MY OWN DANK
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.Autos suck
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 wayAutos suck
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.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
Thank you...been researching and lurking since summer and just decided that I can only read so much and it's time to do.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.
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.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.
Let me get this straight. So are interracial human children genetically modified organisms? lolruderalis genetics infused into sativa or indica is for sure genetically modified 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.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.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.
Indica and sativa used to seperate genes too. Are all hybrids GMO?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.....
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.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.
"used to " ?Indica and sativa used to seperate genes too. Are all hybrids GMO?
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.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.
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.Autoflowering Cannabis Plants GMO | Buy Cannabis Seeds Online
Autoflowering plants are genetically modified plants,already begin to grow in just 3 weeks as compared to regular cannabis plants that grow after 3 months.www.sunwestgenetics.com
Feminized seeds, what are they, and how are they made?
What’s the deal with feminized seeds? Why are they so expensive? Feminized cannabis seeds are genetically modified and will produce only female plants.cannabis.wiki
I think the mistake here was the ROLFLMAO, those mother's get people's backs up.
"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.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.