Lemon Alien Dawg Hermie Prone

[squiggly]

ah yeah gotcha. that makes sense. thanks Squig

Yeah if I had unlimited time and space I would run it again straight away as its very suspect to me also... if anyone came to me and reported what I have, I would instantly be picking the shit out of their enviro.
Just the fact that there are 8 other strains in the same environment and only the LAD turned is what has me :( and a bit :S

Well what we CAN maybe say is that this strain is MORE prone to hermie than THOSE particular strains in that environment.

But what we can't rule environmental stress as a mitigating factor there without additional runs.

Truthfully we can't even say that unless we were able to force hermie in those with stress again and see that the other strains didn't herm out.

Science relies on repeatability this way (and for good reason).

 

[KennyPowers]

rb you can send that extra pack of LAD to me for safe keeping :hungry:

dont mean to beat a dead horse but to say our feeds are 1.5ml/L different and blow it off is not wise imo. i said 1.0EC and offered my 6-8ml/gal for comparison (and you can see in my journal that a couple phenos were still overfed at the lower end of that). obviously the EC of equal amounts of canna and h&g will not be the same. so we are talking about a .7 to .9 EC difference, near double at the maximum.

 

[bonkia]

It has a boy part and a girl part ill grow it it just to show you the flower.

 

[Natural]

wow those are some sucky odds bro...it seems you got dealt a bad hand, a severely bad-luck hand...considering there's not many herm reports on the lad..at least at this point. Is the lemon kush male the culprit? ..could be, it seems og's and Chemdog throw the late-flower infertile-nanner.
I would be doubting some shit if it happened to me..like shit maybe my timer is fucked..or maybe I'm sleep-walking tending to the crops while they sleep..lol
Better luck next time yo!

 

[PhMe]

I'm not saying RB or anyone else is lying at all. But this subject is very hard to point finger at someone, over the net we don't know if a person is being truthful or not. It could be a lot of factor that could be involve in it. As I have seen on other forums that some claim to have their A's gear Herm and some that I seen grown perfectly fine. Why is this? We will never know. Honestly, it could be the grower fault, as in they fucked up and didn't tell people the whole story behind it because they feel shameful that they fucked up. It could be that RB gotten a bad batch? It's really hard to point finger as I seen mix reviews all over the net.

I understood what squiggly on a scientific side, but to people like RB who experience it first hand with 9 hermies, in their eyes the genetics is not stable.

From my own personal experience, from what I seen so far, I have yet to see any Herm problem. But then again it was just the grenade I seen grown.

 

[Classic Remix]

FWIW- sour lemon alien dawg

Sour pebbles

Yummy

 

[PhMe]

I was planning to pop 5 of each from each pack, but I will just pop the whole LAD just to see

 

[Natural]

I was 10/10 males on a pack of OG/MKUltra once..depressing for sure. Sometimes it's the luck of the draw..or maybe stress to the seeds could cause it..but I'm no scientist. Maybe the AD has issues..but I never had a herm fest like that, though. On a good seed pop I manage to gather near 10-25% hermaphrodites and that has been true for fems and regs.
Just did a bean pop..almost done. Here's my campfire story for the night:
4 ARC -2 males..2 females (no herms)
3 SourChem Sis -3 females (1 chem dom shot nanners at tips..no seeds)
2 White S1's -2 females (1 hermed..no nanners)
4 White SuperSkunk (4 females...no herms)
4 White Master Kush -4 females (2 hermed with lower seeds...no nanners)
5 WiFi -5 females (1 hermed on some lowers...no nanners)

 

[KitsapGrapeApe]

i just harvested 6 grenades, 2 tahoe, 5 lad, and 2 sour pebbles, i didn't have any big ole pollen sacks like some shown i did have some late nanners pop on 1 tahoe alien though. not a problem for me late manners aren't bad, full blown sacks at week 3 is no good. i'd buy alien beans again, even an expensive pack like my sour pebbs. if i had an experience like the the op if i had i might be skeptical to buy more alien gear. i had an exeprience like that with some cv gear but lets not get into that. i'm here eagerly awaiting another alien drop!

 

[PButter]

I had rampant success with grenades. Organically amended soil, Biocanna added to the mix later on in flower. But just soil/teas up to flower...

11/11 popped
1 male killed
Into Flower with 10
one threw anthers at day 38 about two weeks after Biocanna start - down to 9 phenos
one threw anthers at day 49 - wish I had kept it, some excellent smoke
Pick and choose from eight.

I'll be a customer for awhile. Maybe its luck of the draw, maybe its maybelline.
Try that other pack and lets see what happens. Do a journal with regular updates and I'll buy the ones that fail.

PB

 

[KitsapGrapeApe]

dude the grenades were awesome, i went 6/6 in the female department and all but one of them looked bad ass, and the one that didn't was grower error. i might have to crak the last 5 to find a dude.

 

[squiggly]

@OP

I would definitely pop that last pack just in case you got an extremely bad luck of the draw.

Can you tell us more about your environment/setup being as anally detailed as possible?


If nothing jumps out at anyone I'd suggest maybe humoring Kenny and seeing if dropping the EC would make a difference for ya.

I know these strains were tested pretty thoroughly but sometimes shit can go wrong--like for instance maybe they were all tested using a very similar method.

I had a strain once that would throw anthers EVERY SINGLE TIME about 3 weeks in--but they stopped throwing them after that and it never ended up getting pollinated so I would just watch like a hawk at 3 week mark and take care of them each run.

A buddy loved the smoke and wanted a cut of it, I warned him of the problem and he didn't care.

I had always been scrogging the bitch--he grew more conventionally and just let em do their thing (grew trees). He did a few runs and never had anthers pop.

Turns out the different veg methodologies turned up different results. By restricting vertical growth I forced the anthers--or at least that's what we came up with.

From that point on I let him grow that bitch out and supply us both with her smoke--and I took on one of his ladies he didn't want to give up and whored her out in my scrog. As time went on we found better genes, but the lesson is the same:

Sometimes shit can hermie a strain that you wouldn't normally expect would have an effect.

For the record--he and I ran essentially the same nute regimen at the time. Our rooms were different but we were aiming for the same optimal values--we basically pow-wowed about everything and agreed on all out methodologies except my room called for a scrog and his did not.

It could've just as easily been something else, but this made the most sense. The best way to confirm it would've been to have him scrog the bitch in his room--but we didn't really care much.

 

[catdaddy]

1 EC? that doesnt sound right to me... would be about ~500ppm depending on your meter / conversion?

thanks for chipping in but I have run this feed for years, with same results time and time again. not once had issues with it... though I guess I'm open to ideas at this stage regarding LAD.... recommended PPM anyone?

btw the pics you saw of plants (plural) on TSD is the sin city mix pack, not LAD. My LAD were about 4-5x the size of those when they were chopped, and also I scale my feed up to that point so start of flower its lower.

got to admit, i run plants in coco as high as 1400 ppms/ 2.2 ec and have yet to see any hermies from it.

funny how if this was green house or barney's everyone would be jumping on the band wagon to trash them, but i guess that only applies to them.

if this was a rare case, normally i would look past it, but i am seeing some very credible growers stating the same issues very similar to RB's as of lately. what's even funnier is all of a sudden everyone or some are getting very scientific on how this could not be (basically alluding to the fact that it's mainly a growers error), and one must run a plant 3-4 times only to come to the conclusion that it's the genetics.

tbh RB, if i was you being 4+ wks in, i'd finish them and recoup my loses from the buds that isn't seeded up.

 

[rb420det]

OK well here goes for my setup:

4x4x7 tent, AC cooled ~80f 24/7, 250mm extraction fan and 300mm intake - plenty of CO2
25-45% RH (cant do much about that unfortunately)
1000w digital CAP ballast
Mixture of 50% coco and 50% perlite/vermiculite mix
Feed is done once a day / as they need it - i try not to over water.
Feed is a 25litre bucket - new mix every 2nd day to keep it fresh.
Into the 25litres goes:
65-70ml of A & B
3ml Roots Excellurator
~25ml DM Silica
50-75ml Floralicious
~25-30ml Multizyme
2-4ml pH down

This mix comes to about ~1.7-1.9 EC , 5.7-6 pH

Fed at the start of lights on every day, hand watered.
For early veg i scale everything right back except the roots excellurator that stays pretty constant. Up the feed gradually as they get larger, full feed for flower

Sprouted in rapid rooters and under MH for about a week then transplanted into cocomix party cups.
Transplanted twice after the party cups, 6" pots then 12" pots, last transplant just before flicking to 12/12
Vegged for 4wks under 400w MH which was also AC cooled to ~80f
Moved to flower tent for 12/12 under the 1kw and within a week had my first male and shortly after all the herms with the last one taking me till 4wks into flower till i noticed.

In the same tent/setup are 9 or 10 sin city mix girls i keep forgetting how many, up till today i didnt care as it was just filler but now i will be relying on them for yields :(
and also a monstercropped Crash Helmet clone which i got from a local friend, everything seems to be going sweet thus far.

 

[rb420det]

got to admit, i run plants in coco as high as 1400 ppms/ 2.2 ec and have yet to see any hermies from it.

funny how if this was green house or barney's everyone would be jumping on the band wagon to trash them, but i guess that only applies to them.

if this was a rare case, normally i would look past it, but i am seeing some very credible growers stating the same issues very similar to RB's as of lately. what's even funnier is all of a sudden everyone or some are getting very scientific on how this could not be (basically alluding to the fact that it's mainly a growers error), and one must run a plant 3-4 times only to come to the conclusion that it's the genetics.

tbh RB, if i was you being 4+ wks in, i'd finish them and recoup my loses from the buds that isn't seeded up.

I considered that but decided it wasnt worth it when i saw how heavily seeded it was and the fact some of that was spreading onto the rest of the crop (not much thank fk). got more room to spread my other plants around so hoping to recoup the lost yield that way.

Also, 2.2 EC used to be my generic mix as well till others kept telling me less is more so i went to 1.9 being my max... 2.2 was fine tho i sometimes messed up the timing and would get nute burn later in flower

 

[squiggly]

what's even funnier is all of a sudden everyone or some are getting very scientific on how this could not be (basically alluding to the fact that it's mainly a growers error), and one must run a plant 3-4 times only to come to the conclusion that it's the genetics.

I think this is the effect of a "changing of the guard" of sorts. That's a bad analogy I'll admit because the older, more experienced, guys aren't going anywhere--but I think you're seeing more super well educated people getting into the scene as it becomes more and more mainstream.

Now people are growing up seeing grandma smoking weed for her glaucoma or to restore her appetite and it's not as taboo--so you're seeing science prone guys feeling more comfortable getting into it all.

There is and has been for a long time a SEVERE lack (but not a total absence) of science-folk in this scene and it's for a few simple reasons why you see that changing now I think:

1. Many of the very relevant science disciplines (chemistry, biochemistry, and even a lot of botany which often deals with pharmaceuticals) are typically VERY HEAVILY drug-tested fields. So it's not something people who are into drugs typically go after. I think this is also why it's been so difficult to get backing from the medical community. (Doctors can't really get away with smoking. Heaven forbid they should injure a patient inadvertently and need to drop--15 years of hard work down the drain).

2. As I said already, the taboo is slowly disappearing.

3. There are simply more of us these days (scientists) all science disciplines are expanding and have been pretty steadily since their respective inceptions. This is especially true, again, for the most relevant fields (chemistry, biochem, botany).

4. There is a ton of money to be made in this industry now--and a niche that needs filled. It has not gone unnoticed by aspiring scientists or by academia for that matter.

Over the next 20 years or so there are going to be a lot of us young bucks who are going to really piss off some of the old fogies with our fancy new theories and such. The growing pains on either side will prove to be worth it in the end sans major changes to the scene (Read: Factory Farms)--of that much I can assure you.

 

[squiggly]

Scroll to the bottom for a TLDR if novellas do not interest you:

Again I want to be clear--this could damn well be the genetics. I'd be a fool to suggest otherwise.

We can't ever know unless there are at LEAST two runs. For the sake of science we'd prefer a minimum of 3 (that's typically the rule, everything in triplicate or it didn't happen). From a botany standpoint we're talking literally tens and possibly hundreds of runs under various conditions.

Botany is hard as hell because there are SO MANY variables. I'd say a true understanding of ANY biology is probably only secondary to something like particle physics in terms of complexity. It is literally easier to predict with high degree of probability the geometries, velocities, and spins of all of the molecules in a salt water solution than it is to understand even the first thing about biology implicitly.
Within that complex problem, gene expression is also super hard to tease out to a similar degree of difficulty.

Now, add to that the fact that there's been a moratorium on cannabis-specific research and it should come to you pretty quickly that we're basically in the dark here.

So I'm NOT saying what it is or isn't. I'm just trying to make clear for everyone how difficult it really is to say something like that (hence why I'm not doing it).

Believe me, I'd love to have the answer. I actually like Alien and his strains, if I could come to their defense nothing would please me more.

I can't.

I CAN however come to the defense of good sense, and I CAN do my best to combat patent ignorance. Ignorance IS NOT a bad word, it's not an insult--it just means there's more yet to know.

In that way, we are ALL ignorant of cannabis. I think we should move in a direction that really respects that notion--that as a community we can choose to say the things we can be sure of and shy away from those we can't.

As I've stated already it was the right thing to share this--and it's an even better thing to have the conversation. However, it doesn't make sense to talk about things in such a way that doesn't respect those things that we can and do know.

I think as cannabis becomes more and more mainstream we'll see more and more of the older notions, habits, and "commandments" challenged. There will be a helluva lot more resistance to it than we saw in this thread--that's for damn sure.

This was pretty mild and I thank everyone for that, it means we're moving in a positive direction.

Maybe the next time someone sees anthers they won't immediately blame the breeder or the genetics--and might instead choose to do a few isolated runs. We might get a chance to see some actual scientific results come out of it (and not necessarily only as it regards hermies).

Experience is good. Science is good. They can work together.

I look at something like the SCROG method. That came from experience more likely than not--not from some uber academic genius. Then I look at something like discussing lighting properties and I think to myself--scientists have left their mark here. That's clear enough just by digging 10 years back through the internet.

Put those two things together and you get a badass SCROG with maximized yield.

It doesn't make sense to turn off EITHER of these engines of discovery. They aren't mutually exclusive and in fact they do their best work together--there can be no question on that.

So it's not about me coming in here and saying hey, shut up guys you don't know what you're saying. It's about looking at what is known from both angles and finding a way to marry the two things.

What that means is accepting that we can't know stuff in a definitively empirical sense about a particular genotype (no matter WHAT is is) without running it a few times--but it also means that from an experience level maybe it doesn't make sense to keep running a strain over and over if it continues to hermie--and maybe experience is better at telling us when to pull the plug on that when science would just see us banging our collective head against the wall.

It's not about all or nothing in one direction or the other. We can bring these concepts together and do it in an intelligent way and come out with a new, shared, understanding.

That is not only the basis of logic and of all advanced human civilization to have ever existed--it can be the key which turns a lock in this community and broadens our horizons in ways we could've never predicted individually.

The only requirement is that we be willing to listen to each other. So when this dude tells me his LAD threw anthers--I perk my ears up. I look at my LAD pack a little differently.

Maybe one guy looks at it as a waste of time--while I look at it as a new opportunity for inquiry. If this thing throws anthers, why? Can I stop it? Can I make it happen on purpose in a non-conventional way?

There are so many questions to answer. At the same time, maybe the OP just saved a commercial grower a bunch of money or an un-needed headache (sure LAD is a killer strain--but there are LOTS of those around and Alien would be the first one to tell you as much). Maybe we saved a caregiver from having to tell his patients he doesn't have their medicine right now--because he chose to not take the chance.

There is something for everyone to take away from something like this. My intention wasn't to be a science Nazi--but rather to make science a part of a conversation which it has so often, and erroneously in my very humble opinion, left out of.

So, once and for all, this isn't about challenging someone's truth or their claims. Its about doing our best to listen and then understand. The understanding each person takes away might be different, and that's okay because we aren't all the same and we don't all have the same motives--but it doesn't make any damn sense to say okay there's this thing called botany which is the study of plants, and then there's this plant called cannabis, but for some reason botany doesn't apply to cannabis.

That's just silly.

As desertsquirrel/Quantum9 has pointed out so many times before this is exactly the type of oversight which makes this "industry" the laughing stock of agrobusiness. The wacky names for all the nutrient formulations, the insanely gouged prices, all of this type of thing which suggests that this one particular plant is different from every other plant we've ever found.

In a manner of speaking, it is a special plant--sure. It's not THAT special, though.

I'm reminded of the guy who gives too much credence to the idea that a theory isn't yet proven. The theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity.

Okay so you don't believe in evolution, well explain why we've observed it in our lifetime then?

The theory of relativity seems pretty damn far fetched, especially for one man to have elucidated it--it seems unbelievable. However, your GPS signal would go 20miles off per minute if it wasn't right on the money (the satellites' clocks require a speed adjustment to coincide with the gravity-time dilation they experienced which is predicted by this theory).

And all of our science teacher's favorite one. The theory of gravity, sure it's just a theory--and sure we don't have the foggiest how it works or what makes it go, or how it fits in to the big picture--but I don't see people who want to live jumping from very high places without a parachute either.
Science as a precondition and, in fact, a founding notion--accepts that it can't know everything. I've only suggested that experience should incorporate a similar notion into its charter. Fallibility is the ONLY guarantee in human institutions. It may be the only guarantee in ALL of what life has to offer each of us. So why turn tail from it rather than face up to it?

Experience has saved science's ass more than once. I only want to see science try to return the favor where it's able. This is one of those places.

People have been looking at hermaphroditism in cannabis with rose-colored glasses. Whether the genetics are to blame here or not, that much is as clear as day.

So why continue to ignore it?

The answer is (and this is ALL that I'm sure of, and ALL I'm willing to attempt to prove): We shouldn't and frankly we can't afford to. As far as I'm concerned every gene is sacred until proven otherwise. Who knows, someone may have already tossed the cure to cancer in compost heap because the jumped to conclusions.

I'm not asking everyone to put on a lab coat or sacrifice their growing space and time for the sake of science--but I think it's not to much to ask that people have a little bit of respect for the work their fellow humans and ancestors have done over the course of hundreds of years in search of solid, demonstrable, repeatable, answers that can benefit everyone and to at the very least acknowledge the sacrifices that they have made in our stead.
For people who don't want to read all of that here's the TLDR:

No one is mad that you didn't know this shit yesterday--but now that you've been informed it doesn't make sense to continue pretending you never were. It is WORTH IT to learn new things and to grow together in our knowledge of this plant--both scientific knowledge and applicable knowledge.

Hell even in academia we have scientists (who do the thing the first time) and the engineers (who fight with might and main to make the shit actually work on a useful scale--usually A LOT easier said than done). I wouldn't be an engineer vs. a scientist to save the baby Jesus--it's not my bag of chips. Same can be said for my grow style. Some of you guys are engineers of cannabis, I'm a scientist.
What in the actual fuck is a forum for in the first place if not this type of growth? I suggest everyone give that word a google if they are confused as to its meaning.

 

[PhMe]

Rb,
I've search and search for other threads that might be within the same problem. Your the first person with 100% hermies versus a few people with some. You might want to run that second lad pack you have and take the advice from the people replying back to you. I will soak my lad tomorrow and will keep you updated on my progress.

 

[squiggly]

~25ml DM Silica

I could be tripping but this seems like a dogshitload of Silica to me.

This could be something that I'm just unfamiliar with (as I'm in organic soil).

Anyone else have thoughts here? Or is this a typo?

Also what are your temps in flower? RH?

80 isn't too hot, for veg especially, but it's starting to get there and something that especially worries me is your local leaf temperature and the possibility of hot spots at this temp. This is the type of thing that we can expect to cause hermies--while I think we can definitely say that if this was the cause, either these particular genotypes were a bit more hermie prone or the others you were running were a bit more resistant.

 

[PhMe]

Well, If he's talking about Dutch Master silica, the recommendation is 2 ml per gal or in his case 12ml for his 25 liters.