No I watched the whole hype on strains strength and your living in the back end of that. We had 30%+ back then, sensi skunk and the original Afghan still push these numbers today. I mean there were loads back then that now still hit 30s. What we didn't have was massive marketing hype and a load of ridiculous names and flavours.
One day breeders claimed far too much % THC and we all shot them down. We bred old strains that tested the same as new and proved the ceiling was already reached. Obviously back then if you grew bad you got bricks, if you were large outdoors and didn't place much care into it again a brick, but indoors top growers hit your numbers way back either you know it your lost in the hype.
Secondly photosynthesis started 3.8 billion years ago given it take and didn't require co2.
Ploidy has had vast focus from weed and hemp breeders over the years, just found it added nothing, no strength or size etc. Any proof it does anything like larger stomata or bigger leaves because in no search have I seen anything from ploidy but sterility which seems to be the case here and now that I've looked everywhere. It's not going to require big bucks and pharma again I'm sure we see their results now and again seems another dead end.
But studies and genetics have shown hemp and mj resist any change from ploidy, it's in their evolutionary genetic strategy unlike a tomato that will end up a potato or some watermelon we can increase yield with. Mj just sat there millions of years refusing to change and that's pretty common in plant genetics.
I guess I've seen one thing but people are saying another without much proof to the fact.
Someone mentioned that high THC strains were not seemingly as high as lower strains, this probably due to the lack of synergetic chemicals that the high strains always seem to be low on leading to others reporting higher highs with lower strains.
I don't know what more to say, just not one for hype and people who think strength has actually increased when back then we had exactly the same strengths of THC. But this is the industry that sells blurple 100w lights as the equivalent to a 600w hps, even lied on figures for top specs when tested. Real scummy and will say anything for a quick buck or something brief popularity.
First of all, where in the hell were you getting weed laboratory tested in 1970's America? It didn't happen. No competent lab would have risked their license to test it for you. You didn't have 30% weed. You didn't walk it into a lab and hand that weed over for testing. And that lab didn't give you a results sheet. Not in America.
And for the record BOTH the pro and con sides of the ploidy revolution are saying a lot of things without much proof. I certainly can't find your citations and sources. And given the above facts, you ain't remembering history exactly right.
And yes, you are right. When photosynthesis got its actual start in SIMPLE organisms it didn't require CO2. I figured we could just talk about complex organisms and photosynthesis as it affects growers today, which would be relevant to our discussion. But you are right, so credit where it's due.
You say that people have spent decades trying the Triploid thing. Where and when. The "super weed" as described in the weed growers manual from the 60's painted with colchicine, and needing to be grown for several generations before being safe to smoke, was the earliest mention of the triploids I've ever found. It doesn't have to be the earliest, just the earliest I am aware of. It was complicated, and potentially lethal if the recipe wasn't followed properly.
On top of that, anybody back then growing a large crop was growing it for sale, not study and testing. The ONLY agency in America capable of growing and providing weed for study was the National Institute of Health. And the policy (since the Tax Stamp Act of 1915 or whatever) had been to ONLY release weed for study if the purpose of that study was to prove the negative effects of marijuana, not the potency of those sweet sticky buds. Given the fact that growing a field of weed could mean decades in prison, growers grew it for sale, NOT to set the record straight via scientific study with proper controls and standards.
In the 1970's the reservations were the best place in America to grow weed. However, the reservations didn't grow anywhere near enough weed to cover America. 80% of the country got Mexican brick weed that smelled of diesel fuel from being carried in fuel tanks, covered in mold, and loaded with seeds. If you were lucky enough to grow up close enough to a reservation to get decent weed, good on you. But don't pretend for a second that that was what was normal in America.
As far as Afghan weed in the 70's being 30%. NOPE! Not even close. I guarantee that the Afghani's don't bother lab testing their weed before exporting it. And the stoners paying $85 for an 1/8 in 1978 weren't then paying $300 for laboratory analysis that wasn't available.
I agree with you that the marketing hype is ridiculous. But declaring triploids a failure simply because a couple of companies gave turning a profit on them a shot, is silly. There was NEVER some large scale push for triploids in marijuana. MAYBE a couple of European companies tried them before giving up, but that is me taking your word for it. I can't name any company except Humboldt that has them, and I'm too lazy to chase the rabbit hole. However, seedless grapes have been around for over 150 years. Seedless oranges for 200. Seedless figs for more than 11,000. Anybody that thinks everything went well from the first seed is a fool.
Even if some European company gave them a 5-10 year try before giving up, that is meaningless. IF there is a benefit to be had from triploids, it hasn't been investigated fully. That's just a fact.
I guess that explains why seedless watermelon is so difficult and unpredictable to grow! Lol there are a lot of triploid fruits and vegetables in use nowadays! They can’t be very unpredictable! A quick Google search will turn up a shit load! It sure isn’t anything new! But it is pretty rare to occur naturally! And like you said the only way to know for sure is through lab testing when you think something might be triploid naturally!View attachment 2498282View attachment 2498283
you might be pleasantly surprised! I was with some aspects of it!
I saw a few of the benefits, but they weren’t jaw dropping! I thought it was more potent! It flowered two or three weeks earlier than the diploids! It had a more robust stalk and branch development! But other than that, there wasn’t much difference! But there’s not a King‘s ransom difference in the price either! And it grew easy enough! I don’t know what the OP‘s problem is with it! And the site says it is recommended to grow them outdoors! So there must be some kind of inherent drawback to growing them indoors! But there are a lot of inherent drawbacks of growing regular pot indoors! And you don’t have to worry about the idiot pollen, chucker next-door, ruining your crop! Which can be a problem living in housing tracts. Oh well! Enough on this subject! It’s a free country! Everyone can think what they want!
