Cannabis is believed to have originated in Central Asia, specifically in the region surrounding the Altai Mountains, which straddle the borders of modern-day China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Siberia. The evolutionary history of cannabis dates back over 28 million years, with early members of the Cannabaceae family likely existing as small, herbaceous plants in temperate climates. Cannabis shares a common ancestor with other plants in the Cannabaceae family, including Humulus (hops).

The earliest cannabis plants were probably dioecious, meaning they had separate male and female plants, a characteristic that is still present in modern cannabis species. Early cannabis species likely adapted to the varied climates and ecosystems of Central Asia, including the mountainous and arid regions. Over time, the plant evolved complex chemical defenses, including the production of cannabinoids such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). These compounds may have served multiple purposes, such as repelling herbivores, inhibiting the growth of competing plants, and protecting against ultraviolet radiation in harsh environments.

While the exact evolutionary purpose of THC remains debated, its role in the plant’s defense mechanism is widely accepted. Some researchers hypothesize that THC acts as a deterrent to herbivores, while others suggest it may inhibit the growth of competing plants by altering the soil chemistry.

The early, agriculturla distribution of cannabis is closely tied to the ancient trade routes that crisscrossed Eurasia, including the famous Silk Road. Evidence suggests that cannabis was first cultivated in China as early as 2,500 BCE. In ancient Chinese texts, references to cannabis can be found in pharmacological and medicinal contexts, where the plant was used for its seeds, fibers, and psychoactive properties.

By 1000 BCE, cannabis cultivation had reached India, where it became intertwined with religious and medicinal practices. In Hinduism, cannabis was regarded as a sacred plant and used in rituals and offerings to the gods. Cannabis was also integrated into traditional Ayurvedic medicine, where it was used to treat a variety of ailments, ranging from pain and nausea to insomnia and digestive issues. The psychoactive effects of cannabis were well known in India, where it was consumed in various forms, such as bhang (a drink made from cannabis leaves and milk).

The spread of cannabis across Asia continued through trade routes into the Middle East and North Africa. By the time of the ancient Persians (circa 500 BCE), cannabis was used for medical, recreational, and industrial purposes. In ancient Greece and Rome, cannabis gained recognition as a medicinal plant, with Greek physicians such as Dioscorides documenting its use to alleviate pain, inflammation, and other conditions.

Modern day commercial cannabis is almost entirely propagated from genetic clones through the process of taking cuttings. Growers search through seeds for individual phenotypes, then choose a healthy, robust plant that has desirable traits (potency, terpene profiles, growth characteristics etc). This plant will serve as the "mother" from which cuttings will be taken. This is the process that cultivators use to find unique and proprietary genetics which can become their signature offerings.

However, when a single mother plant is cloned again and again over multiple generations, significant changes can occur to the original genetic expression of the plant. The fascinating part is that changes in expression can occur in both directions, for the worse, or for the better. The main mechanisms for clones degrading in quality are genetic drift and accumulation of malignant viroids, such as Hops Latent Viroid (HLVd.) On the other hand, increases in quality to a cutting over time is mainly due to epigenetic changes.

Epigenetics refers to the expression of the genes, not the genetic makeup. Epigenetics looks at how various environmental factors and queues can influence which genes are turned on or off, and to what extent. ~98% of the human genome is inactive, the factors influencing which genes get turned on/off are highly influential in the observable phenotype. For instance, environmental stressors such as nutrient availability, temperature fluctuations, and light intensity/spectrum can induce epigenetic changes that optimize plant growth and resilience. As specific cuttings are cloned and grown under consistent conditions, they may adapt to those environments, potentially enhancing, or degrading their overall quality. This phenomenon has become particularly relevant as recent technological changes have offered growers different options for lighting intensity/spectrum.

For decades, legacy cannabis cultivators had 2 lighting options, Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium fixtures. Over time, some legacy cuts became epigenetically adapted to these specific light spectrums. No indoor cultivators would have noticed this had the LED lighting revolution not occurred over the past decade. While LED fixtures have a ton of benefits for cultivation, their spectrums are significantly different from these legacy fixtures. This has become a problem when cuts hunted or preserved under HPS fixtures are suddenly placed in a high intensity LED environment, and simply do not come out the same as they used to. 

Some anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon that we've heard (and verified ourselves via bro science) is that genetic lines like Sour and some true long flowering sativas struggle under modern LED fixtures. We've personally noticed this in that we simply can't find a phenotype of Sour that we think is good enough to produce commercially in our LED room. We've had mixed results with long flowering sativas but have found that many hazes and some equatorial lines actually really like our light spectrum under the Fohse A3i lights. As LEDs become more prevalent in indoor environments, we imagine that new lines will epigenetically adapt to these new light spectrums and will grow better under LEDs than any other lighting type. 

While this explains how cuts and strains can improve over time, the more common occurrence is that cuts can degrade over time via the accumulation of viroids or genetic drift. The most talked about viroid in Cannabis these days is HLVd, which has quickly spread through much of the Cannabis in America and has quickly destroyed entire lines. HLVd is spread through mom rooms via poor sanitation practices or insect pressure and can travel undetected until environmental conditions permit it to rear its ugly head. Certain genetics have proven resistive to the viroid while some have proven particularly susceptible. There are also many other viroids that affect Cannabis that are poorly studied/understood that can cause dudding. Other malignant viroids may be less conspicuous while slowly chipping away at a strains' cannabinoid expression. This is a possible explanation for the anecdotal “This sour isn't the same as I used to get in NY 15 years ago” that we all hear. 

There are possible ways to clean up cuts. We've heard everything from putting a tired mom outside into natural soil and letting sunlight and proper soil science do the work, to removing all but one growth point on a plant and letting it “outrace” the viroids that are stored in the older tissue in the plant. Much of this is anecdotal, but for the upside of saving a classic genetic, it's probably worth trying. 

What does all this mean for growers? It really seems to be strain/grower dependent. I've heard from one grower that his haze cut he’s been growing for 10 years keeps getting better run after run, while his original cookies cut kept declining until he was forced to stop growing it. It really is up to growers to look at themselves in the mirror and notice that one of their favorites isn't coming out the way that it used to. Or on the other hand, through herculean efforts to maintain a clean and sanitary nursery, our current roster may keep improving. It also means that we need to keep popping seeds and keep looking for the next classic. I personally like to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. 

The commercialization of cannabis production has come with significant changes in the genetic landscape of the plant, as the need for consistency, yield, and bag appeal have become the most important selective factors for large scale production. This has led to the genetic bottlenecking of modern strains; as a few key parents with desired commercial qualities have become embedded in most new breeding work. Seemingly the most widespread and pervasive strain in this bottle neck over the past decade has been Girl Scout Cookies.

Girl Scout Cookies (Probably OG Kush x F1 Durbs, but exact lineage unknown) originated in California in 2010. It blew up for its potency and smoke. Even though it often exhibited hermaphroditic traits, yielded poorly, and was notoriously tricky to grow, it exploded across the West Coast scene and quickly started being used in breeding projects. Over the next decade many of the most popular strains we know today were created with GSC, including Gelato, GMO, Sherb, Runtz, etc. These strains, including GSC, are all famous and widespread for a reason.

While these strains have created a rich tapestry of hybrids, the reliance on such a narrow genetic base can lead to predictable and homogenized effects. The genetic bottleneck in cannabis has notable implications on effects. While the popular strains are known for their potency and appealing profiles, the limited genetic diversity restricts the potential for novel effects and therapeutic benefits. With fewer genetic variations, the ability to tailor strains to specific medical conditions or recreational preferences becomes more challenging. Many consumers are increasingly seeking unique experiences or specific medicinal effects that may not be adequately addressed by the current dominant strains. The narrowing of genetic diversity can result in a one-size-fits-all approach to cannabis, where the nuances of individual experiences are overlooked. As breeders focus on popular strains, the market may overlook the value of lesser-known, genetically diverse strains that could provide alternative benefits.

To counteract the effects of genetic bottlenecks, there is a growing need for breeders and cultivators to explore and develop a wider range of genetic materials. Primarily, this entails reintroducing heirloom and Landrace strains. Incorporating traditional, locally adapted strains can help restore genetic diversity and may lead to new hybrids with more unique profiles. As cultivators, taking it upon ourselves to explore the near limitless genetic diversity of the plant is not only enjoyable and exciting, but critical to making sure patients have access to the wide variety of experiences and medicinal effects that cannabis can bring.

We see a lot of mislabeling and confusion, here’s how we like to think about it

The two main spectrums are solventless vs solvent, and live vs cured. Since we can have live and cured solventless and solvent extracts, plus post processing variations there’s a lot of possibilities. Definitions below:

Cured - Starting material is dried trim or flower

Live - Starting material is fresh frozen, non-dried flower

Solventless - Extraction is done mechanically, using ice water or dry agitation

Solvent - Extraction is done with a medium that dissolves resin. The dissolved resin is then retrieved by flashing off the solvent

Products

Solventless

Dry Sift - Hash extracted via agitation method from cured material, typically lower purity than ice water method, “kif” in Morocco

Cured Bubble Hash - Dried, unpressed, unheated hash extracted via ice water method from cured material

Live Bubble Hash - Dried, unpressed, unheated hash extracted via ice water method from live material

Live Melt - Lightly pressed, unheated hash extracted via ice water method from live material that is often aged and of high purity. Sometimes referred to as “full melt” if leaves no residue

Rosin - Made by pressing solventless hash through a screen with heat and pressure. Can be live or cured

Hashish - Pressed solventless hash, sometimes with heat. Traditionally made with Kif, nowadays bubble can be used. When rolled into a sphere, called a Temple Ball

Cold Cure - Post process for rosin where product is sealed in a jar after pressing at room temperature (or fridge) for few days up to a few weeks. Product is then stirred/reincorporated to achieve ideally a gooey, soft consistency

Jam - Post process for rosin where product is heated to varying degrees, tangibly altering texture and flavor

Solvents

Hydrocarbons - Class of solvents including Butane, Propane, Ethanol, Pentane among others. Hydrocarbons are preferred for full spectrum solvent extracts due to higher solubility of terpenes and cannabinoids beyond THC

CO2 - CO2 is pressurized to a supercritical state where it acts as a liquid and a gas and dissolves resin. CO2 is well suited for distillate extraction

Distillate - 90%+ THC product extracted via hydrocarbon or CO2. Refined and decarbed, commonly used in edibles and beverages

BHO - Butane hash oil. Most common solvent in Maine for non distillate, solvent extracts

Cured Resin - Made from cured material. Can achieve a variety of consistencies

Live Resin - Made from live material. Typically higher terpene content than cured resin

Badder - A homogenized typically cured resin. Floating terpene layer is reincorporated into mixture resulting in an emulsified, soft product

Sauce - A lower viscosity, pourable, terpene rich portion of an extract typically separated from a live or cured resin

Diamonds - Crystallized THCA that “crashes out” of a live or cured resin. This process can be catalyzed in post processing. Once diamonds are separated, it leaves behind a terpene rich product which is often added back as sauce, hence “diamonds and sauce”

Sugar - A typically cured resin with a low sauce ratio, dryer/caviar type consistency

Crumble - Sugar-like but drier cured resin. Sauce may have been removed

Shatter - Cured resin that is thinly spread and heated

PPHE - “Post Press Hydrocarbon Extraction” is made from a byproduct of rosin processing. When pressing hash under heat and pressure through a nylon bag to make rosin, some hash does not liquify (10%-40% remains batch-depending). These nylon bags filled with remnant hash are then extracted with a hydrocarbon solvent to make a cured resin-like extract. There is no industry standard term for this product, but we will use this term moving forward

A few reasons, but the big one is regulation. Some might argue time/history, but we see better weed in ME than in the original legal markets like CA and CO. Maine legalized for medical possession/usage in 1999. Legal growers operated servicing a maximum of 5 patients until 2018, when the law was overhauled, setting the stage for the market we see today. The overhaul allowed for:

1. Patients from other states with valid medical marijuana cards to purchase cannabis in ME

2. Caregivers could now hire employees to assist with cultivation

3. The number of allowed patients per caregiver was increased, and caregivers were allowed to operate retail storefronts

Other crucial regulatory elements catalyzing ME med quality are

1. Lack of mandatory testing - batch specific testing gets expensive. Mandatory batch testing minimizes innovation, disincentivizing growers from testing a new cut, planting seeds, or trying something new in the garden. Furthermore, batch remediation techniques render the original test obsolete, while introducing novel health concerns

2. No track and trace - track and trace software has been proven to not work, as seen by corporate growers in other states gaming the system, shuffling material wherever they need it to be

3. 5.5% retail sales tax - MA averages 20%

4. Ease of licensing - ~$1500 and anyone can get in the game

The regulatory comparison above also applies to Maine medical vs adult-use, which sees elevated tax rates, mandatory testing, higher barrier to entry, and track and trace. This is not to say there’s no good weed in adult use or other states, it’s just harder to find

The irony in creating strict regulation to control markets is it tends to create an opposite effect, where a limited number of players in a less competitive market don’t need to achieve the quality that their consumers want, resulting in:

1. Consumers finding better and/or cheaper weed elsewhere

2. Contaminated batches passing testing via remediation/irradiation, masking natural/pesticide contaminants and posing novel public health risks

3. Track and trace systems being manipulated by operators

4. Quality and competition decreasing

A classic debate among growers and patients, we’ll do our best to lay down some context.

Until the early 1900’s fertilizers were almost exclusively organic, the primary sources being manure and cover crops like legumes that fix Nitrogen from the air. These fertilizers were a major limiter for food production, exacerbated by the allocation of manure to European governments for gunpowder production. In the mid 1800’s Europeans began importing Phosphorous rich guano deposits at seabird nesting sites in islands off of Peru (still in use today). In 1913 the Haber-Bosch process revolutionized fertilizer forever, enabling chemists to fixate Nitrogen and Hydrogen from the air and convert it into ammonia, a major fertilizer input. This was one of the most significant innovations in human history, catalyzing the global population boom of the 20th century (along with dwarf wheat genetics). Current estimates are that 50% of the Nitrogen atoms in human bodies are derived from this process. Other sources of salt based fertilizers such as rock phosphate and potash are mined and refined.

Modern fertilizers are called “salts” because they are water soluble and break into ions once dissolved in water. The fertilizer solution is up-taken and metabolized by plants, converting simple free floating ions into complex organic compounds in the plant tissue. Organic fertilization is not so simple. Often water insoluble, the slow degradation of organic fertilizers in soils results in a more complex story, supplying plants with varied, less concentrated nutrient sources. Additionally, organic fertilizers and composts are rich in microbes, many of which enter symbiotic relationships with plants and their root zones. A well amended, organic soil can produce plants of equal, if not greater vigor than a salts feed in sterile media.

Organic can mean many things, from process to packaging in many agricultural fields. In Maine cannabis, there are 3 main pools. Living soil, synganix, and salts.

Living soil growers employ some of the following practices; grow in raised beds instead of pots, don’t change the media from cycle to cycle, use organic fertilizers (either solid soil amendments or water soluble), and encourage microbial activity via inoculation. However most indoor living “soil” growers are not growing in traditionally defined “soil.” Natural topsoil is typically a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and hummus (broken down organic matter.) This product takes millennia to produce and is hard to procure. Most indoor living soil cannabis growers prefer an inert media with good moisture retention such as peat moss (mined from Canadian bogs) and supplemented with slow release organically derived nutrients and microbial inoculants. Traditionally defined “living soil” occurs outdoors in the ground.

Salts growers use sterile grow media (rockwool, coco perlite, peat etc), feed with inorganic nutrients, discard grow media every cycle, and may or may not sterilize the soil with anti microbial products like zero tol 2.0.

Synganix is a fusion of the two, typically using inert growing media with a blend of inorganic and organic fertilizers, use microbial inoculants, and don’t sterilize the soil with sanitizers.

The question remains, which is best? Many astute smokers say the best weed in the state is grown in living soil, and we don’t necessarily disagree. A complicating factor in this assessment is that the living soil guys are typically small batch, with talented grower/owners spending a lot of time with their plants. Salts growers are typically larger, with less focus/plant. The anecdotal consensus seems to be that top shelf living soil weed smells and smokes better, while salts weed looks better, tests higher, smokes OK, and lacks diversity. This consensus is believable. Soil biology is a highly diverse web of microbes, media and insects interacting in the root zone, the specifics of which modern science can’t keep up with. All we really know is there is A LOT going on.

We have found great weed grown in Maine from all types of growers.

What do you think?

Media: Coco, rockwool, soil, peat

Indoor cultivators have a variety of media to choose from, we’re going to walk through the major ones.

Rockwool

Rockwool is a fibrous material made by melting and spinning rocks into fiber. It is favored in hyper-commercial settings to its extreme sterility, ease of use, and low cost. Rockwool allows for highly accurate moisture sensing, letting growers “optimize” thier soil moisture and EC levels. Rockwool lends tself towards crop steering methodology, typically with salt fertilizers.

Coco coir

Coco coir is derived from the fibrous husks of coconuts, and is ground/chipped into substrate. It is often cut with perlite (an exploded, porous volcanic rock, making “coco perlite”) to increase aeration and tilth. Coco has little to no intrinsic nutritional benefits, allowing for near complete fertilization control. It has pretty low moisture retention, allowing for good moisture sensing and dryback optimization. Coco is notorious for stripping calcium (and other elements) from the soil solution, sometimes resulting in nutrient lockout in plants when unmanaged.

Peat

Peat is a substrate sourced from Canadian bogs that is formed by anoxic degredation of organic matter in wetlands over thousands of years. Peat has higher moisture retention than coco and rockwool, and is typically cut with perlite. Peat mixes allow for minimal crop steering possibilities, while still being a sterile, hydroponic, soilless media.

Soil

This is a harder one. Natural topsoil can consist of a wide range of various clays, minerals, loam, sand, and organic matter. Microbial, fungal, and insect activity is central to a soil’s interaction with plant life. By definition “living”, bringing this system inside can only be done in a limited and controlled fashion. The term “living soil” when used by growers is most true outside, in beds or in the ground, where locally occurring substrates are utilized. Indoor living soil growers typically use blends of peat (typically not loam) while greatly encouraging microbial and mycological activity. Living soil growers typically don’t remove rootballs and sometimes plant cover crops, creating a more dynamic and natural root zone as compared to the methods mentioned above.

Haze is the first hybrid strain of weed. It was developed by brothers in Santa Cruz in the late 60’s from a variety of equatorial landraces. In the late 70’s/early 80’s Neville Shchoenmakers acquired haze seeds from a friend in NY and took them to Amsterdam to begin a breeding project which eventually became the first seed bank in the world. Of the progeny, 2 distinct lines emerged: Haze A & Haze C. Haze A is responsible for the terp profile we now refer to as “piff” - metallic, liver, ammonia, basement, etc. Haze C is responsible for the terps we refer to as “Jack” - terpinolene dominant with lemon, citrus, spice and pine sol cleaner.

These 2 clones were crossed to NL5, resulting in the clone only A5 and C5 hazes. C5 haze has since been lost, but A5 haze is still closely held by a tight knit crew. NL5/haze seeds were then released through his seedbank, and because those crosses had swept competitions in Amsterdam, they got hunted all over the world. In America resulting keepers from those seeds ended up being dubbed “piff” and “puday” on the east coast. In Amsterdam, these lines were worked into what became Jack Herer, Super Silver Haze, and Super Lemon Haze. Today there’s been a renaissance in interest from enthusiasts seeking those unique terps and soaring highs, resulting in incredible modern hybrids

Hashish is the original concentrate. Predominantly made via agitation or dry sifting, dried flower and/or whole plants are shaken to remove trichomes. Sometimes resin is harvested from live plants. These trichomes are then lightly pressurized and/or heated to create a consolidated mass. The pressure and heat aid in creating a less perishable product, but also partially decarboxylate the THCa.

Like olive oil, where the first cold press is the highest purity and quality, the first agitation is the most prized. Hashish came in many grades, and in many styles. Historically, hashish production had a lot in common with wine production, in that villages (like vineyards) would have the following differentiators

• Genetics. Gene pools traditionally varied from valley to valley. Most hash fields would not host identical plants (like a modern row crop), but would vary from plant to plant. The resulting hash would be an “average” of the field. Seeds would be generationally passed down, or naturally sewn into the field. Additionally, in some parts of central Asia, cannabis grows feral or wild, hybridizing with itself and neighboring fields, contributing constant diversity to any nearby population

• Climate. In some parts of Afghanistan plants are chopped and dried in the field. When the first snow falls on the field and plants, hash making begins

• Practices. Like how a master winemaker decides when to harvest, how long to ferment, and what wood to use for barrels, generational knowledge and finesse is at play in creating village specific hashish

Unfortunately these traditional hashish making regions never had the opportunity to codify and protect their genetics and production practices.

Less than they used to. Classically, the differences are as follows

Indica

• native to mountainous regions of central Asia

• plants are shorter, broad leaf and flower quickly

• traditionally hash varieties (higher resin density)

• sedative effects

Sativa

• native to equatorial regions (south Asia and middle east)

• plants are taller, narrow leaf and take longer to flower

• effects are uplifting

In the 60’s and 70’s when people were smoking landrace cannabis products (Moroccan/Afghani hashish or Thai stick) the differences above were profound. As cannabis became hybridized, and breeders bred landrace varieties from across the globe with each other, the differences diminished. Nowadays, we are so many plant generations away from landrace that these two gene pools have lost most of their meaning and identity.

We see indica and sativa nowadays mostly being used to describe effects (daytime vs nighttime). There is nothing wrong with this, as most patients (ourselves included) decide what to smoke mostly based on effects. And while not taxonomically accurate (in most cases), almost all strains can be coarsely classified into 1 of 3 effect types: daytime, nighttime, or middle of the road (sativa, indica, or hybrid).

he 4 most common concentrate types used are

• Distillate

• Cured Resin (BHO)

• Live Resin (BHO)

• Live Rosin

510 thread is an industry standard connection type for carts and batteries. Any cart labeled “510 thread” requires a compatible battery to be smoked. Any cart labeled “disposable” or “all in one” requires no third party hardware to be smoked

Decarboxylation is the process of converting non-pyschoactive THCA into psychoactive THC by heating. Most concentrates are “decarbed” before cart filling to ensure the effects are completely felt when vaporized. Additionally, decarbing decreases the viscosity of concentrates, liquifying them and enabling them to flow into the cart.

The gentle heating used during decarbing (~190-230F) can effect other aspects of a concentrate, like terpene content. While most terpenes present in cannabis have boiling points above 300F, some have boiling points as low 200F

For live rosin and live resin, .5gs are preferred for the following reasons:

1) Rosin carts have a higher tendency to clog, particularly at the end. Less material = lower failure rate

2) The high terpene contents of rosin and live resin degrade easily. The longer the lifetime of the cart, the more degradation occurs. While the heating element is technically separated from the bulk of the oil, there is some heat transfer (hardware depending).

3) Flavor can diminish and/or hits can taste burnt towards the end of a cart (hardware depending). For higher quality concentrates where flavor is more valued, this can be unacceptable

These factors are more relevant for rosin than they are for live resin.

.5g carts usually come at a higher price/g of concentrate because the fixed costs of hardware and filling are the same for both sizes

Higher voltage makes for a more robust, higher temperature vaporization and a larger plume. Lower voltages are often preferred for higher end carts, preserving flavor, but with a diminished plume

We run Rooted Leaf nutrients, the following is an excerpt from the company explaining their approach to fertilization:

What comes to mind when you think of “plant nutrition” and “fertilizers”? For most people, the first thoughts are something along the lines of “NPK, CalMag, and micronutrients” – but the irony is that these elements collectively make up less than 10% of the composition of most plants. Whether they know it or not, all farmers strive to sink as much carbon into their plants as they can.

In this article, we will look at how carbon plays a key role in determining yield and quality, and how it has been largely overlooked in conventional and mainstream agricultural fertility programs. A good place to start is with some basic biochemistry and common practices, so that we can better understand the concept of carbon as a macronutrient.

All aspects of plant nutrition and fertility revolve around carbon. Carbon is anything and everything to a plant – the zest of orange peels, the hue of lavender buds, the sweetness of licorice roots, the fiber in artichoke hearts  – if it is something that a plant makes, then it is going to have carbon in it… and yes, this includes terpenes, phenolics, and other pharmacologically active compounds.

Most of the pharmacologically active compounds produced by plants, such as terpenes, can be up to 90% carbon by weight. Being that they are predominantly carbon, it is the availability of carbon that is often times a limiting factor for the production of more of these compounds.

There is no NPK in a molecule of CBD. If you want more CBD, you need more carbon. If you do not supplement carbon through the roots, it has to be supplemented in the air, which is not the most efficient way of loading carbon into a plant, despite it being the most common method used in controlled environments and for high-value crops.

CO2 injection in sealed rooms results in increased growth, yield, and quality because the added carbon load provides the plants with additional building blocks, and acts as a buffer against stressors. As the carbon load goes up, so too does a plants ability to tolerate higher light intensity and fertilizer levels, and this is why commercial growers who add carbon in the form of CO2 can push their plants harder and grow them in more demanding environments.

Ironically, all of the usual elements that come to mind when we think of “plant fertilizer” – NPK, CalMag, etc. – are actually just tools that plants use to capture more carbon from the environment. For example, most of the nitrogen you put on your plants is going to end up being a constituent of either an enzyme called Rubisco or the well-known pigment that gives plants their green color – chlorophyll. Rubisco is one of the most abundant enzymes on earth, and it only has one job: to capture carbon out of the air. Chlorophyll is not far behind Rubisco in terms of abundancy on this planet, and it too plays a key role in capturing carbon.

Here again, you can see the simple mechanics of our carbon-based approach: most of the nitrogen you apply to your plants will ultimately be used to capture, store, and utilize more carbon. The same thing is true with phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, silicon, and even water. Pretty much everything a plant does revolves around carbon. It is required in significantly larger amounts than any other individual element, easily four times more than the combination of all of the elements which are collectively thought of as macro and micronutrients.