Amnesia Haze ??

[OGEvilgenius]

This statement is false, and genetically retarded, to boot.

Because individual genetic traits assort independently, we should expect NO correlation between a plants' height and its potency.

Are you aware that industrial hemp plants are all sativas, typically 20+ feet high, and contain virtually ZERO active cannabinoids?

Yes, a tall plant may have inherited its HEIGHT genes from its sativa ancestors; that doesn't mean it will have inherited the same CANNABINOID genes.

Furthermore, the "best" high is HIGHLY subjective.

Many medical users are NOT INTERESTED in psychoactive effect (ie getting "high") and lots of people don't like racy/trippy sativa highs. Plenty of people PREFER indica-type "stone" effect, or a blended effect, though I guess if that's really what you are after, you probably wouldn't be growing Amnesia Haze.

Many traits are codependent.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

One more "fact" for you "Hazey".

"Haze" is a hybrid plant.

Yeah, but it's a hybrid of landrace sativas. Columbian, Mexican, Thai and one other which I am not sure.

It is a polyhybrid though and really unstable.

 

[Jogro]

Many traits are codependent.

Sure, certain seperate traits (genes) CAN be codependent, particularly if their physical location on the plant chromosomes is close together.

But we shouldn't assume this holds true in a setting where lines have been put under artificial selection to separate traits.

For example, in the relevant specific case where breeders have been for years deliberately trying to create indica-structure plants with sativa-like cannabinoid profiles, you shouldn't assume that plant structure and cannabinoid ratios are linked in the same way they might be in landrace strains.

Height, in particular, is not only largely environmentally dependent, but genetically its controlled by more than one gene locus.

Again, without even getting into the can of worms as to what a "sativa dominant" plant is, its simply a mistake to assume that the one taller plant from a pack will have a different "high" quality than other same-generation siblings from that pack. Its *possible* that its true, but its probably not, and it would be the height of foolishness to try and do selections for high quality based on plant height!

Yeah, but it's [haze] a hybrid of landrace sativas. Columbian, Mexican, Thai and one other which I am not sure.

It is a polyhybrid though and really unstable.

I know the story of haze, thanks.

In terms of specific lineage, I don't think anyone knows exactly what's in there or in what proportions, since the story goes that the Haze brothers that made it supposedly just kept hybridizing in their best plants from a wide variety of sources over many years. Most accounts have Columbian and Thai in there. There is very likely some Mexican, there may (or may not) be some Jamaican, etc. Some even think there may be South Indian (ie indica!). Complicating this, the haze brothers sold the stuff for many years, and the line changed from year to year, meaning that even the true "haze" is probably more than one different thing. Meanwhile, there are any number of lines called "haze" that probably don't linearly trace back to the Haze brothers work.

Anyway, almost all of the popular medical strains today are technically "polyhybrids", if by that term you mean plants that can trace their lineages back to multiple different landraces from different geographic locations.

Tthe reason I brought up this bit about hybrids is because "Hazey" (aka lazy) grapes was going on about how hybrid plants are no good:

Hazey, when anyone knows strains that get you high also knows hybrids just don't compare to the real deal

Don't think so. Again, the original "haze" is a hybrid, and I don't know anyone whose familiar with it who would claim its not the "real deal", at least in terms of high quality.

Its not a question of hybrid vs non-hybrid, its a question of WHAT has been hybridized, and how has the selection been done.

Also, in terms of "pure" landrace sativas, while the best of those (ie Columbian Santa Marta, Panama Red, etc) are probably as good as anything, many of them are actually fairly 'meh'.
Not EVERY Mexican, Cambodian, African, etc, sativa is going to be super-awesome in potency, flavor, or even effect.

 

[canna_420]

you can get indian sativas.
~Kerela used in white widow






And we all know crazey grapes knowladge of cannabis is small or copied from others. So even if he does post something good, we should not credit him untill he shows us how he come to his conclusion (not buy reading Dj-Subcool-Shantibaba online posts). I do understand not wanting to put full logs of grows online mind.. But when Crazey grapes says. " Itested xxx or I grew XXX and I smoked XXX he is chatting shit, as if he grew it then cool its burnt out scagg)

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I don't disagree that there is no way to say definitively that height and high type are definitively linked (probably aren't). But I also think it's not unfair to say if you have a plant that stretches like crazy it's probably sativa dominant and it's probably going to have a high profile closer to landrace sativas than short and squat plants.

I know hazey is easy to criticize but sometimes I think people jump all over him a bit quick. I don't think you would find many people disagree with his basic assertion that if you have a really stretchy plant there's a strong chance it's a very sativa dominant (and everything else that comes with it). His absolutism on the subject of course is foolish (many have suggested NLxHaze is one of the best crosses ever for Haze lovers for example and I suspect he'd never grow it out), but I just wanted to add a little clarity because if you read Jogro's posts you might get the impression there is no connection whatsoever between plant structure and high profile. It simply isn't entirely true. As we progress and continue to breed, it will become more true. 30 years ago, it was almost absolutely untrue (as it was mostly landrace IBL's with genetics acclimated to specific regions). And Hazey's assertion might have some actual genetic truth to it as well (we don't actually know for certain).

It's not a worthless piece of knowledge.

 

[canna_420]

Thing is though its not Crazey grapes thoughts or ideas. He nicked it from DJ-Sub.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Right, and I don't think either of those guys are total idiots (I know some people hate Sub, but I kind of understand his philosophy - as lazy as it may be, biggest criticism might be too many similar crosses IMO anyway...).

 

[canna_420]

Right, and I don't think either of those guys are total idiots (I know some people hate Sub, but I kind of understand his philosophy - as lazy as it may be, biggest criticism might be too many similar crosses IMO anyway...).

He aint the only breeder at TGA though.
Chernobyl is a fav but very unstable. Great to grow from seed and if you find a stable mum boom your set.

If you can find some of Overgrow.coms history (Many have it). DJ ad hundreds of posts. Also ad grows of his Thia hybrids to. Looked older than me some of the pics.

 

[ddimebag]

Thing is though its not Crazey grapes thoughts or ideas. He nicked it from DJ-Sub.

What is your point? Almost everyone who knows anything about cannabis MUST have learned it from someone...only a very small handful of people around the world have actually learned to grow on their own, with out reading info online or in books...I would be willing to bet that you also "nicked" other people's ideas and thoughts on cannabis.

Just because Hazey reads a lot and then presents it as absolute fact, doesn't mean that he is ALWAYS wrong. I've read a lot of his posts, and while I haven't seen any of his grows, he does seem knowledgeable about cannabis (more so than many other people on this site who get flamed much less).

In my experience, height is often (but not exclusively) linked to sativa dominance (and a sativa high). People like simple answers, but simple answers are usually inaccurate, or just plain wrong, especially when it comes to genetics. Whenever you read something online that links genetics to particular phenotypes, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[althor]

Two things.

1. Like I said earlier, grow out a 10 pack of any haze (lets say sativa) and then out of those 10 plants height isnt going to be the deciding factor on what has the best buzz. It is possible, but it is also possible the shortest has the best buzz also. So to base the buzz on height is completely silly. I have grown multiple sativas in a batch, the same as many of you have. The tallest wasnt necessarily the best. So that is just a reach.

2. He isnt even comprehending what he is quoting. They arent basing that on height. They are basing it on not being the most dominant male to pass traits that you do not want.

 

[althor]

What is your point? Almost everyone who knows anything about cannabis MUST have learned it from someone...only a very small handful of people around the world have actually learned to grow on their own, with out reading info online or in books...I would be willing to bet that you also "nicked" other people's ideas and thoughts on cannabis.

Just because Hazey reads a lot and then presents it as absolute fact, doesn't mean that he is ALWAYS wrong. I've read a lot of his posts, and while I haven't seen any of his grows, he does seem knowledgeable about cannabis (more so than many other people on this site who get flamed much less).

In my experience, height is often (but not exclusively) linked to sativa dominance (and a sativa high). People like simple answers, but simple answers are usually inaccurate, or just plain wrong, especially when it comes to genetics. Whenever you read something online that links genetics to particular phenotypes, take it with a grain of salt.

Exactly, simple answers like "look for the tallest plant because it will have the best buzz" sounds simple but it is totally misleading.
He gives "facts" that are not facts at all, but a miscomprehension of what he is reading. That is his biggest problem. Most of the time, what he is reading wont make sense to him until he has actually DONE IT. Anyone who has grown understands that. You can read all day long but until you put it into action you are basically clueless.

 

[Jogro]

But I also think it's not unfair to say if you have a plant that stretches like crazy it's probably sativa dominant and it's probably going to have a high profile closer to landrace sativas than short and squat plants.

Sure, all else being equal, sativa plants tend to be taller and tend to stretch more during flowering, and if you're looking at say F2 indica/sativa hybrids that throw off a wide variety of phenos, then yes, taller ones will *probably* have more sativa-genetics in them.

But to be clear, that's just a broad generalization. Plants can stretch for reasons other than simple genetics, including insufficient light, poor light spectrum, and wide light/dark temperature gradient. And of course the "stretchiest" plants of all, commercial hemp lines, generally contain NO THC whatsoever.

Just because a plant is tall or stretchy does NOT mean its going to give you a "sativa like high".

I don't think you would find many people disagree with his basic assertion that if you have a really stretchy plant there's a strong chance it's a very sativa dominant (and everything else that comes with it).

That's your assertion, I think, not his. Let's look at what Hazey ACTUALLY said:

Hazey: the tallest one [out of the same pack of Amnesia Haze] should be the one with the best high as that will be the sativa dominant one.

See the stack of bad assumptions there?

Apart from the fact that EVERY plant in a pack of "Amnesia Haze" should be "sativa dominant", suffice it to say that nobody with a clue is going to rely on plant height in that setting to select for high quality.

His absolutism on the subject of course is foolish (many have suggested NLxHaze is one of the best crosses ever for Haze lovers for example and I suspect he'd never grow it out), but I just wanted to add a little clarity because if you read Jogro's posts you might get the impression there is no connection whatsoever between plant structure and high profile.

Well, plant STRUCTURE is quite a different thing than plant height, and that is NOT a trivial distinction. Hazey didn't use the term "structure".

Again, with appropriate care/work you can grow full tropical sativas to completion in only a few vertical feet of height. You can also make indica-dominant plants quite tall too, if that's your intent.

If you want to make an argument that worked medical lines with sativa-like structure probably contain a fair amount of sativa genetics and therefore are more likely to have a sativa-like cannabinoid profile, then sure, I won't disagree with that. That's just common sense. . .with the caveat that its not always going to be true.

Its going to depend on the specific line genetics, how the plants were selected, and of course a variety of environmental factors that affect cannabinoid profile, too. There most certainly are lines deliberately bred/selected to have sativa-like structure, but indica-like effect and vice versa (herijuana would an example of the former, green crack, the latter).

But again, this isn't what Hazey actually said.

And Hazey's assertion might have some actual genetic truth to it as well (we don't actually know for certain). It's not a worthless piece of knowledge.

I'd say as a statement of empirical knowledge, his statement its worthless.

Hazey doesn't know that the tallest plant in that brood has the "best high" and neither does anyone else (yet). Yes, it might be true, but I'd go so far as to say that if you could do a blinded study of people smoking that particular plant vs the same-grown siblings, the "smart money" wouldn't be betting that smokers consistently pick out the taller plant as the superior one. And this is even apart from the subjective nature of "high" quality.

 

[Jogro]

Exactly, simple answers like "look for the tallest plant because it will have the best buzz" sounds simple but it is totally misleading.
He gives "facts" that are not facts at all, but a miscomprehension of what he is reading.

Bingo.

Its very easy to read what people have written, though actually understanding it is quite a different thing, especially when it involves some relatively sophisticated concepts.

If you are looking at the very specific circumstance of selecting from F2 (or subsequent) generation hybrid plants, descended from inbred indica and sativa lines, then yes. . .the taller/stretchier sativa-like plants are also probably (though not necessarily) going to have a more sativa-like high. In this context of doing early selection for breeding new lines, this sort of thing makes sense.

But this situation does NOT generalize to ALL cannabis plants under any circumstances, and especially not to sibling plants from the same pack of the same worked line.

If you grow out *ANY* pack of seeds, you're going to expect a bell curve of plant heights.

If the pack is of a really inbred line, the bell curve should be very compressed. . .the tallest and shortest plants won't be that different in height.

In that setting it would be complete foolishness to assume that out of your ten pack of "Northern lights #5" that the tallest one is the "most sativa", let alone the one with the "best high". In fact, in that setting, the "smart" bet is probably that the high of the tallest plant is "utterly indistinguishable" from that of the others.

Now, I don't know how "worked" this particular Amnesia haze line is, but again, even without knowing that, I don't think the "smart money" is on "tallest plant = best high" here.

 

[althor]

Sure, all else being equal, sativa plants tend to be taller and tend to stretch more during flowering, and if you're looking at say F2 indica/sativa hybrids that throw off a wide variety of phenos, then yes, taller ones will *probably* have more sativa-genetics in them.

But to be clear, that's just a broad generalization. Plants can stretch for reasons other than simple genetics, including insufficient light, poor light spectrum, and wide light/dark temperature gradient. And of course the "stretchiest" plants of all, commercial hemp lines, generally contain NO THC whatsoever.

Just because a plant is tall or stretchy does NOT mean its going to give you a "sativa like high".


That's your assertion, I think, not his. Let's look at what Hazey ACTUALLY said:


See the stack of bad assumptions there?

Apart from the fact that EVERY plant in a pack of "Amnesia Haze" should be "sativa dominant", suffice it to say that nobody with a clue is going to rely on plant height in that setting to select for high quality.


Well, plant STRUCTURE is quite a different thing than plant height, and that is NOT a trivial distinction. Hazey didn't use the term "structure".

Again, with appropriate care/work you can grow full tropical sativas to completion in only a few vertical feet of height. You can also make indica-dominant plants quite tall too, if that's your intent.

If you want to make an argument that worked medical lines with sativa-like structure probably contain a fair amount of sativa genetics and therefore are more likely to have a sativa-like cannabinoid profile, then sure, I won't disagree with that. That's just common sense. . .with the caveat that its not always going to be true.

Its going to depend on the specific line genetics, how the plants were selected, and of course a variety of environmental factors that affect cannabinoid profile, too. There most certainly are lines deliberately bred/selected to have sativa-like structure, but indica-like effect and vice versa (herijuana would an example of the former, green crack, the latter).

But again, this isn't what Hazey actually said.


I'd say as a statement of empirical knowledge, his statement its worthless.

Hazey doesn't know that the tallest plant in that brood has the "best high" and neither does anyone else (yet). Yes, it might be true, but I'd go so far as to say that if you could do a blinded study of people smoking that particular plant vs the same-grown siblings, the "smart money" wouldn't be betting that smokers consistently pick out the taller plant as the superior one. And this is even apart from the subjective nature of "high" quality.

Once again exactly right.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

*shortened*

He wasn't definitive in his statement.

I get what you're saying, but he didn't say it will be the best plant, just that it most likely is more sativa dominant. I don't think that's necessarily wrong (might be, but as a rule, I think probably not especially since many lines are not worked - probably an overwhelming majority).

 

[Jogro]

He wasn't definitive in his statement.

Again, here is Hazey's direct quote:

Hazey

the tallest one should be the one with the best high as that will be the sativa dominant one.

That's not a "definitive" statement? Certainly seems that way to me.

OGEvilGenius: I get what you're saying, but he didn't say it will be the best plant, just that it most likely is more sativa dominant. I don't think that's necessarily wrong (might be, but as a rule, I think probably not especially since many lines are not worked - probably an overwhelming majority).

Looks to me that Hazey said explicitly and unequivocally that the tallest plant would have the best high.

In response to what Hazey has actually said, he's wrong. The only way the tallest plant from a pack of Amnesia haze is likely to give you the "best high" is by pure dumb luck. I have nothing else to add here that hasn't been said already.

In response to what you're saying, to the extent I understand it, I'm not going to argue strawmen with you.

In the specific case of a pack of already highly sativa-dominant "Amnesia haze" its almost certainly wrong to assume that the tallest plant has any more proportion of sativa-derived genes than other shorter plants in the same pack, let alone better sativa "cannabinoid" genes.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The word should isn't definitive. The word will is definitive.

 

[althor]

The word should isn't definitive. The word will is definitive.

Either way its a baseless claim that the tallest one SHOULD be the best high. That is ridiculous.

Yes OG, I understand what you are saying, Jogro does as well I am pretty sure. Thing is, what you are saying ISNT what Hazey said. Any new person who doesnt have your experience to infer what the hell he means sees it as...

Plant 10 Amnesia Haze and keep the tallest because its the best buzz.


OK, thats not the message he needs to be sending because it is absolutely false. IF he ever actually grows out some weed, HELL, if he even smokes some weed, he will have some understanding of what he is TRYING to say. But because he doesnt understand it, he screws it all up and just confuses people who dont know already.

If he were saying something like....

Grow out a 10 pack of a 50/50 hybrid. Look for the taller, stretchier plants for those that are most likely going to have a more sativa leaning buzz.

No one would argue with him. He didnt say that though.

 

[hsfkush]

the troll hater that said height has nothing to do with THC profiles when anyone knows strains that get you high also knows hybrids just don't compare to the real deal. i'm responding to the stupid fucks whose only purpose in life seems to be arguing against anything i say & screw the facts. the tallest plant in a grow will be the most sativa dominant. everyone knows that, except the troll that wanted to argue against it. they must have never read a single person's grow report where the tall plants are always acknowledged as the sativa pheno or dominants. instead of adding to the fray and attacking me, why not read back to the troll spreading mis-information because apparently, they just hate sativas. i don't see them naming a single strain that's compact and has all of the trippiness and motivation of a true sativa. if height WASN'T connected to THC profiles, no one would be growing landrace sativas and hazes. really... did EVERYONE fall asleep that day in class? there ARE some nice hybrids, but sativas refuse to be shrunk. the more indica you make them, the less sativa they are. there aren't any hybrids i've ever heard of that have the same quality as cambodian, thai, vietnamese, columbian & malawi gold etc. trippiness and motivation get watered down along with the height shortening. i've been LOOKING for "indoor thai" since the 80s, and it just ain't happening. anyone that gets high exclusively knows the difference. where's that panama grower when you need a reality check? in the past, they've also argued against the FACT that halides produce better QUALITY buds by allowing full terpene expression in opposition to the facts, also mentioned in one of the 2 links i shared.

My friend grew an indica hybrid(no sativa influence) in his back yard in a green house. The greenhouse was 2 meters tall. Needless to say we had to raise the greenhouse using bricks a further 4ft just to accommodate their enormous size... They grew to 9feet tall and had only just started flowering. He had to chop them down at that stage because they were just too big and they were exposed to the public over his fence.

 

[Jogro]

Meanwhile, this thread has been totally hijacked, and the OP has probably run off screaming "what the hell is wrong with these people"?

If he were saying something like....

Grow out a 10 pack of a 50/50 hybrid. Look for the taller, stretchier plants for those that are most likely going to have a more sativa leaning buzz.

No one would argue with him. He didnt say that though.

The problem again, is context.

To be clear, if you're really starting out with a 50-50% hybrid of landrace indica/sativa, you shouldn't expect any phenotype variation until you cross THOSE plants to get an F2. . .lets just say this is implied and move on.

I'd argue that if you're really after a "sativa-leaning buzz" do you really want to pick through 20+ highly phenotypically variable plants to find some that might lean sativa? Sure, that makes sense, if you're a primary breeder trying to develop a unique new line and you're hunky dory with the amount of selection necessary to get there.

Someone who is just growing for personal or even commercial purposes probably isn't going to have the space, time, ability or desire necessary to do the kind of selections over multiple generations necessary to bring a project like that to any reasonable conclusion, and would be far better off just starting with an already existing commercial line selected for "sativa high" and any other specific characteristics they're after (eg like "Amnesia haze". .. duh!).

Again, context. The types of selections a breeder will probably want to do early in their selection process in developing a new line from scratch are likely different than what a personal or commercial grower might want to do in picking phenos from a bunch of plants of an established line grown from ceed, and the former is probably what breeders DJ Short and Subcool were alluding to.

If you were seriously interested in finding the most sativa-like high from a pack of amnesia haze (or other) ceeds that expressed clearly different phenos, then the best way to do that would be to grow out the entire pack (or several packs), discard all the males, clone all the females, take them through harvest, then smoke all of them blinded in "Pepsi challenge" format, retaining only the clones from the mother plants with the best high.

Depending on what you found (eg lets say you had 2 or 3 roughly equivalent "winners" instead of one) you might decide only to retain the mother plant with the best yield, flavor, structure, or other combination of grow characteristics.

If you're after HIGH quality, no other form of selection really makes sense (eg by plant HEIGHT? You've got to be kidding. Plant branchiness or leaf shape? Again. . .come on.).

And even there, if the line were stabilized right, the entire exercise I describe might be a waste of time, since you might not find enough of a difference between the plants to matter.