R
ritoMox
- 700
- 143
In legal states in the USA, there are limits on how many plants you can grow at home.
In this post ( Link: Post #8, see also attached picture ), the grower states that "I get a 36 plant SOG in my 3x3". Looking at the SOG picture, it appears that all 36 plants/colas are in ONE bed (planter). It's clear that all of the roots in such a grow would be intertwined. Sense all 36 plants are in the same bed sharing the same nutrients, water, etc., and their roots are intertwined, does that count as only ONE plant? I can see where growing in the ground or in separate pots would qualify as separate plants. But in a situation as I just described, It's not so clear to me. There is an analogous precedent that would seem to support such intertwining as being considered ONE plant or organism. See Link: The Largest Organism on the Planet Is Right Here in Oregon
Link: Strange but True: The Largest Organism on Earth Is a Fungus
In this post ( Link: Post #8, see also attached picture ), the grower states that "I get a 36 plant SOG in my 3x3". Looking at the SOG picture, it appears that all 36 plants/colas are in ONE bed (planter). It's clear that all of the roots in such a grow would be intertwined. Sense all 36 plants are in the same bed sharing the same nutrients, water, etc., and their roots are intertwined, does that count as only ONE plant? I can see where growing in the ground or in separate pots would qualify as separate plants. But in a situation as I just described, It's not so clear to me. There is an analogous precedent that would seem to support such intertwining as being considered ONE plant or organism. See Link: The Largest Organism on the Planet Is Right Here in Oregon
Link: Strange but True: The Largest Organism on Earth Is a Fungus
Last edited:
I somehow posted this in a sub thread(?). It's an interesting discussion. After posting this here, I found a similar discussion here: 
