Auto vs Photo

[McStrats]

Let me preface this by saying......I like both, and both have their uses. They are different though. The top pic is (photo) CSI Humboldt Old Family Purple on day 56 of 12/12. It had a month of veg. The second pic is (auto) Mephisto 3BOG on day 70 from sprout.

Both are at similar stages of maturity, but there are differences. I have grown 50/50 autos and photos since 2015. I find the differences overall are similar to the differences between these two. Like anything in life, there are exceptions though... I felt 3BOG is one of the better autos and a good candidate to compare against a good photo. Which is better is entirely subjective. I just used up the last of the 3BOG and it was really nice. I do find the auto buds to be more leafy...and have much less density and less terps. It is about 20% less potent, too. With autos, you can yield the same volume as photos but in about 3-4 weeks less time. Is it worth it? If you like autos...and you are in a crunch for time. Yes. If you can buy an oz of one or the other...it's hard to see someone not going for the good photo vs the good auto.....that being said my next grow will be Mephisto or Night Owl.

 

[iimdomitable]

Fire post @McStrats personally I've seen alottttta postive buzz around Night Owl auto's and the owner Night Owl Daz. I was reading about their strain "Harvey Wallbanger" and its breathe taking. Im currently running a some Tropicana Poison F1 photo's but 100% considering running the Night Owl auto series next.

Cheers

 

[Fallguy111]

I’ve grown maybe 15 autos in the last 5 years. A samsquanch was in my top 5 favorite smoke, ~5oz in 5gallon soil 110 days. A good grower can yield the same amount as a photo in the same time. Autos don’t yield more in less time, actually photos can be harvested much sooner than an auto if you start seedlings at 12/12. Autos are fun to grow for novelty, light pollution, and short season or 2 harvest outdoors. My main issue is marketing making beginner growers think autos are easier or good to learn with but IME it’s the opposite. The forums seem to be filled with beginners growing autos.

 

[Farmer's Hat]

I’ve grown maybe 15 autos in the last 5 years. A samsquanch was in my top 5 favorite smoke, ~5oz in 5gallon soil 110 days. A good grower can yield the same amount as a photo in the same time. Autos don’t yield more in less time, actually photos can be harvested much sooner than an auto if you start seedlings at 12/12. Autos are fun to grow for novelty, light pollution, and short season or 2 harvest outdoors. My main issue is marketing making beginner growers think autos are easier or good to learn with but IME it’s the opposite. The forums seem to be filled with beginners growing autos.

I am puzzled by this as well. I created some auto hybrids back in 2013, and they just dont yield as well as photos. Some of the f1 seeds produced plants that got about 4ft but didn't yield hardly anything. Its bizarre.

I was also messing around with dwarf autos that produced on average half an ounce per plant. They were easy to grow outdoors, and it was discreet. I could imagine why these plants would be desired by some people.

I agree that the industry is marketing autos as a great and easy way for beginners to learn how to grow. I strongly disagree with the idea. Autos are pretty finicky and have bad roi, in my opinion.

 

[DeadHeadX]

What’s the source of data allowing you to conclude that autos are 20% less potent? Certainly not supported by the thc tests that many auto breeders are reporting. The number is likely more like 2-5% less potent, if that. There are simply too many variable to compare apples and oranges though.

 

[conor c]

What’s the source of data allowing you to conclude that autos are 20% less potent? Certainly not supported by the thc tests that many auto breeders are reporting. The number is likely more like 2-5% less potent, if that. There are simply too many variable to compare apples and oranges though.

In the end fuck the numbers it's how it smokes is how I think of it

Let me preface this by saying......I like both, and both have their uses. They are different though. The top pic is (photo) CSI Humboldt Old Family Purple on day 56 of 12/12. It had a month of veg. The second pic is (auto) Mephisto 3BOG on day 70 from sprout.

Both are at similar stages of maturity, but there are differences. I have grown 50/50 autos and photos since 2015. I find the differences overall are similar to the differences between these two. Like anything in life, there are exceptions though... I felt 3BOG is one of the better autos and a good candidate to compare against a good photo. Which is better is entirely subjective. I just used up the last of the 3BOG and it was really nice. I do find the auto buds to be more leafy...and have much less density and less terps. It is about 20% less potent, too. With autos, you can yield the same volume as photos but in about 3-4 weeks less time. Is it worth it? If you like autos...and you are in a crunch for time. Yes. If you can buy an oz of one or the other...it's hard to see someone not going for the good photo vs the good auto.....that being said my next grow will be Mephisto or Night Owl.



View attachment 5373743View attachment 5373744

Just give it a bit of time they will catch up we been working on the photo strains for thousands of years for smoking as flower with autos we have not been working with em that long in the grand scheme of things we have came along way already Vs the early ones of course I prefer photos but in certain situations autos serve a purpose in my opinion

 

[PURPLEB3RRYKUSH]

Autos hold more terpenes than photos that's a fact

 

[PURPLEB3RRYKUSH]

Cant tell the difference between autos and photos nowadays breeding come along way i started growing autos in 2007

 

[PURPLEB3RRYKUSH]

I’ve grown maybe 15 autos in the last 5 years. A samsquanch was in my top 5 favorite smoke, ~5oz in 5gallon soil 110 days. A good grower can yield the same amount as a photo in the same time. Autos don’t yield more in less time, actually photos can be harvested much sooner than an auto if you start seedlings at 12/12. Autos are fun to grow for novelty, light pollution, and short season or 2 harvest outdoors. My main issue is marketing making beginner growers think autos are easier or good to learn with but IME it’s the opposite. The forums seem to be filled with beginners growing autos.

I agree autos take skill i get like 3oz square foot with autos no reveg time

 

[Delps8]

View attachment 5428768View attachment 5428769Cant tell the difference between autos and photos nowadays breeding come along way i started growing autos in 2007

Interesting info - I didn't realize that autos were that old.

For first grow in 2021 (I did one grow in 2017, archived my tent, and then started again in 2021) I ended up killing quite a few seeds and, facing an upcoming hot summer, I saw that I could get a crop of "autoflowers" in "7 weeks" (or somesuch). So I planted them and, 110 days later, got my first harvest. I grow in hydro and all my grows take forever.

I didn't know that autos had a rep of being inferior. I did half a dozen auto grows and got great results. I also did some photos and got great results. The biggest issue that I see for autos is that they grow on their own schedule and they grow like fury. With photos, I can control their height but autos are just beasts.

Very nice, well behaved photo



Wild and crazy autos.


In my experience, both photos and autos will provide a grower with significant yields when given a lot of light, good VPD/temp and RH values, and as few nutrients as possible.

 

[ProPheT 216]

I do find the auto buds to be more leafy...and have much less density and less terps. It is about 20% less potent, too.

I always can taste the fact it's auto, I have had some fire plants tho, but nothing has ever been better than a great photo.

With autos, you can yield the same volume as photos but in about 3-4 weeks less time. Is it worth it? If you like autos...and you are in a crunch for time. Yes.

This is subjective because I can grow a photo under 12 12 from seed and get the same time frame results indoors. I can also delay flower for just 2 to 4 weeks and get pounds off a photo vs ounces off of a auto.

If you can buy an oz of one or the other...it's hard to see someone not going for the good photo vs the good auto.....

Ive never seen autoflower bud advertised as autoflower or for sale anywhere but I might be overlooking it....

Seems to me autos have 2 practical uses. Getting in multiple grows in a short season outside. Taking advantage of veg light schedule inside and getting bud out of your veg room as well.

 

[Farmer's Hat]

View attachment 5428834

Wild and crazy autos.
View attachment 5428835

Thats freaking insane. Thats the first time I've seen autos look like monsters. Do you remember what strains those were?
Also, how long did it take to finish?

 

[tstick]

There's nothing "wrong" with growing automatic cannabis....but it isn't the same species of cannabis and it grows in a completely different way than does photoperiod marijuana. So, when you have known marijuana to be something that grows in a certain way, it's an entirely different game to grow autos...and one that I don't want to play. I don't like the idea of it. I don't like how the genes are polluting a lot of strains, now. There's nothing wrong with it, though, if that's your thing. But it might as well be tobacco or kratom or salvia, etc., in my opinion. I wouldn't say it's more or less of a challenge to grow automatic flowering cannabis. Anything can be as much of a challenge as you want to make it. I just wish that, when people make posts, they always try and specify whether or not they are talking about automatic cannabis or photoperiod marijuana, because lots of times, the advice given might need to be specific to one or the other.

Automatic cannabis is like checkers and photoperiod marijuana is like chess. They are both games played on the same board, yes...but....

 

[Delps8]

Thats freaking insane. Thats the first time I've seen autos look like monsters. Do you remember what strains those were?
Also, how long did it take to finish?

Those were Gelato, probably from Nirvana. The autos and photos take right at 110 days. I suspect that's the case because the res is very large (28 gallons) and the roots can spread out as much as they want. I also grow them at >1kµmol. In the picture of the autos, there's a 330 watt light in the top of the tent and a Vipar xs155 for the "front row" of the plant.

Plants need food to grow and plants make food from light. If you grow cannabis at the traditional "800-1000µmol" which is considered the light saturation point for cannabis, you will end up with large, healthy plants that generate high yields. Most growers give their plants modest amounts of light so they tend to get modest yields.

Mitch Westmoreland is a PhD candidate under Bruce Bugbee and he released two videos early this year about growing cannabis. He publicizes the formula for estimating the yield for a cannabis grow. It's a new version of the old formula which used the wattage of your HPS light. Per Westmoreland, estimated yield of the mass of flower for cannabis is 0.2 to 0.3 gm/mol of light that the grow has received over its lifetime/square meter. It's not magic. It's just a statement of the simple fact that, to grow, cannabis requires carbon and that carbon is only created when photons are used by the plant to create glucose (C6H12O6). That glucose molecule is only way the plant can get carbon so there's a direct relationship between light and food production. Remember, nutrients are not food, they're more like vitamins. Light is how a plant makes food. If you increase light, up the the light saturation point, plants will generate generate more food.

There are other benefits to giving plants lots of light, no question, but crop yield is the most obvious.

Re. yields from autos - check out seed sellers recommendations and my impression is that autos and photos have very similar yields. Overall, though, the biggest factor in the outcome of a grow is the grow environment. Like I wrote, lotsa light, good VPD, and as few nutes as possible and it's back up the truck time with cannabis.

This is the rootball for the photoperiod plant.

 

[medidedicated]

I feel in love with clones. The relationship built between grower and plant. Been growing my clone for a year straight now just learnin and learnin. Im almost at that sweet spot just tweeking feed to save money and get better growth.

Canopy wise its like watching a show horse and its owner. We bounce off eachother. We are roommates literally I sleep next to them. Clones clones clones!

 

[Delps8]

There's nothing "wrong" with growing automatic cannabis....but it isn't the same species of cannabis and it grows in a completely different way than does photoperiod marijuana. So, when you have known marijuana to be something that grows in a certain way, it's an entirely different game to grow autos...and one that I don't want to play. I don't like the idea of it. I don't like how the genes are polluting a lot of strains, now. There's nothing wrong with it, though, if that's your thing. But it might as well be tobacco or kratom or salvia, etc., in my opinion. I wouldn't say it's more or less of a challenge to grow automatic flowering cannabis. Anything can be as much of a challenge as you want to make it. I just wish that, when people make posts, they always try and specify whether or not they are talking about automatic cannabis or photoperiod marijuana, because lots of times, the advice given might need to be specific to one or the other.

Automatic cannabis is like checkers and photoperiod marijuana is like chess. They are both games played on the same board, yes...but....

Perhaps you're thinking of cannabis ruderalis?

Autoflowers are cannabis hybrids that have genes bred into them from cannabis ruderalis. As a result, they don't go into flower by manipulating the photoperiod. Other than that, they're just a cannabis indica/cannabis sativa hybrid.

 

[tstick]

Perhaps you're thinking of cannabis ruderalis?

Autoflowers are cannabis hybrids that have genes bred into them from cannabis ruderalis. As a result, they don't go into flower by manipulating the photoperiod. Other than that, they're just a cannabis indica/cannabis sativa hybrid.

Yes cannabis ruderalis....IF it's in there, then the plants grow differently. No one ever grew this stuff when the landrace strains were around back in the 70's. It's the plants that grow according to the photoperiod laws that are called marijuana to my generation. If the plant doesn't follow those laws then it's something else. I haven't understood the desire for creating automatic cannabis when photoperiod marijuana was doing just fine for all these centuries. Lots of younger folks seem to gravitate towards automatic cannabis, but I think most of the older heads just want to get back to the kinds of stuff that we used to have back when weed was really skunky and smelly and tasty. Anything that has ruderalis in it and grows differently, as a result, isn't going to achieve that. In fact, it's moving further and further away from the old skunky, smelly and unique tasting landrace strains of old. One day, if the trend continues, then all cannabis may be automatic flowering and real marijuana will be gone forever. Ahhh....maybe it's nothing....I'll probably be gone before real marijuana becomes that compromised.....but that's because I'm already old.

 

[Delps8]

Yes cannabis ruderalis....IF it's in there, then the plants grow differently. No one ever grew this stuff when the landrace strains were around back in the 70's. It's the plants that grow according to the photoperiod laws that are called marijuana to my generation. If the plant doesn't follow those laws then it's something else. I haven't understood the desire for creating automatic cannabis when photoperiod marijuana was doing just fine for all these centuries. Lots of younger folks seem to gravitate towards automatic cannabis, but I think most of the older heads just want to get back to the kinds of stuff that we used to have back when weed was really skunky and smelly and tasty. Anything that has ruderalis in it and grows differently, as a result, isn't going to achieve that. In fact, it's moving further and further away from the old skunky, smelly and unique tasting landrace strains of old. One day, if the trend continues, then all cannabis may be automatic flowering and real marijuana will be gone forever. Ahhh....maybe it's nothing....I'll probably be gone before real marijuana becomes that compromised.....but that's because I'm already old.

I've seen that perspective here om RIU and more so on another cannabis site that I frequent. No problem with it at all.

 

[conor c]

I do find the auto buds to be more leafy...and have much less density and less terps. It is about 20% less potent, too.

I always can taste the fact it's auto, I have had some fire plants tho, but nothing has ever been better than a great photo.

With autos, you can yield the same volume as photos but in about 3-4 weeks less time. Is it worth it? If you like autos...and you are in a crunch for time. Yes.

This is subjective because I can grow a photo under 12 12 from seed and get the same time frame results indoors. I can also delay flower for just 2 to 4 weeks and get pounds off a photo vs ounces off of a auto.

If you can buy an oz of one or the other...it's hard to see someone not going for the good photo vs the good auto.....

Ive never seen autoflower bud advertised as autoflower or for sale anywhere but I might be overlooking it....

Seems to me autos have 2 practical uses. Getting in multiple grows in a short season outside. Taking advantage of veg light schedule inside and getting bud out of your veg room as well.

I agree one has never layed me out and I agree with the older style autos I can definitely taste the Rudy in those some of the newer ones though it's a bit harder I find to me autos are good for two things in veg room if you wanna go that way or outdoors when the seasons permit here otherwise I'd pick photos every time give it 20 years tho they might be on a more equal footing by then as we came a long way already so yeah

 

[conor c]

Yes cannabis ruderalis....IF it's in there, then the plants grow differently. No one ever grew this stuff when the landrace strains were around back in the 70's. It's the plants that grow according to the photoperiod laws that are called marijuana to my generation. If the plant doesn't follow those laws then it's something else. I haven't understood the desire for creating automatic cannabis when photoperiod marijuana was doing just fine for all these centuries. Lots of younger folks seem to gravitate towards automatic cannabis, but I think most of the older heads just want to get back to the kinds of stuff that we used to have back when weed was really skunky and smelly and tasty. Anything that has ruderalis in it and grows differently, as a result, isn't going to achieve that. In fact, it's moving further and further away from the old skunky, smelly and unique tasting landrace strains of old. One day, if the trend continues, then all cannabis may be automatic flowering and real marijuana will be gone forever. Ahhh....maybe it's nothing....I'll probably be gone before real marijuana becomes that compromised.....but that's because I'm already old.

I've seen this view expressed a few times idk I hope they continue to evolve separately I'd hate to see any more cannabis go extinct we already lost enough imo as they say variety is the spice of life it sucks without it