Why Triploid Cannabis Seeds Are the Smartest Grow Upgrade

[The Vault]

At https://humboldtseedcompany.com/og-triploid-auto/, the company claims average (not best case) 30%-34% THC. I've seem similar percentage claims by growers and dispensaries (which many say often cheat) and seed companies.

Is this for real, attainable, or a by-product of funky testing methods? This seems to be about the same concentration as kief or other simply concentrated trichomes. If allow another 10% for other terpenes/essential oils, non-THC cannabinoids and also unavoidably some moisture bound in the buds, this means the buds are about 50% or maybe more liquid! And then there still would be a fair amount of stuff within the buds (the dead plant cells) - cellulose (bud structure; cell walls and fibrils), DNA, proteins, chloroplasts/organelles, chlorophyll/pigments, misc. salts, ATP, etc. [I just saw in another posting someone citing that <15% bud moisture after drying is good for pressing, suggesting even higher percentage water in buds than I assumed].

What do actual 34% buds look like? The seed co. and dispensary online pictures for strains claiming over 20% to me look all much the same, in terms that they are not oozing/slimed/goop-covered with THC/congealed trichomes.

Good question, and I think this mostly comes down to how those THC figures should be interpreted, not whether the genetics themselves are credible.

When any top breeder cites 30%+ THC, I read that as demonstrated potential under optimised conditions, based on lab-tested samples — not a promise that every plant, harvest, or bud averages.

On the physical side, even very high-testing flower isn’t going to look meaningfully different from other elite cuts once you’re already in the low- to mid-20s visually. Past a certain point, appearance just isn’t a reliable proxy for potency, particularly given how labs prep and normalize samples.

Triploids also shouldn’t be read as “breaking” cannabinoid limits so much as making it easier to consistently express the top end of what the cultivar can already do — better uniformity, reduced seed set, and strong resin production all help close the gap between theoretical and realized performance.

 

[The Vault]

For sure I will contact you.

All the best to George and the hole Vault crew.
Have a nice day
cu tobe

Thanks buddy, and to you

 

[Gr8racr]

One of the best things I've seen from triploids is the sterility. I shared one of my unreleased triploid strains with a buddy in Ohio that had two plants(orange creampop) that hermed in same tent completely full of seeds(i got 22 from a single bud he shared) but the triploid I shared had a single non viable seed that was about 1:15 the size. that strain was (4n Blackjack x Romulan Grapefruit x pre98 Bubba x Sweeties) I was given naming authority and called it Amber Alert . I ppgot sent back a cut from that and should have chopped week 7 as on week 8 i ended with lots of Amber heads.

 

[The Vault]

One of the best things I've seen from triploids is the sterility. I shared one of my unreleased triploid strains with a buddy in Ohio that had two plants(orange creampop) that hermed in same tent completely full of seeds(i got 22 from a single bud he shared) but the triploid I shared had a single non viable seed that was about 1:15 the size. that strain was (4n Blackjack x Romulan Grapefruit x pre98 Bubba x Sweeties) I was given naming authority and called it Amber Alert . I ppgot sent back a cut from that and should have chopped week 7 as on week 8 i ended with lots of Amber heads.

With those genetics the strain sounds amazing!

Nice choice of name too

 

[BII]

Good question, and I think this mostly comes down to how those THC figures should be interpreted, not whether the genetics themselves are credible.

When any top breeder cites 30%+ THC, I read that as demonstrated potential under optimised conditions, based on lab-tested samples — not a promise that every plant, harvest, or bud averages.

On the physical side, even very high-testing flower isn’t going to look meaningfully different from other elite cuts once you’re already in the low- to mid-20s visually. Past a certain point, appearance just isn’t a reliable proxy for potency, particularly given how labs prep and normalize samples.

Triploids also shouldn’t be read as “breaking” cannabinoid limits so much as making it easier to consistently express the top end of what the cultivar can already do — better uniformity, reduced seed set, and strong resin production all help close the gap between theoretical and realized performance.

Regarding,"When any top breeder cites 30%+ THC, I read that as demonstrated potential under optimised conditions, based on lab-tested samples."
a) So reports of buds ≥30% THC are "based on" and not actual final results from scientifically valid standardized methods and reporting?
These are claims of "potential under optimized conditions" (all sounds vague)? Should we just interpret >30% strain claims as hype indicating higher THC expected "under optimised conditions?" Should we have expectations (or not) that data reported are for real, such as follow standardized analytical methods, would pass peer/expert reviews?
b) Are there any studies in relevant, such as analytical-related peer reviewed, publications or other reliable sources that report >30% THC buds?
c) How should we interpret Humboldt making the claim of "Avg. THC 30-34"? What this is an average of? [E.g., average of 2 highest outlier results out of dozens of test runs?]
d) Regarding "mostly comes down to how those THC figures should be interpreted," how can we, consumers, do that at all? Particularly where such high results are reported, there should be some basic info. available somewhere with the lab's or breeder's conclusions/interpretations; an abstract/summary of methods, results and conclusions; some marketing pieces/Web pages have relevant footnotes; etc.

 

[Mossy]

. You know..it kinda reminds me of the debates we had over Autos when they come out..and look at them now..

Also LED grow lights.. people were really divided about both when they first come on the market... ..the way to settle this one is to actually get them growing and See.....

New to the market.....be a Pioneer... grow some and let the rest of us know..take one for the Team.....


#HappyFriday

 

[The Vault]

Regarding,"When any top breeder cites 30%+ THC, I read that as demonstrated potential under optimised conditions, based on lab-tested samples."
a) So reports of buds ≥30% THC are "based on" and not actual final results from scientifically valid standardized methods and reporting?
These are claims of "potential under optimized conditions" (all sounds vague)? Should we just interpret >30% strain claims as hype indicating higher THC expected "under optimised conditions?" Should we have expectations (or not) that data reported are for real, such as follow standardized analytical methods, would pass peer/expert reviews?
b) Are there any studies in relevant, such as analytical-related peer reviewed, publications or other reliable sources that report >30% THC buds?
c) How should we interpret Humboldt making the claim of "Avg. THC 30-34"? What this is an average of? [E.g., average of 2 highest outlier results out of dozens of test runs?]
d) Regarding "mostly comes down to how those THC figures should be interpreted," how can we, consumers, do that at all? Particularly where such high results are reported, there should be some basic info. available somewhere with the lab's or breeder's conclusions/interpretations; an abstract/summary of methods, results and conclusions; some marketing pieces/Web pages have relevant footnotes; etc.

I don’t think it’s a black-and-white issue.

A single result doesn’t necessarily represent a guaranteed outcome, in general, very high numbers are best read as indicative rather than definitive — they suggest what might be possible under certain conditions, not what should be expected every time.

 

[WildBill]

Didn't Humbolt catch a lot of Flack last year from the triploids they introduced, herming all over the place?
I don't remember what they found out that finally caused it.