30ish Yr old Columbian Gold Seed Sprouts. Do I Want it to be a Male or Female?
- Thread starter Timmahh
- Start date
theexpress
Well-Known Member
you made yourself apart of this... i didnt invite you into me and bt's arguement.. you enterd on behalf of him by your own free will............ sorry it had to happen here but it kinda had to........
Brick Top
New Member
By all means do ... but I wonder if they will add up to the number of likes I have received from the messages you are complaining about, they keep flowing in, or the PMs saying I am right?
Brick Top
New Member
You said that before and my reply was, I am not asking about the equipment used. I am asking about how the testing procedure was changed, what they began to do different from when pot was tested in era I talk about and 'the modern era.'
Since you have clearly proven that you do not have the slightest clue I will just tell you. I know you will refuse to believe it but it is as much of a fact as you believing that your Roadside Red is spectacular.
Back in 'the olden days' far less was understood about cannabis in general and in particular cannabinoids and what really was responsible for the high people got. They knew that THC was the main element but they did not know what else factored in.
When testing was performed they took everything that was found within trichome heads, both glandular and non-glandular trichome heads and THC was a percentage of everything found withing them, everything. That means that in glandular trichome heads the glands, plant matter was part of the equation, and other organic substances belonging to buds like: amino-acids, sugars, terpenoids, vegetal hormones along with cannabinoids.
Later everything other than cannabinoids were factored out of how THC level testing was performed.
Can you see how that would alter percentages greatly? Here is a very simple example. If you are looking for one type of 'thing' and you have 200 'things' to look through and out of the 200 you find 10 of the type of 'thing' you are looking at you will come up with a percentage.
Now if you take the very same group of 'things' and decide that most of them are actually unimportant to what you are attempting to figure out and you factor out, you remove, say 120 of them, and when you look again you will once again find the very same 10 'things' but now that 10 compared to only 80 things rather than to 200 things will be a very different percentage of the total, won't it? There are still only the same number of type of 'thing,' you are looking for, just 10, that has not increased at all, but it has become a larger percentage in relation to the totally number of 'things' it is part of, that now being 80 'things' rather than 200 'things.'
Here is an example I found of a modern era strain that was tested using both the old method of testing and the newer method of testing.
Strain: Afgan Kush
Breeder: World of Seeds
Location: indoor, outdoor
Type: indica
Flowering: ~50 days
Normal or female seeds.
Way of cropping: Mainly indoor/very good yield outdoor
Race: Pure race obtained from the Afgani Kush zone
Genotype: Almost 100% Indica
High: Less than 1.5 m indoor/ until 2 meters outdoor
Wide: Depending on prune. Some branched without prune
Growing time: Three weeks
Harvest time: 45-55 days indoor/average October outdoor/pollitano
Resistance to mushrooms: Average
Resistance to plague: Depends on the plague
Irrigation tolerance: High tolerance to frequent irrigation and fertilization
Yield: Over 400 gr per m2 indoor/ 500 - 600 gr per plant outdoor
Medicinal value: High (for its high content in CBD).Excellent like anti-emetic and antispasmodic
Smell: Hashish.
Flavor: Fruity-sweet.
Effects: Very narcotic, almost devastating
THC Level: 21.6% measured upon the rest of cannabinoids. 7.4% measured upon the rest of organic substances belonging to buds like: amino-acids, sugars, terpenoids, vegetal hormones, and cannabinoids (determined by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry)
Did you notice how when THC was only in relation to cannabinoids and cannabinoids alone, the newer method, the strain tested out as having a THC level of 21.6%? Did you notice that when tested the way pot was tested in 'the olden day's, using the method used to come up with THC levels of the strains I refer to, the THC level dropped all the way down into single digits, all the way down to 7.4%?
Think of that and think of the simple example above a moment. Why did 21.6% drop all the way down to 7.4%? Because glandular plant matter and other things like organic substances belonging to buds like such as amino-acids, sugars, terpenoids, vegetal hormones were included along with cannabinoids.
When the very same strain was tested using the newer method and plant matter like the glands in trichome heads and other organic substances belonging to buds like: amino-acids, sugars, terpenoids, vegetal hormones were removed from the process, were factored out of the equation, suddenly, instantly the very same stain had a THC level of 21.6%, 14.2% higher than when tested under the old testing method.
Someone posted information claiming pot of from 'the olden days' was about 1% THC. That is not exactly true. There were some tests that came in around 1%, more like 1.3%, but it ranged between 2.4% and 9.5%, in 1974, and that when sinsemilla started show up, around 1975 in my area, the level of THC jumped up to as high as 14%, and that was still using the old testing method.
OK, now consider this, if the using the old testing method turned a modern 21.6% strain into a weak 7.4% stain what would using the newer testing method turn strains that under the old testing method came in at 9.5% to 14% into if tested using the newer testing method?
Under the old testing method the better strain of 'the olden days, were between 2.1% to 6.6% higher in levels of THC than the modern strain that came in at 21.6% using the newer method and only 7.4% using the older method. Using the newer testing method on the higher percentage strains of 'the olden days' would result in them have much higher levels of THC than ANY modern strain. ANY. The 9.5% and higher strains of 'the olden days,' tested under the old testing procedure would all if retested under the newer testing method be much higher in levels of THC, and anything from 'the olden day's that was 7.4% back then would be 21.6% now and anything higher than 7.4% back then would be HIGHER ... and that ran up to as high as 14% back then in 'the olden days.'
That is the dirty little secret that 'The Dutch Masters' and the DEA/government do not want people to know because they each benefit from it. 'The Dutch Masters' benefit from it because they are seen as being Gods of Ganja that advanced evolution by leaps and bounds and that equates to overflowing bank accounts thanks to the clueless sheep who actually believe that 'The Dutch Masters' actually made pot more potent.
The DEA benefited because after events like Woodstock where nearly a half million hippies got together and toked their brains out and there were no problems and the towns people raved about how nice and polite 'the kids' were and how before asking something they would say 'excuse me' and they would say 'please and thank you' and how they said the country should be proud of 'the kids' and even the local police chief praised the behavior of 'the kids' pot was seen as being a soft drug and it was becoming accepted and there were even some members of government at the time that say it being legalized as being inevitable and thought it should be made legal.
The discussions went on and on and science progressed and they learned more about cannabis and how much of what had been part of the testing for levels of THC did not belong in the testing procedure, that it was creating inaccurate false findings, so it was finally factored out.
That gave those against pot, hardline government people and the DEA precisely what they had prayed for, that they could suddenly claim that new super-strains were being created and that pot could no longer be seen as the safe soft drug that it once was. The result is that pot was never legalized in the U.S., which if not for the alterations in testing procedure it almost certainly would have been years back.
As I said earlier, I am positive that you, and likely many, will not believe any of this. But it is all fact. When I first heard about it I got it from what might be called the horses mouth itself. My cousin, well to be more accurate my cousin's husband was CIA and his neighbor and best friend was a member of the DEA. While visiting my cousin and her husband back around 1987 or 1988 my cousin's husband, his DEA pal and I were sitting around sipping a few beers and the topic turned to pot. I asked the DEA guy if many of the newer wunder-strains were found all around the country or mainly in isolated areas and he started to laugh his ass off.
He went on to say they do not exist and they never have existed and he told me about the alteration in testing for THC. HE said it likely saved his job and and jobs of many DEA agents. He said for a while in the past Congress was talking about cutting DEA funding because it was a waste of taxpayer dollars to fight against the 'soft drug.' He said the changes in testing let the DEA start to claim pot had become almost a hard drug and that is is dangerous and far more likely than ever to be a gateway drug and the government freaked and rather than cutting DEA funding and jobs the DEA was expanded and given increased funding.
He also went on to say that the way pot had been tested in the past, not just the method, but the way in general led to false inaccurate findings. He said confiscated pot would be tested yearly so a year to year level of potency could be charted. He said if an 18-wheeler filled wit pot would be confiscated the pot would remain in the trailer and parked in some fenced in government property. Some was stacked in government warehouses, when a domestic crop were found it would be yanked up by the roots and sometimes stacked in open sided government sheds or even piled in a field with tarps thrown over it, where it would basically become a compost pile. Confiscated pot would sit for as much as a year in conditions where it was exposed to high heat and light and various conditions known to degrade THC. By the time it was eventually tested THC degradation had altered, sometimes greatly, as in lowering them, the percentages that were then found.
Now when busts are performed samples are taken and sealed and sometimes put on ice and if not able to be tested right away they are refrigerated. Every possible step is taken to preserve the level of THC for testing. I read about one bust where the test results said the confiscated pot was 700% higher in THC than pot of the 70's. 700%! That was because it was perfectly preserved and of course tested under the newer method and then compared to the LOWEST recorded test levels of the past, that relied on the old method of testing.
And since I am on the subject of THC testing do you, or for that fact anyone here other than me, know that current reported levels of THC are not actually the percentage of actual THC that is found? What is actually reported is the percentage of both THC and THCA. What they do is combine the two and IF all of the non-psychoactive THCA found does become fully psychoactive THC then the reported level is that the strain WOULD be. Not what it is when tested, but what it MIGHT POSSIBLY become.
It's called Calculated Active Cannabinoids, the calculation of what MIGHT or COULD be IF all of the non-psychoactive THCA would become fully psychoactive THC.
One of the 'flavor of the month strains,' Super Lemon Haze was tested by an independent lab and using the Calculated Active Cannabinoids method the THC level came in at 23.98%.
But using another modern testing method called Relative Ratio of Active Cannabinoids the very same samples came back with a THC level of 9.64%.
TEST ID: 1006622
REPORT DATE: December 16th 2010
VALID THRU: January 16th 2011
Point Test
Super Lemon Haze
PHYSICAL INSPECTION
Foreign Material: None
Moisture Content: 11.69%
MICROBIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
Assay not performed.
PESTICIDE SCREENING
Assay not performed.
HEAVY METALS
Assay not performed.
CANNABINOID PROFILE Active Cannabinoids
CBD: <0.01%
CBN: 0.27%
THC: 0.88%
CBC: <0.01%
THCV: <0.01%
Inactive Cannabinoids
CBD-A: 0.71%
THC-A: 26.34%
Calculated Active Cannabinoids
CBD: 0.63%
CBN: 0.27%
THC: 23.98%
CBC: <0.01%
THCV: <0.01%
Relative Ratio of Active Cannabinoids
CBD: 0.25
CBN: 0.11
THC: 9.64
CBC: 0
THCV: 0
Total Assayable Cannabinoids: 28.2% Total: 24.88% Total: 10
Thank you for having your product tested by Full Spectrum Laboratories. The enclosed report details the results of the
testing performed on your product. This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written
approval of FSL. This report does not represent FSL Certification. The results relate only to those items tested.
Most people do not have even the slightest clue about true pot potency of the past .. and very few know the whole truth about recorded THV levels of pot of the present.
But MANY just LOVE to talk like they are TRUE EXPERTS on the subject.
Accept it or not, reject it or not, like it or not, it is all 100% factual.
Thus endeth the lesson.
sso
Well-Known Member
its easy to see the strains of today are a compromise at best.
the old school sativas give the best high but are difficult to grow indoors and up north
indicas give the best yield in the shortest time but are a sleepy boring high in the long run.
bt, why you bother with these "my shit is the shit" guys? havent been here long but any fight ive seen you in is always with some blablabla lackwit. looks like mostly "im right cause im right" rebuttals.
the old school sativas give the best high but are difficult to grow indoors and up north
indicas give the best yield in the shortest time but are a sleepy boring high in the long run.
bt, why you bother with these "my shit is the shit" guys? havent been here long but any fight ive seen you in is always with some blablabla lackwit. looks like mostly "im right cause im right" rebuttals.
Brick Top
New Member
I guess it is just a flaw in my personality. Some, possibly many here, like to call me a blowhard and say I like to believe I know everything, but now and then some puppy will just really get under my skin. They will claim to be an expert on something they know absolutely nothing about and my flaw just won't allow me to let it pass. Plus I really do enjoy filling people in on things they do not know and many who do not get involved in some of these exchanges, but who do read them, do not know certain things so while it may appear that I am mainly arguing with one person in the process end up informing many.
Example: From my message above. How many people do you believe knew that a given THC rating is actually the combination of both THC and THCA that is found and that the given percentage is actually based on what the percentage of THC could be if all the non-psychoactive THCA does become fully psychoactive?
Maybe I am way underestimating things but I tend to doubt that more than 10% of the people here knew that. Everyone on the site will not read the message and learn it, but some will and that means more people will then have a better understanding of how THC levels/percentages are determined and how advertised levels of THC are actually misleading in that not everyone will end up with all THCA becoming fully psychoactive, especially if they are ones who do not believe curing to be important or do not cure for long or are just to impatient to cure.
Medical Grade
Well-Known Member
i know i enjoy reading brick top's informative posts 
luciferateme
Active Member
so does anyone know what the old thc level of the cg that timmah is growing was?, also based on all that info it means that more original strains are a lot stronger than the newer stuff. if thats the case arent there still areas in the world where weed still grows uninterupted which could possibly be a lot stronger than stuff that has been cross bred today. or more to the point the cg being grown on here, also if the method of testing was changed would it not be more beneficial to have the 2 testing scores availble somewhere (is it available?)
by the way that was a big read for an early sunday morning.
timmah is your plant showing any signs of sex yet.
lu
by the way that was a big read for an early sunday morning.
timmah is your plant showing any signs of sex yet.
lu
Brick Top
New Member
I'm a retired old dude, 56 years old, retired at 49, and in the colder months this fills most of my time so it is something of a hobby.
And see what I mean ... out of my 'somewhat intense discussion' with the puppy you picked up a small tidbit of information that you might not otherwise have picked up. So did others. So out of something less than wonderful something good still resulted from it .. plus those who never knew the way THC levels were tested was changed now had the chance to read about it. I expect that most will flat out reject it because it is not what they want to believe, but some will realize that it is the truth and again, from something less than wonderful something good was the result .... learning, education, new knowledge that they might otherwise never learned.
I am not saying that justifies all of the 'somewhat intense discussion,' but if at least in the end something good does come from it, than it was not all bad, or at least not as bad as some perceived it too be.
shrigpiece
Well-Known Member
I had no idea thats how it worked, Nice info
Medical Grade
Well-Known Member
Brick top is one of those guys that would be awesome to sit down and burn one with and debate all kinds of tom foolery. I am still kind of confused on the calculated THC levels and THCA? i've grown SLH and it was up there on the potent list, not the most potent thing i ever smoked, but it was better than some other strains that are supposed to be so good, white widdow for example. - but, what breeder doesnt have white widdow version these days. you never know what your really getting anymore.
Brick Top
New Member
Oddly I say the exact same thing about Winston Churchill. With his level of intelligence and his wit he would have to be fun to get high with and talk the night away.
The THC/THCA thing is simple. Both are counted at being THC in that non-psychoactive THCA, under the proper conditions, will transform into THC, it is the precursor element to THC. There is no way for anyone to calculate if 65% of it of 80% of it or 100% of it will end up fully psychoactive THC so they just basically are saying that IF it does, X% will be the final percentage of THC.
Now it is known that intense enough heat, as in flame will cause at least a partial decarboxylization process to occur, the process of non-psychoactive THCA turning into fully psychoactive THC, which explains why freshly harvested and dried but uncured cannabis can still be fairly potent. But it will not cause full decarboxylization so that is part of what makes a long slow cure important. Even then not all non-psychoactive THCA will become fully psychoactive THC, but between a long slow curing process and then the intense heat of flame, or a vaporizer, you will achieve whatever the maximum amount of decarboxylization as is possible given the strain, drying conditions, curing conditions and length of time etc. It might turn out to be 100% and then be what a reported THC level claimed it would be, but it might end up being 90% or 92% or 89% etc. There is just no way to accurately predict what will happen 100% of the time.
That is why the more honest breeders will either not advertise a THC percentage or will say something like, 'as much as up to x%.' They know they cannot in all honesty say 22% or between 19% and 23% or no less than 25%. They also know that there can and will be a difference between phenotypes so to claim some percentage as if it is a fact in every case is something a more honest breeder will not do. They also know that genetics are really only about 50% of the final outcome and that while no one can grow a strain beyond it's genetic potential it is easy to grow it in a way to fall short of it's genetic potential, and they know many growers will do just that so they will not tell them they will end up with X%.
Other breeders have taken the Madison Avenue advertising hype route and will sample their wares and then take in the very best they have to be tested and out of all that is tested they will advertise the highest level found. They don't care in the least if you end up 5% lower or 8% lower. They already got you to fall for their advertising, they already banked your money and they know that unless you totally blow the grow, as long as it turns out pretty good you will tell yourself, and your friends, that you are toking 25%THC pot, even if in reality it's 18%.
People believe what they want to believe. If they believe a strain will assure them X% THC, as long as their crop turns out decent or better they will believe they have X% herb to smoke and they will LOVE the breeder because of it.
There are no truth in advertising laws in regards to strains and there are no full disclosure laws in regards to strains. Honest breeders take one route, less than honest breeders take another route and each individual believes whatever it is that they want and or need to believe.
boneheadbob
Well-Known Member
I am glad I learned about testing THC from BT. But I have always been open to learning from people who know more then me rather then blowing a fuse because my brain cant handle that fact.
I would be one piss poor, dumber then dirt Ahole if I went through life like that.
Back to topic. If that 30 year old seed is actually a tall female sativa, how are you gonna grow it?
Topped, not topped, inside, outside? Its probaly on the first page, I did read the entire thread but its been awhile.
Bricktop/ If I had a pack of Nevilles SSH beans in my greedy little hands and did not want 6 foot trees, would it be ok to top them and maybe torture them into a smaller bush shape before flowering at about a month old after I get a good root system and some lush mature leaves growing in a 5 or 7.5 gallon pot? I would start them in smaller containers, moving into the five gallon a week before flower.
The five gallon pot is much easier for my old butt to move around and water.
I would be one piss poor, dumber then dirt Ahole if I went through life like that.
Back to topic. If that 30 year old seed is actually a tall female sativa, how are you gonna grow it?
Topped, not topped, inside, outside? Its probaly on the first page, I did read the entire thread but its been awhile.
Bricktop/ If I had a pack of Nevilles SSH beans in my greedy little hands and did not want 6 foot trees, would it be ok to top them and maybe torture them into a smaller bush shape before flowering at about a month old after I get a good root system and some lush mature leaves growing in a 5 or 7.5 gallon pot? I would start them in smaller containers, moving into the five gallon a week before flower.
The five gallon pot is much easier for my old butt to move around and water.
Mr.Therapy Man 2
Active Member
Shantis SSH has phenos that are all over the place bro.I had one with fat leaves that finished in 9 weeks,I also had one hazy gal that took 14 weeks.My best pheno was a 10 weeker that was allmost pure sativa,it was actually stronger than my 14 week pheno.I popped 9 seeds and got 6 different phenos..good luck and good pheno hunting.....peace
Mr.Therapy Man 2
Active Member
Topped and trained SSH will yeild way better than untopped plants
Brick Top
New Member
Sure, you could do that. I have never tried topping Super Silver Haze but I have heard it responds half well to it. I don't know about other or additional training methods.
But if you are talking about the Super Silver Haze that Neville and Shantibaba worked together to create, keep in mind, as they themselves say it; " For the experienced growers to the most advanced." It's a strain where if you want the best you can get from it you have to stay on top of things and head any problems 'off at the pass.' It's not the most forgiving strain to grow and if you have problems they can tend to spiral downhill quickly if you are not quick to react and react correctly.
If you grow it like it is in 'intensive care' from day one and you should LOVE it. If you make bubble hash the trimmings will give you a really special treat. If you grow it like many people grow you may end up cursing the day you spent your money on it.
Brick Top
New Member
I have only grown it three times and I didn't see nearly the number of phenotypes you described. Mine were always fairly similar, but a buddy of mine had your luck like yours. He almost swore he had to get a pack of mixed seeds because his plants were so different from each other.
I guess it comes down to the luck of the draw.
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
Lu... Not shown any sex yet that i can see.
the plans are to stay in veg until it sexes.
if its a male, i ll isolate it in veg, take a few clones and grow them out. take the pollen, and buds, and see if i can get it genomed to determine its heritage (if possible). i ll do that if its female too.
but i ll take one clone from a male and grow it out for the pollen, should the test sample come back with good info.
at that time, i ll take the seedling and decide where to go from there at that point. Prolly offer some Pollen to a few breeders with a true female CG of old. Id like to use anything the seedling offers to try to get a true old school CG back in play on the conisours market.
if its female, much of the same process will happen, but the end plan will likely change. atm im just taking it day by day and playing it by ear.
the plans are to stay in veg until it sexes.
if its a male, i ll isolate it in veg, take a few clones and grow them out. take the pollen, and buds, and see if i can get it genomed to determine its heritage (if possible). i ll do that if its female too.
but i ll take one clone from a male and grow it out for the pollen, should the test sample come back with good info.
at that time, i ll take the seedling and decide where to go from there at that point. Prolly offer some Pollen to a few breeders with a true female CG of old. Id like to use anything the seedling offers to try to get a true old school CG back in play on the conisours market.
if its female, much of the same process will happen, but the end plan will likely change. atm im just taking it day by day and playing it by ear.
boneheadbob
Well-Known Member
Timmahh I dont mean to hijack your thread. I am trying to stay on topic about growing sativas which will hopefully relate to your bean.
I am day 32? flower on my first grow and things are looking great for my two bagseed sativas. One has 16 top colas, is lime green, tiny leaves, smells like cocco or chocolate, fluffly bright yellow tops that are starting to take the shape of a christmas tree. The other sativa has 8 main coals and less foliage. (I stripped some listening to one of those techniques) Its dark green, same tiny leaves, buds seem flatter but colas are more exposed to light, and buds are crawling all the way up, 6, 7 inches long. I know the diff between Indica and sativa because I also have endless sky going, along with a gifted pinapple clone that shows a little more indica in it then my dirtweed sativas.
Best part is the satisfaction and the exercise, the good spiritual feeling growing gives you. I grow veggies that are doing well indoors , waiting for weather to warm up and I dont feel near the love for them as I do for my medicine.
Thanks for the help everyone.
Thanks for the info. I read some of that at the mr nice forum. I will have to read tons more.
I plan on getting another grow or three under my belt before I pop those. I have lots to learn especially when their are so many techniques of growing. Even though I am on my first grow, I have a long history of gardening off and on so that will help a lot.
I am day 32? flower on my first grow and things are looking great for my two bagseed sativas. One has 16 top colas, is lime green, tiny leaves, smells like cocco or chocolate, fluffly bright yellow tops that are starting to take the shape of a christmas tree. The other sativa has 8 main coals and less foliage. (I stripped some listening to one of those techniques) Its dark green, same tiny leaves, buds seem flatter but colas are more exposed to light, and buds are crawling all the way up, 6, 7 inches long. I know the diff between Indica and sativa because I also have endless sky going, along with a gifted pinapple clone that shows a little more indica in it then my dirtweed sativas.
Best part is the satisfaction and the exercise, the good spiritual feeling growing gives you. I grow veggies that are doing well indoors , waiting for weather to warm up and I dont feel near the love for them as I do for my medicine.
Thanks for the help everyone.