Autos are better than photos

Beeswings

Beeswings

Well-Known Member
Jjgrow420 said:
Well hate to break it to ya but those bags don't do much of anything but take your money. You could take that money and burn it and produce more CO2 then the bags would produce.
In my house, in dead of winter 25-30% rh is the standard. Never had an issue.
Click to expand...
I've seen arguments both ways. I wish I had a co2 meter so I really knew what if anything they did. I have a cousin who is really good at growing mushrooms and he thinks I can respawn the mushrooms and re use the bag but damn if they really aren't giving me any more co2 it might not be worth the trouble.
 
Jjgrow420

Jjgrow420

Well-Known Member
Beeswings said:
I've seen arguments both ways. I wish I had a co2 meter so I really knew what if anything they did. I have a cousin who is really good at growing mushrooms and he thinks I can respawn the mushrooms and re use the bag but damn if they really aren't giving me any more co2 it might not be worth the trouble.
Click to expand...
If you want to add CO2 a burner or a tank is (are) the only way to go. Anything else is pissing in the wind
 
K

Kola_Kreator

Well-Known Member
@PURPLEB3RRYKUSH what you meant to say is that you have formed the opinion that autos are better than photos.

Autos are great if you want a run an out of season outdoor grow. And there's no doubt that the genetics are improving and you can get decent yields of quality smoke from auto seeds. But for most indoor growers photos have several major advantages over autos.

You can't clone an auto. Genetic variation in seeds means that no 2 autos are the same, so if you find one that suits what you are looking for it's gone and you'll have the same pheno again. Photos you just take a clone and you've got it for decades or longer. This also means that you can't refine the way you grow an auto to get better results from the pheno like you can with a photo. You often see autos looking very over or under fertilised especially mid to late flower. This isn't really the fault of the genetics or the grower it's just simply due to the fact that it takes a few runs to get a new pheno to feed right and if it's an auto you never get the chance to do that. Photo clones you can run it over and over until you've got it nailed.

You can't predict how long an auto will take to finish or tell an auto when to flower like you can with photos. So autos are pretty much useless for any type of perpetual set up.

By the nature of them being un-clonable this gives the breeders a lot less options for refining and stabilising the genetics. Just about everyday we see a newbie asking why his 2 autos looking completely different from each other. When you have a large genetic differentiation between seeds it's because the breeder got slack and didn't run enough generations to stabilise the cultivar. Stabilising autos becomes a lot harder because you can't clone. Photo breeders can plant 100 seeds, take 100 clones and then only breed the best phenos from the generation. Autos breeding gets to a point where it's nothing but pollen chucking, simply for the fact that you have to pollinate your female flower long before she shows you her true colours.

This post is getting a bit long winded. But before any grower forms an opinion on which one is better I would encourage them to really have a good go at both and then decide which one has the most advantages which tailor to what you want out of your grows.
 
K

Kola_Kreator

Well-Known Member
Beeswings said:
I've seen arguments both ways. I wish I had a co2 meter so I really knew what if anything they did. I have a cousin who is really good at growing mushrooms and he thinks I can respawn the mushrooms and re use the bag but damn if they really aren't giving me any more co2 it might not be worth the trouble.
Click to expand...
You can buy a cheapo CO2 metre from Amazon that will give you a pretty good idea. IMO the bags are very much a gimmick. I've never seen any legitimate proof that they work. And it wouldn't be difficult for Exhale to get their bags independently tested to prove they actually do what they are claimed to do.
 
Nizza

Nizza

Well-Known Member
in my own experience, autos gave me a very well rounded high, and photos gave me a very defined, more intense high. I would wager the autos are more of a "full spectrum" high that is enjoyable throughout the day as a habitual smoker. When trying to get really blazed though, photos are unparalleled for me
 
conor c

conor c

Well-Known Member
Beeswings said:
We like our fine bred racing horses. We don't want to breed a race horse and a donkey and cross it back so much that you can barely tell it's donkey. Lol. You know it's coming out about how bullshit the weed testing industry is? We got great photos from great photo landraces. To my knowledge, there are no great Rudy landraces unless you're trying to grow hemp seed oil fast lol. I still use autos for stuff but come on man. Roll one up and smoke on it for a bit...
Click to expand...
There are many ruderal landraces sone are day neutral ie true full on autos some also exist as semi autos those are just extremely photosensitive plants rather than proper autos so and early short flowering for the most part things like Sinai or morrocan can have semi auto traits for example
 
conor c

conor c

Well-Known Member
Personally i prefer photos but autos have there place and they definitely have came along a bit vs the early ones but ive still never smoked a auto thats been super potent decent strength yes but no day ender imo maybe oneday tho that might change id say it depends on you and your situation no plants better per say
 
conor c

conor c

Well-Known Member
Kola_Kreator said:
@PURPLEB3RRYKUSH what you meant to say is that you have formed the opinion that autos are better than photos.

Autos are great if you want a run an out of season outdoor grow. And there's no doubt that the genetics are improving and you can get decent yields of quality smoke from auto seeds. But for most indoor growers photos have several major advantages over autos.

You can't clone an auto. Genetic variation in seeds means that no 2 autos are the same, so if you find one that suits what you are looking for it's gone and you'll have the same pheno again. Photos you just take a clone and you've got it for decades or longer. This also means that you can't refine the way you grow an auto to get better results from the pheno like you can with a photo. You often see autos looking very over or under fertilised especially mid to late flower. This isn't really the fault of the genetics or the grower it's just simply due to the fact that it takes a few runs to get a new pheno to feed right and if it's an auto you never get the chance to do that. Photo clones you can run it over and over until you've got it nailed.

You can't predict how long an auto will take to finish or tell an auto when to flower like you can with photos. So autos are pretty much useless for any type of perpetual set up.

By the nature of them being un-clonable this gives the breeders a lot less options for refining and stabilising the genetics. Just about everyday we see a newbie asking why his 2 autos looking completely different from each other. When you have a large genetic differentiation between seeds it's because the breeder got slack and didn't run enough generations to stabilise the cultivar. Stabilising autos becomes a lot harder because you can't clone. Photo breeders can plant 100 seeds, take 100 clones and then only breed the best phenos from the generation. Autos breeding gets to a point where it's nothing but pollen chucking, simply for the fact that you have to pollinate your female flower long before she shows you her true colours.

This post is getting a bit long winded. But before any grower forms an opinion on which one is better I would encourage them to really have a good go at both and then decide which one has the most advantages which tailor to what you want out of your grows.
Click to expand...
Tissue culture may help with that i wonder if anyones tried it much with autos yet you would think someone somewhere will have by now tho
 
K

Kola_Kreator

Well-Known Member
conor c said:
Tissue culture may help with that i wonder if anyones tried it much with autos yet you would think someone somewhere will have by now tho
Click to expand...
Probably is being done. I didn't even think of that. Could be why there's been a big improvement in the quality of auto bud over the 5 years.
 
Blue_Focus

Blue_Focus

Well-Known Member
6BestBuddy9 said:
Looks pretty decent dude,
Both have good & bad things on them.
A lot of People say it's easy to grow an auto,
Yes true, anyone can grow one.
But not everyone can grow a good auto.
Click to expand...
I learn very quickly. So I did much research before my first grow.

For my first grow I grew a Royal Dwarf Auto from RQS and was able to squeeze out 3oz.

The grow I have going now I'm planning on Herming one of them. If it works, I'll be experimenting with the breeding from now on.

Unfortunately I can not tolerate THC anymore. So I'm more interested in making seeds and CBD oil.
 
amneziaHaze

amneziaHaze

Well-Known Member
autos good for outdoors before the rains.
you can go inside the box any time of day in flower
indoors no control of flower
not really good with HST
no cloning
fear of rootbound
still strongest auto is weaker than a photo.
you can kind of do a perpetual grow but takes really good timing.

photos outside no control
indoors full control of when to flower
can clone or reveg the same strain you like for a long time.
rootbound just slows it.
strains up to 40%thc
clones make it faster than the fastest auto
perpetual grow with clones
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top