Miracle Grow Perlite ruined my plant

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Autos suck
They have their places. For indoors they suck as they use too much expensive light flowering at 18/6 or even more hours of light. But way up north where I live they are a good option for outdoor growing as photo plants won't start flowering outside until the middle of Aug and we often get frost before the end of Aug. The last few years it seems to hold off until mid-Sep. but still not long enough to finish. I have a couple different strains of CBD autos I will be trying come spring to see how that goes.

Last year I planted 4 supposed auto fems of 2 different strains. Two came up auto male and pollen was saved but one of each strain grew as photos then when flowering began the hi-THC one turned out to be male so it got chopped but a couple branches were saved to get pollen from them and the last one was kept going in a small greenhouse type enclosure with a heater for the cold nights and I got almost a pound of bud off her. I have plant grown from a cutting off her I should be flowering indoors soon and will be sending a sample of the finished bud in for potency analysis. Supposed to be up to 20% CBD and less than 0.3% THC so one I'd like for breeding purposes.

:peace:
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
I'm so new I don't even know what sucks yet ha...just droppin seeds in a tent on an 18/6 and seeing what I can learn along the way
What kind of sucks is hoping the seeds will figure it out on it's own because they won't. Lots of good info in the various forums to make sure you end up with something good to smoke after planting those little balls of hope.

Autoflowering plants, autos, are generally grown under 18 hours or more of light/day for their whole life cycle. Photo period plants, photos, are grown under 18/6 light during their vegetative period which can be as long as you want. When flowering is desired you change the light cycle to 12/12 to force them to flower and leave the light like that until they are done. They tend to be larger and yield more than most autos using 50% less light during the flowering period which can be anywhere from 7 - 16 weeks or more depending on strain. Veg period can be years if desired with photos but autos begin flowering around 3 - 7 weeks of age regardless of the light cycle.

:peace:
 

Dank Bongula

Well-Known Member
What kind of sucks is hoping the seeds will figure it out on it's own because they won't. Lots of good info in the various forums to make sure you end up with something good to smoke after planting those little balls of hope.

Autoflowering plants, autos, are generally grown under 18 hours or more of light/day for their whole life cycle. Photo period plants, photos, are grown under 18/6 light during their vegetative period which can be as long as you want. When flowering is desired you change the light cycle to 12/12 to force them to flower and leave the light like that until they are done. They tend to be larger and yield more than most autos using 50% less light during the flowering period which can be anywhere from 7 - 16 weeks or more depending on strain. Veg period can be years if desired with photos but autos begin flowering around 3 - 7 weeks of age regardless of the light cycle.

:peace:
Thank you...been researching bongsmilieand lurking since summer and just decided that I can only read so much and it's time to do. :hump:
 

SpideyManDan

Well-Known Member
View attachment 4817075

Neither are GMO. No one spliced new genes into either of them so they have not been genetically modified. Selective breeding is NOT GMO.
Its modifying the genes...literally modifying it from its original material. Everyone throwing "GMO" around like its some how horrible from the get go. There is nothing inherently wrong with GMO's, it is the fact that they are then controlling the seed supply of said product, not that they are creating it. GMO's go under more testing then regular food crops. If you want to look at something really destructive, look at the fact that we are a one crop country and the bio diversity is gone.
 

Northwood

Well-Known Member
ruderalis genetics infused into sativa or indica is for sure genetically modified organisms.
Let me get this straight. So are interracial human children genetically modified organisms? lol

In the field of biology at least, genetic engineering is using biotechnology where we directly manipulate the genome of organisms by inserting or removing DNA, often from other unrelated organisms.
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight. So are interracial human children genetically modified organisms? lol

In the field of biology at least, genetic engineering is using biotechnology where we directly manipulate the genome of organisms by inserting or removing DNA, often from other unrelated organisms.
Exactly. Breeding with rudralis is just selective breeding that has been going on with plants and animals since man began domesticating both. Genetic Modification needs a lab, gene splicing and money hungry corporations.

Like some people scream 'chemicals' when talking about hydro nutes when they are just the same mineral salts that get created in organic grows by the micro-herd breaking down organic matter. They put them in the same league as pesticides, herbicides and other man-made toxins. Lack of knowledge and understanding how things work.

Literally, everything is chemical.

:peace:
 

getogrow

Well-Known Member
At some point , you guys and gals have to realize who is making the rules and definitions of all this. WE are! Without us , there would be no good pot.

We got to quit questioning ourselves and start making/breaknig the rules. We are the ones who make them so we get to decide what term fits where.

Autos are GMO's. its not a big deal but it is what it is. We took auto genes and put them into good genes. Thats gmo no matter if its in a lab or not. Its all the same by definition.

Were all saying the same shit with a different twist. Coco is a hydro medium by definition but that dont mean you gotta use it in a hydro setting.
"hydro foods" are already chelated but that dont mean they cannot be used for soil. Ect.....
 

rkymtnman

Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight. So are interracial human children genetically modified organisms? lol

In the field of biology at least, genetic engineering is using biotechnology where we directly manipulate the genome of organisms by inserting or removing DNA, often from other unrelated organisms.
that might be the stupidest post other than grampa.

i'll make it simple for you "scientists" : if you take a photoperiod plant and make it an auto by introducing genetics from a ruderalis, by the very definition, it is a GMO. just b/c you "think" it has to be done in a lab is irrelevant.
 

Autofire

Well-Known Member
With a greasy company like Scott's/Monsato behind it you really don't know what's in that bag. It's very possible that's what's in one bag is not the same as what's in another it's super mass produced and they don't give a flying rats ass. You could have picked up a bag that got a heavier dose of fuck knows what when they were making the crap and that is obviously what killed your plant.
 

Autofire

Well-Known Member
At some point , you guys and gals have to realize who is making the rules and definitions of all this. WE are! Without us , there would be no good pot.

We got to quit questioning ourselves and start making/breaknig the rules. We are the ones who make them so we get to decide what term fits where.

Autos are GMO's. its not a big deal but it is what it is. We took auto genes and put them into good genes. Thats gmo no matter if its in a lab or not. Its all the same by definition.

Were all saying the same shit with a different twist. Coco is a hydro medium by definition but that dont mean you gotta use it in a hydro setting.
"hydro foods" are already chelated but that dont mean they cannot be used for soil. Ect.....
Indica and sativa used to seperate genes too. Are all hybrids GMO?
 

getogrow

Well-Known Member
With a greasy company like Scott's/Monsato behind it you really don't know what's in that bag. It's very possible that's what's in one bag is not the same as what's in another it's super mass produced and they don't give a flying rats ass. You could have picked up a bag that got a heavier dose of fuck knows what when they were making the crap and that is obviously what killed your plant.
That never happened. no one has ever lost a plant due to some perlite with food in it. "Greasy" is a tough word in my world. Dirty and grimy maybe but not greasy....not the scotts branch. Im willing to bet the scotts soil is more consistant then most others on the market just for the simple reason they have made the same mix for so long. Im not saying its the best or worst just giving my two cents.
 

insomnia65

Well-Known Member


I think the mistake here was the ROLFLMAO, those mother's get people's backs up.
 

Northwood

Well-Known Member
that might be the stupidest post other than grampa.

i'll make it simple for you "scientists" : if you take a photoperiod plant and make it an auto by introducing genetics from a ruderalis, by the very definition, it is a GMO. just b/c you "think" it has to be done in a lab is irrelevant.
Well the "stupid" scientists call the offspring from the sexual crossing two genetically different individuals as hybrids, while the act of crossing itself is known as hybridization. It happens often in nature and it an important driver of biological evolution. Your definition of GMO is not the scientific one, but instead I guess might qualify as the "joe six-pack" definition in certain circles.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Crossing a cannabis plant is not creating a GMO plant. It doesn't matter if it's between 2 sativa's, a sativa and an indica, or a sativa and a ruderalis. The result is not GMO. The result is something that could naturally occur in nature and is just simply cross-breeding.

There shouldn't even be any question of what GMO is. It's always been a scientific process of inserting a gene from one organism into the DNA of another in a lab environment. Crossing any strain of cannabis with another is just simple plant breeding which has been going on for thousands of years.

A GMO is a plant, animal, bacteria, etc... that has been altered in a lab by inserting genes from one species into the DNA of another.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species. Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/food-genetically-modified

How are GMOs made?
“GMO” (genetically modified organism) has become the common term consumers and popular media use to describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a process that involves:

  • Identifying the genetic information—or “gene”—that gives an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) a desired trait
  • Copying that information from the organism that has the trait
  • Inserting that information into the DNA of another organism
  • Then growing the new organism


Identify
To produce a GMO plant, scientists first identify what trait they want that plant to have, such as resistance to drought, herbicides, or insects. Then, they find an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) that already has that trait within its genes. In this example, scientists wanted to create insect-resistant corn to reduce the need to spray pesticides. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which produces a natural insecticide that has been in use for many years in traditional and organic agriculture.

Copy
After scientists find the gene with the desired trait, they copy that gene.
For Bt corn, they copied the gene in Bt that would provide the insect-resistance trait.

Insert
Next, scientists use tools to insert the gene into the DNA of the plant. By inserting the Bt gene into the DNA of the corn plant, scientists gave it the insect resistance trait.

This new trait does not change the other existing traits.

 

xtsho

Well-Known Member


I think the mistake here was the ROLFLMAO, those mother's get people's backs up.
Those articles are not real science but cannabis broscience. Autoflowers occur naturally in nature and are definitely not GMO. Through standard natural crossbreeding different varieties of autoflowers have been created but they are not GMO.

Those articles are excellent examples of why so much incorrect information has fueled the extreme cannabis broscience that many consider to be actual science these days. One of the reasons I never bother with cannabis specific websites. They're so full of incorrect information it's just ridiculous. Like some stoners got together and just typed up what was on the top of their heads. "Hey Dude this sounds like it makes sense. Lets run with it and call it fact." The problem is that many do.
 

Northwood

Well-Known Member
Autos are GMO's. its not a big deal but it is what it is. We took auto genes and put them into good genes.
"We" didn't modify the genes of anything. We simply allowed a "boy meets girl" scenario, and that is known as sexual reproduction. All sex in nature and everywhere else results in offspring whose genetics are not identical to either one of the parents. Sex is nature's way of basically rolling the dice and increase allele variety in a population. Many organisms evolved to go to a lot of trouble to find another parent as genetically unlike the other as possible, including flowering plants that use wind or pollinating insects that allow a female to get genetic material from a male far beyond their local growing area.

Did I really have to explain what sex is on this forum? /s

Here is a search of scientific publications on the subject of GMO. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&q=genetically+modified+organism&btnG=
There are 800,000 of them returned. I bet you won't find a single paper that describes hybridization, selection, or any other form of sexual reproduction as a genetically modified organism.
 
Top