation) seems confusing to me since much of the information is relevant to each article, but is not presented in each.

For example, the topic of Process is specific right now only to the "Outdoor" article, but processing applies equally to indoor cultivation. Should Indoor and Outdoor be combined or should processing be a separate article?

Also, topics covered in the "Indoor" article (Germination, Seedling Phase of Growth, Vegetative Phase of Growth, Reproductive/Flowering Phase of Growth) are equally relevant to growing outdoors, but are not mentioned in the "Outdoor" article.

Another item to note is that in the "Indoor" article, the topic of "seedling phase of growth" is covered, but not the phase of growth of clones. Clones are covered in this article (Cannabis (drug) cultivation).

What would be the appropriate action(s) to take to have the information be presented in an all encompassing manner? My thought is that all information should be merged and edited into one article titled Cannabis Cultivation.

I see from other discussion notes that some feel separate articles are necessary. If that is a majority opinion, my 2nd thought is to pull out information that exists in just one or two articles, but is relevant to all, making them separate articles (examples: Cannabis Cultivation: Phases of growth; Cannabis Cultivation: Harvesting, Drying and Curing; Cannabis Cultivation: Detection and the law; etc.).

If a decision can be achieved, I would volunteer to take a first crack at combining the information or breaking it down even farther into more articles. I would only ask for some direction and proof readers. Thanks for considering! _{--Big.thompson 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)}

deleted by --Big.thompson 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)_{Subscript text}

My personal opinion is that there should be 1 large article encompassing everything involving the production of cannabis Buds aka marijuana.

I believe the only other article could be growing for Help fiber production, as it is very very different.

This is because there are lots of different growing methods Indoor, outdoor, LST, FIM, SOG, ScreenOG… Why would we have different articles when these are just different perspectives on the same thing… producing buds.

As well 90% of growing is about the plant not the technique. I think the page should have a lot of general knowledge on cannabis then small sections outlining the specific info on, for example, Outdoor growing. There are some differences but not many

PS—I would also like the title of this article changed so that Cannabis is not referred to as a “Drug”. It’s just negative diction, cant we just say Sinsemilla cannabis production Or Just something more non-partisan. As calling it a ‘drug” automatically classes it with Cocaine, heroine LST E and so on (I’ll think on this)

I don’t have time right now, but ill help you organize the cannabis section if our goal is to reduce the amount of pages. I’ll check things out Harris77 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

After some thought I think that we should have 3 pages:

Cannabis- For medical use

Cannabis (marijuana)- for the “drug”

Cannabis (hemp)- for the fiber

These are IMO the three proper distinctions. But should we divide up cultivation into these three sections? I believe no and that only two (marijuana and hemp) are necessary. As well, most people care about marijuana cultivation not hemp (hemp'll probaly be a stub)

Do you think we should clean up this discussion page so that it is more productive?Harris77 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your thoughts. Should we first proceed by merging

?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 

Move to indoor plant cultivation

I suggest to move the article to indoor plant cultivation. This will allow the article to include other techniques (not commenly used with cannabis) eg hydroponics and wall painting (in white) to be included and allow the article to be used with other articles (eg indoor food production systems). Some new techniques/crop growing systems can be seen at this site

Cheers; 87.64.202.72 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a thoroughly bad idea. All plants are different and it is false to imagine that the very specific information on this page would have general applicability. Perhaps there should be a page on "Indoor plant cultivation" but this is not that page. It should be retitled "Indoor cannabis cultivation" - call a spade a spade! RandomTool2 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an article discussing (almost exclusively) indoor cultivation of cannabis, is a redirect from "Indoor Cannabis Cultivation", anjd yet is titled "Indoor Plant Cultivation", I agree that it should be titled appropriately, or completely rewritten with all information pertaining to cannabis cultivation removed. Athos23 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Cannabis (drug) cultivation

There is a discussion on the talk page of

) 14:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal (from

Alternative Cannabis cultivation

)

I believe this article should be merged in

Cannabis (drug) cultivation

.

If no opposition is expressed, I will proceed to the merger in 7 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant to have (drug) in the page title, "Cannabis (drug) Cultivation", since it is grown for food, medicine, and recreation. It is ambiguous to have the word "drug" there.

I purpose taking that word out. Any objections? --

) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It should remain. The title is used to distinguish this article, which is about cultivation of cannabis for use as a

psychoactive, from the hemp article, which covers cultivation of cannabis for industrial uses.--Metalhead94 (talk

) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe a more appropriate and compact title would be

Marijuana cultivation. Really, the word "drug" doesn't sound ok. Besides, marijuana by definition is a drug used for medical or recreational purposes or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs

) 14:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Move

You need consensus to move the article to marijuana cultivation and you do not have consensus to do so, we call this plant cannabis not the US term marijuana. Thanks,

talk

16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Cultivation of cannabis" or simply "Cannabis cultivation" more appropriate? Doesn't make a difference to me, just trying to prevent further moves in the future. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already a disambiguation page at

Cannabis (drug) cultivation for now and then discuss proposed renames? —Whig (talk

) 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize having multiple locations for discussion can be confusing, but WikiProject Cannabis contributors are welcome to discuss the issue here and also comment on the merge of several articles to this one. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I propose.

) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC) On second thought, ) 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am quite happy to see it moved back to cannabis cultivation and didn't because the disamb page was there. Thanks,

talk

23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How would medical and illicit cultivation differ? I would think the article should focus on how cannabis is cultivated (indoor vs. outdoor vs. alternative methods, lighting, soil, fertilizers, etc.), not why or for what purpose. Information about medical cannabis should go on the Medical cannabis article, while Legality of cannabis can be used for legal issues. For me, 'Cannabis cultivation' seems most appropriate for this article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay how do we move it back? :) —Whig (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When it is moved to Cannabis cultivation, a link at the top to Hemp might be appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

talk

23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried moving it myself, but can't do to title already being used. Should a request be made here? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You cant move it because of the dab page and the link yougave is correct. Thanks,

talk

03:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested db-move on the dab page, so as soon as that is gone we should be able to move this. —Whig (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

← Done and moved. Please check any redirects. – B.hotep •talk• 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Whig, and thanks to Bubba Hotep as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy page linked states that WP is not supposed to be a "how to" guide. Currently a lot of this article does seem to be just that. We should try and concentrate on how it can be grown rather than listing explicitly how to grow it. If people are interested in growing it I am sure there are other sources on the internet that will be better. I won't start to remove anything yet but would welcome comments/suggestions regarding this. Herbal Hi (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just realised that this has been discussed at least twice before above - I think it is time to be bold and do something about it. This deserves an article but a lot of the content would be better in wikibooks and we can then link to that from this article. Herbal Hi (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the article should be at least three separate articles:

• Cannabis (drug) cultivation
• Cannabis (fibre) cultivation
• Cannabis (seed) cultivation

Cultivation regimes depend very much on the purpose for which the pant is being grown. Laurel Bush 15:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

I disagree. While the article is of a fair size, splitting it into catagories is not the answer. I agree growing cannabis is quite complex, but how exactly does that warrant a split in our article here, could we not simply improve it further as one? What I would suggest is having more imagery in the first half of the article, perhaps moving the grouped images up somewhat. Relating images to specific areas would help, Ie. Seed picture next to germination, flowering marijuana plant next to the flowering section, et al.

If however, you feel as if the cultivation is not adaquately explained then please by all means suggest any ideas for improvement we could implement to the content. Bear in mind though that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is possible to be simply too in depth for many readers. One could quite easily lose encyclopedic tone, quality and reader-appeal by overcomplicating certain sections. This is another reason not to split in what is already a broadly based and in my view an all emcompassing article. The article still needs much work, but fragmenting it is not the answer. -- D-Katana 19:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the bud/seed split is a dubious idea, in part because the subject involves a set of techniques which do not cleanly divide. As to an article on the agriculture of industrial hemp, perhaps there is a need, but that would not affect this article. -SM 17:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the forum should be split between growing industrial cannabis and recreational/medicinal cannabis. Industrial should cover hemp and hempseed, while recreational/medicinal cannabis should cover marijuana. The process of growing hemp (non-psychoactive cannabis) and growing marijuana (psychoactive cannabis) are almost completely different from one anonther. Hemp is a monoecious agricultural crop grown in large fields of high to moderate plant density, and is bred for fiber or oil content. Marijuana is a dioecious horticultural crop grown extremely carefully in small outdoor plots or indoor gardens, and is bred for taste, aroma, and psychoactive content. -anon 11/5/05

---

I am going to help rework the entire Cannabis cultivation section and reduce it to as few pages as possible, possibly:

Cannabis Cultivation (marijuana)

Cannabis Cultivation (Fiber or Hemp)

Cannabis Cultivation (For Medicine [maybe subsection under marijuana])

Cannabis Cultivation (for seed)

and then, Have a General information on the Cannabis plant. Essentially the biology of the plant, it's cycles.

I know little about the production for Seed, is it really that different. My understanding is that it is rather easy, We’ll create a stub and see if someone can fill it in.

As well, I believe marijuana and medicine are separate because not only the buds are used medicinally.

What I believe is most important is that Hemp and Marijuana are separate. And that ANY growing technique for growing buds should fall under Marijuana cultivation and be on one page. I do not believe growing outdoors is different enough to warrant a separate page Harris77 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that. I asume you cultivate cannabis indoors under HID lighting to know the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokinrav (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the article at

17:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Sinsemilla is just a simple decision: killing or removing every male and/or hermaphrodite. Freecannabis

It means 'No seeds', it is a state of being, not a decision. HighInBC 13:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Freecannabis means that the grower has the choice of allowing fertilization to occur. I believe the majority of growers/cultivators don't ask for a vote from the plants before separating them. I could, however, be wrong. 214.15.217.212 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

this article is just a guide to growing illegal drugs. it has no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree. Its not a how-to-do-it article, which would be unacceptable. It deals with the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Wikipedia neither supports nor opposes cannabis cultivation or use, it presents the arguments of both sides. Feel free to edit to make the article better,

SqueakBox

00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So why does does cannabis deserve a page on its cultivation and not all the millions of other species that exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple really, there is a demand for the article. The fact that cultivating cannabis is illegal does not change that. Dan Bower 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that cannabis cultivation in not illegal worldwide, nor throughout the U.S. Several U.S. states have enacted medical marijuana laws, making it legal for licensed users and/or growers to cultivate enough for their own or their patients' use. Eleven even (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The original author of this article (me) had a huge jihad with squeakbox about that very subject. He's certainly more motivated to keep that text out than I was to keep it in. Note this is a shared IP; not everyone editing from "here" is me. 206.230.62.2 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

see: here, here, and others if you feel like digging. The battle's all yours. 206.230.62.2 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Colorado. The use and growing of cannabis for medical purposes in Colorado (with some restrictions) is authorized and protected by the state constitution. This is also true for a number of other states. (Federal law differs, of course, but as a practical matter, state law has been allowed to prevail in many cases.) Should Colorado residents be deprived of valid information just because a practice that is legal here is illegal elsewhere? I say no. Richard Myers (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The article hints at, but does not specifically address, the impact of legal status upon methods of cultivation. There are a number of aspects of this issue that might be gathered into a new section.

Even partial legalization of cannabis (i.e., for medical purposes) can have a direct impact on cultivation. For example, the Colorado state constitution legalizes growing six plants for those with a medical approval, with the further restriction that only three may be flowering at one time. These limits are, however, subject to flexible interpretation for medical reasons. But even such flexible interpretation simply increases the limits, for example, to twelve plants, or eighteen, or (in very rare cases) fifty. Licensees without doctor approval for higher numbers are presumably restricted to 3 (growing) and 3 (flowering).

Thus, legal prohibitions and limits may influence growing methods, strain selection, and cultivation techniques. This would be a good area for expansion, in my view. Richard Myers (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A relevant link: Legality of cannabis. Richard Myers (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

MZLAUREL (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)== LED Lighting == wrongly says in the text that relatively inexpensive arrays are available. I have a gut feeling that there is a large amount of hype in manufacturers' claims (even more than with the 125 and 200 watt fluorescents that are now available) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.152.14 (talk • contribs) 11:03, December 4, 2006

I saw an unsourced statement regarding LEDs, I have put a citation needed on it. I don't see any references to price, can you quote the text? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Recent advancements in LEDs have allowed for the production of relatively cheap, bright and long lasting grow lights that emit only the colors of light required for plant growth. These lights are attractive to indoor-growers since they do not consume as much power, do not require ballasts, and produce a fraction of the heat of HID lamps.The lamps consist of arrays of many wide-spectrum red and a few narrow-spectrum blue LEDs of specific wavelengths."

"Although LED grow lights have shown promise through plant research by NASA and many universities, it is unknown whether the results are applicable to Cannabis cultivation."

Further to my previous comment, I don't think the NASA comment justifies the previous text - which may well have been placed there by someone with commercial motivation. The "heat" reference is patently counter to the laws of physics (captain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.18.123 (talk • contribs) 19:13, December 5, 2006

Currently there are experiments by growers using LED lights, i will update the page once they are done their grows. Harris77 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I have added a Citation needed tag to it, I will check back in a while. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to gut a large section of the LED lighting. It is obvious that light manufacturers, or someone with another conflict of interest is adding in false and misleading in this section. A number of LED grow journals have been done using the highest output LED lights on the market. The lights have performed poorly relative to HPS. http://forum.grasscity.com/advanced-grow-journals/541285-rumples-2nd-led-challenge.html <-- thats a link to a grow journal by a respected grower who did some testing for one of the LED manufacturers. In DWC, SCROG, with over 1500PPMs of CO2 the light was barely at half a gram per watt. Florescents do better. Don't believe the hype from guys looking to scam growers, LED isn't ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a legal grower, using LED light, and SCROG technique. I am having fantastic results. LED gives my plants everything they need, to the point that I use minimal fertilizer. My opinion is that, the fertilizer companies do not want LED to catch on. The price of the UFO unit that I use, has dropped precipitously. (From about $600 to about $180 for a quality unit.) I use SCROG and FIM (to increase nodes) to increase my harvest. My LED lights make virtually no heat. I have photo documented seedlings, run parallel under florescent light, and LED. I also have photo documentation of a plant flowered under LED, with a florescent bulb that ran through it. (I was converting to SCROG at the time.) The T-5 bulb shaded part of the plant from LED, and that part did poorly. Where the LED, next door, illuminated the bottom of the plant, the blooms became large again. I ran several pairs of plants at different stages of maturity. I included poor clones, buds taken lated and reverted. It is phenomenal how well the LED plants did compared to T-5. MZLAUREL (MZLAUREL (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

T-5 is a poor choice for flowering cannabis. Results should be compared to a decent High Pressure Sodium system. Meaning a decent air cooled reflector with a nice bulb in it. That $180 UFO is probably only 90watts. A 400 watt HPS will give you about 10X the yield of the UFO and cost maybe twice as much new, same price if you find a used system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a friend who used HPS, swithched to T-5, then back to HPS. He is currently changing over to LED. He grows for 2 others. I grow some of his clones, and I am sitting in front of my LED "Bubba", and his HPS "Bubba". Mine is more dense, and it is definately more potent. His bud is filled with fertilizer, from his hyro setup. It makes me cough terribly. My bud is entirely organic. Only organic. It is smooth, and I don't get Bronchitis from it. I get about the same amount of bud that he achieves. I have almost no waste, using SCROG, with much smaller plants. My turnover time beats his by 4-6 weeks. I use almost NO FERTILIZER. I use 90 watts to create as much light as a 400 watt HPS. The lights make nominal heat. The electicity is not wasted, like HPS, on a spectrum of light, that the plants don't "see". If you have no experience with LED lights, I don't see how you can have an opinion of their efficacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MZLAUREL (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to heat, LED, and physics... The LED light arrays make almost no heat. It doesn't matter if that confuses you, or doesn't make immediate sense. The FACT is, they make almost no heat. The Fact is, the LED does so well with my garden, I have purchased four UFO's. I would not put money into any other light. I also do not use CO2. My friend does, and once again, we get almost the same weight in bud... Mine is just MUCH better quality, and higher potency. My belief is, that people have put money and time into other light sources. They are threatened and put off by "new technology". I think it is a "The world is flat" kinda thing. I have no vested interest in promoting LED. I am sharing my experience, and experiments with the world. MZLAUREL (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If the above poster has a link to a documented grow which demonstrates his claims, it would be easier to take him seriously. The simple fact remains that every serious LED test has shown that HPS still pulls more weight per watt. Coupled with the fact that LED is many times as expensive per watt, it means that in order to achieve the same results with LED as with HPS you need more watts of something that is way more expensive per watt. The cost is simply exorbitant. The above poster says they have 4 of what I assume would be 90 watt LED lights, which range from $150 to $200. Four of them would probably cost at least $600. Where as HID lighting systems are so common that you can purchase a brand new 1000 watt HPS system for under 400 dollars. Or find one of many used ones for sale for about half that. Given the same grower using the same growing methods a 1KW HPS will yield (@1.0 grams per watt, an accepted benchmark of an accomplished grower) up to 32 ounces every 60 days. The tests for LED have shown an average 60 day gram per watt of between <.3 and .7, which would mean even using the most ideal numbers with documented grows to back them up (https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/22739-450w-led-doing-the-flower-thing/page__p__281277#entry281277 this is .6 grams per watt using SOG techniques by an experienced grower), $600 worth of LED will get you enough wattage to yield up to about 9 ounces. Just because one grower is not able to get more than 9 ounces from a 1KW HPS does not mean that LED is superior. It means that grower can not get the potential out of their grow light. Most growers don't break half a gram per watt even when using HPS. But most growers are terrible and would do worse with LED. There is not 1 LED grow journal out there that demonstrates a comparable yield per $ invested, not one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a 400 watt HPS yielding 16 ounces from one plant http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=12653 if the above poster with the 90 watt LED light is able to out perform a 400 watt HPS I would hope he can post a link to a grow journal documenting a yield in excess of 16 ounces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edited out a bunch of baloney with a source linking to an article with no data to back up its assertions about LED lights. All testing still indicates a max of around 2/3 gram per watt with LED which remains well below HPS.

I thought all (green) plants make their own food from sunlight, water and CO2 to make sugar and oxygen. This article mistakes nutrients as food and that's not true. Nutrients supplement food but themselves are not food for the plant. Correct me if i'm wrong.

) 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All plants need nutrients to grow. It is not enough with light, water and carbon dioxide.--Dehugs (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The biomass that the plant creates takes nutrients as well as water and Co2 to form. For example, Magnesium is a central atom of every chlorophyll molecule. For the plant to make more chlorophyll it will need to have magnesium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.22.248 (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that many of the links used as references in the text use the name marijuana, but if not required by the context of the article I emplore you editors to use the real name cannabis.

Reason for this is that marijuana is not the name of the plant, it's just a word that sprung into literature around the 50's when the campaign against this plant was at its strongest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.88.150.18 (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

indeed marijuana did not seem to appear in literature until starting around the 1930s http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=marijuana%2C+cannabis%2C+hemp&year_start=1890&year_end=1980&corpus=0&smoothing=3 I think it was most often called Hemp prior to that, though cannabis has now become popular, and I suppose the plant name is technically Cannabis Sativa var. Sativa/Indica/Afghanica/Ruderalis

The NIMBY/no-dump method mentioned in the article cannot be found anywhere else. How about deleting the mention or expanding its definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.148.90 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be speculating, but I think NIMBY-NoDump refers to systems that don't require you to dump garbage outside at all. Not-in-my-back-yard no-dump. Perhaps it just refers to garbage accumulated from growing mediums, and not things like nutrient containers, or maybe a true NIMBY recycles that too? I really don't know, but that's what it sounds like to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.106.16 (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has a massive size. I propose spliting out two articles: Cannabis indoor cultivation and Cannabis outdoor cultivation keeping both sections here as a short descriptive section and a template {{Main|location}} linking them with them. --Francisco Valverde 09:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fran, they're different subjects. Freecannabis

This article is quite long. The readable prose is currently about 60K and according to Wikipedia article size guidelines it should be split. Some suggestions about how to do that:

• This article has a Botany section that also discusses classification. These are better discussed in the genus or species articles, with summaries in this article that highlight details particular to drug cultivation.

• The article contains much detailed information about indoor cultivation. Information presented in sections 2.1 and 2.2 is not really specific to the indoor cultivation of Cannabis. Most of section 2 is applicable to Indoor gardening of any number of crops, or in some cases may be considered as a form of Closed-environment agriculture. Wikipedia is missing articles on both of those important subjects. I suggest that sections 2.1 and 2.2 be spun off as a new Indoor gardening article. Then the indoor gardening section of this article just needs to link to new article and explain any specific ways in which Cannabis differes from other plants in an indoor garden. See also orphan article at Growroom.

• There's already a detailed article at Hashish, so section 4.4 could be reduced to just summarizing a few relevant points from that article.

• Current
  Detection and the law
  section would spin off pretty cleanly with a much smaller summary section in this article.

• There are already articles at Cloning and Vegetative reproduction that cover general aspects of cloning. So again, this section could summarize the main article, provide a link, and then explain any special considerations of Vegetative reproduction that apply to Cannabis.

• There are already Hydroponics and Organic farming articles. Providing just links to the existing article on these subjects and explaining any particular ways in which Cannabis cultivation differs from cultivation of other plants in these methods would save several paragraphs.

--

Chondrite

07:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm being bold! I'm splitting them up into Outdoor/Indoor/Alternative Cannabis cultivation. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If Splitting the Article surely it should be split by Cultivation (indoor & outdoor) & Breeding , to include vegetative cultivation (cloning) and , keeping of 'mother plants, and other breeding techniques? Théo de b (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please clean this section up? It sounds like it was written by a 4th grader (67.243.164.243 (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC))

Please remember that sources must be

) 10:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Should the section "Harvesting, Drying, and Curing" have its own article; what working title should it have?

This article does not also need drying, harvesting, and curing the plant as it has nothing to do with its cultivation. "Cultivation" is specifically the growing process and what is done during it, as well as the behaviors (both inherent and learned) that the plant(s) exhibit. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't how you do an RFC. And it does reinforce the idea that several people keep trying multiple times to bypass previous consensus to recreate a separate article titled "marijuana" that covers the dried flowers, even though the sources say that it is synonymous with "cannabis" and not just used for what goes in a baggie. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  You seem to be very intent on keeping this article out, I wonder why. People actually mentioned that it would have to do with information on this page, which can be confirmed. The RfC was edited to be a bit more NPOV-friendly as well. Are you suggesting that the RfC be moved from Cannabis (drug) to here? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე}}

  • • Again, this isn't a properly setup RFC, which takes a few more steps. I'm not trying to prevent the information from being provided, and I'm certainly not "anti-cannabis", but it has to be in the right place according to policy. Starting multiple RFCs is a problem and is disruptive. I'm not suggesting the RFC be moved, but you can point to that discussion on this page, using a neutral statement. I did the same at WT:WikiProject Medicine since it is on a drug article, if you want an example. If you are seriously curious about my rationale, you can always ask on my talk page, or ping me on yours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please tell me how to edit this into a proper RfC. What on earth is it missing? I've done all 4 steps listed on the RfC page... მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 08:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • • It isn't transcluded for starters, but more importantly, starting a similar RFC when is ongoing and not going your way on another page looks very
        WP:TE. That is why I used the phrase "shaking the magic 8 ball". It is taking another bite of the apple, not sure which analogy works for you. To continuously try new methods after the community has voted down your ideas is still disruptive. The more constructive approach is to use simple discussion, on the other page, and build in the material you want, even if it isn't on the page you want. You might get some results that way. If you instead just beat the drum and try to find new people to agree with you to ignore 3 other RFCs, that is more likely to get you dragged to ANI and blocked, it just isn't cooperative, it is combative. Plenty of people want the information expanded, it is best to work with them on the things you agree on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
        11:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So you're telling me I should say something along the lines of "This is a mirror discussion from

Marijuana," correct? Also, plenty of people have indicated that more information should be given on the dried aspect of the Cannabis plant, I'm not sure if you said that or not. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I would mirror any discussion, just point them to it. I think they get the idea by now. As for new information, I've consistently said I'm for more info. What I'm not for is naming a new article against policy and against sources. That is all. Even if it was created, it would die at AFD because it violated naming conventions. This is why I've consistently been against it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I challenge you to find me any sources that indicate that calling the dried up form for smoking is anything but "marijuana", provided it is not called by the official, long name ("Dried Cannabis", etc.)—which would violate

WP:COMMONNAME. You will find that pretty much everywhere using the term "marijuana" is a reference to the dried, smokable form. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე

18:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of other names besides "marijuana" (see

WP:BIAS as you aren't thinking globally here....) but that isn't the problem. The problem is that there are hundreds of sources that call the plant as a whole "marijuana". The term doesn't just apply to the stuff in the bag. I've already explained this on the other RFC. The name isn't exclusive, so it would be improper, as going to see the article on the plant would lead you to information on the final product. This is why it is redirected, the word has multiple meanings, all of them slang, which is why policy says you make it a redirect and use the proper terms. Again, I've explained this multiple times, you just won't accept it. It is a policy based issue. Even if created, it would die at AFD for the same reasons. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

19:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Then the new page's title is very simple: Dried Cannabis. That's neutral, as Cannabis is the Latin term and of course "dried" is universal in English. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 19:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense than calling it marijuana, and in the lede you would have "sometimes just called marijuana". But seriously, what you need to do is start a section under Cannabis (drug), then expand it there, then spin it off. You could have a discussion on the talk page after it is ready to spin off (an RFC probably wouldn't be needed, just a week at talk, but either is fine). You could also throw out the title and see if someone has a better idea, or if everything thinks that is the best title. Hey, lots of people here are smarter than me, I like getting their input. This is exactly the normal process for forking an article without controversy. We do it this way all the time, once it is large enough to support it's own article, but not before or you risk it going to AFD and getting merged back in. The key is doing it well rather than fast, and doing it with others rather than alone. If you want success, I promise you that this is the path that is most likely to get your there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't contain any information about them, I think that it should at least be mentioned as its a viable alternative to other light sources. --Vicpro (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Absolutely, .. Especially as they are now available at up to 800w . whereas in previous years the linit it wattage made them only useful for 'dark spots' they are now a viable low energy, low heat, grow solution.Théo de b (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

They are not a "low energy" solution as they are not as efficient as other solutions. CDM-T would qualify as "low energy solution" (but it's not mentioned at all). --80.187.112.48 (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I and other autoflower growers feel that it is very important that autoflowering cannabis stay a separate Wiki article and not be merged with cannabis cultivation. we are collecting relevant unbiased information together from various sources (including autoflower.net) to expand on the article. most cannabis cultivators have never heard of the brand seeds that are collectively known as autoflowers and they really are altogether different from Cannabis indica, sativa or even ruderalis. They are true cross Cannabis species hybrids that have many growth parameters that are very different from the classical photoperiod dependent cannabis strain. Thank you for keeping them separate, we look forward to adding much more Wiki quality content.

Chrisgedwards (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Autoflowering cannabis / C. Ruderalis is a sub type of Cannabis Sativa (Source: Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany, Clarke & Merlin, University of California Press) --80.187.112.48 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714193412/http://www.abc27.com/story/13273107/marijuana-found-growing-in-trees-in-york-county to http://www.abc27.com/story/13273107/marijuana-found-growing-in-trees-in-york-county

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

:Online 12:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Tons of copyright violations:https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Cannabis_cultivation&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1

I plan on trying to go through and fix everything a little at a time, and remove unnecessary info. This article is a mess right now but it's got the potential to be a solid article!

--

) 05:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

) 17:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I recall hearing quite some time ago that it is desirable to provide indoor plants with some proxy for wind and rain via fans and artificial vibration. This was said to prevent the plants from growing too "leggy", that is, to assume a more bushy growth form. Is this 1) true and 2) worth including in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 05:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to have a major overemphasis on drug variety cultivation, essentially ignoring the cultivation techniques required for industrial seed and fiber varieties or even for field maintenance. Reading this article wanting to know about industrial cultivation was rather a disappointment. Sire TRM (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)