Have tried growing several photo's with limited success. Then switched to Auto Assassin by Short Stuff. Works good in small grows and one toke and "boom you've been assassinated". Grow to full maturity for maximum effect.
New Grower can autos realy be as strong as photos?
- Thread starter adz
- Start date
M
Mr Piggy
Guest
They are not hemp. The only thing left of the original rudi in a lot of autos these days is the auto trait, the rest has been bred out. That and there's a lot of autos being bred from daylight neutral tropical sativas. Yes, autos can really be as strong as photos.
Also, for the record, hemp is cannabis.
Also, for the record, hemp is cannabis.
I believe in due time it'll be possible. Some of these straonger photo strains have 10-20+ years of breeding in them.. Autos have not been bred as long but as they continue to be, they continue to grow in potency.. are they there yet? Probably not to the maximum potential, no.. will they get there? Probably.
i know that there is alot of contoversy over gennetic modication but sence rudiralius is a sub species of cannabis your not introducing genes from a different species of plant so its basicly an extreme version of selective breeding. imagine being able to transfer only the auto gene to a photoperied strain in one generation an not effecting the potencey of the photo peried plant and to be fully auto. i think in the future they will surpass photo periods. food for thought lol
autos and photos can both range from higher numbers to lower, but now that they are mainstream your going to have a selection of autos just like photos where if you want a sativa dom you can get it. if you want a fruity taste you can have it. i already know the power can be found. i grew a Kush Van Stitch auto that was too strong for me, my wife loved it for medical needs and i had friend take some to a party where a local dealer showed up with some purple kush photoperiod and the KVS won out hands down and i wasn't there and they didn't know it was an auto so blind taste test and auto won. 
R
rapeco
Guest
I wish breeders and researchers are working hard on the taste, besides strength. This is the only handicap imo.
S
stonemaster
Guest
I also am a numbers guy and I was wondering how far down the line does the auto flowering gene have a big effect on pontency. Example; I bought auto seeds on line that said white widow and rudarilas were the genectics. What percent of that was what? 50/50? I am guessing more white widow than auto,right. Even at 50% after I then crossed it last year with a photo, it is now 25%. Right. I saved the photo pollen and will bred it back once I have the full auto version. Now actually. This cross will be 3/4 photo and the other 1/4 divided by the auto cross, now the auto genes are at 1/8 the total.The photo in this case is a O.G.GhostTrainHaze. I can say that the f1 crop while not as strong as the photo, was stronger than any auto I have tried. This is how I see getting autos to rival photos, simply to only keep the auto flowering gene and no more of the others than necasary.
S
stonemaster
Guest
View attachment 207434Here is the outside patch. 2 levels each dug 18 inches down then filled with water retention chyrstals, organic food, perlight and vermic., with pro-mix on top. About 150 sq. ft. At this time there are 200 f2 seeds which should be 1/4 auto. My plan is to cut anything down that has not flowered by day26.
Genetics doesn't actually work that way, when you crossed your white widow with a ruderalis the offspring of that plant will be an f1 hybrid showing dominate traits ONLY it will rarely be a 50/50 mix. You will only see recessive genes express themselves in the f2 offspring. It takes breeders thousands of plants to narrow down the traits they are after or to make the pheno "stable". Some breeders rush their product on the market only to backfire, some autos revert back to photos and photos revert back to autos.
Last edited:
ska'd 4 life
AFN Assimilated
I think i've mentioned this before but my take of the auto vs. photo strength debate is that both are comparable in strength (depending on strain) it's the way the high works i find different. I find that the auto high may take slightly longer to take effect, it might take a few minutes for everything to kick in whereas the photo high is almost immediate. This is obviously how it effects me personally everybody has different tolerances and i myself have different tolerance levels at different times of the day. I find the high from the auto strains i've grown to be slightly more pliable or controllable in as much as my mind can play with it mood wise, i found that if i was already tired the auto high would quite easily put me to sleep, but with a little self motivation if i got up and got active the high would switch to more of an 'up' buzz this was a completely new smoking experience for me and i liked it! with a photo high i would be stoned immediately and stay on that level for many hours, often in a mild state of panic or confusion. I would only smoke photo weed if i was at home and knew i wasn't going anywhere or had anything significant to do! since growing auto's i've started smoking before work as i work late shifts, i found i could get up have a wake and bake enjoy a pleasant high and by the time i was going to work i was relaxed, focused and in control. People even commented how much calmer i was at work and dealing with things better rather than flying off the handle when things went wrong! the odd occassion i smoked photo weed at work reduced me to a shambling paranoid wreck lol! I gave some friends a few samples of my 1st grow and all of them said it was a quality smoke, no complaints strength wise. So to sum up i'd say photo weed is stronger in duration i.e length of high, Auto's are just as capable of hitting the spot but the high is more manageable. I am looking at a few photo strains for the future but that is purely for yield reasons, at the moment i'm extremely happy with what auto's have to offer.
Similar threads
