[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Claudan wrote:
past the initial costs and whatever margin of fuck-ups,
is it financially viable for a person to grow for personal use, with no reselling intentions, iyo?
lets say i cop an oscar for 250 usually?[/quote]
Imho, yes, depending on your habit. If that is one O per week, then absolutely. If you’re super casual and the O lasts you six mos. why bother?
[/quote]
thanks.
O lasts 6 mos… good one 
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Claudan wrote:
how can i tell a female from a male db
and would you only recommend female clones?[/quote]
Recommend?
Yes, because otherwise you only get lots and lots of seeds.
Get some feminized seeds, make mother plants, cut clones, …, profit. [/quote]
I may be way behind the times but I think the way to grow for your personal use is to get some quality seeds and grow 4-5 plants from them. When you start cutting the light hours or, if growing outside, when the days start getting shorter, watch the plants closely for flowering and cut out any males at the 1st sign of a flower.
My belief is plants grown from cuttings grow way slower than from seeds plus you have to keep their light hours high all the time so they don’t go to flower until they’ve grown large enough. Cuttings would also be a lot of work for the casual grower growing for their personal use. If you want to maintain a line from a great plant via cuttings you will have to take cuttings from all your plants because you won’t know which ones will be the good ones until they’ve gone to flower and I don’t think you can get cuttings to grow after they’ve started to flower.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe DBC will come on here and say you can take cuttings from a flowering plant, blast it with nitrogen and 24 hours of light and it will grow. I don’t think most people want to mess with that though. The easiest is probably to grow enough seeds to make sure you will get at least one female, cut out males as they appear, and grow from quality stock. Maybe that feminized seed thing Orion mentioned would be worth while.
So, how are we going to get rich?
And while we’re at it, does anyone have any ideas on how to capitalize on this California drought?
I have been on all sides of this argument with family, friends, colleagues etcc. I am a candidate for medical use as I have epilepsy. Have used it and sold it in the past, but cannot since my employers test for it. And would love to be able to ingest (charlotte strand) oil instead of taking 3grams/day of AEDs .Which also includes blood-work to make sure they aren’t destroying my liver.
How I would prefer it being handled is simply using a similar format to alcohol. In some states you can have distillery for making ethanol and there are stipulations on whether its for personal use, consumption, fuel. If you want to grow pot, pay for an inspection/permit and abide by the regulations to which you are applying for (personal use, sale, etc…). If you’re smoking in a prohibited area, you get hit with a fine/ticket. Nothing more. Since we don’t have a immediate detection method similar to a breathalyzer, the cop performs a sobriety check(walk the line), if you fail then its public intoxication(fine$$). Black market guys should get hit with tax evasion/operating without a permit(fine$$$). If you don’t pay a fine, you work it off with public service.
The market I believe will stabilize itself, retail vendors will know if they are being under-bid by the black market and will have to adjust their prices accordingly. If the Black market price per ounce is $300 and in stores its $400, the legal operator will have to make adjustments to business overhead just like any other business to survive. They simply won’t make as much $/gram as the black market guys, but will be legal and probably move more volume.
Now as to what I actually wanted to ask in regard to moneys being made. I’m with a few others on that difficulties will continue until companies are allowed to deposit their earnings legally. So I would lean more towards innovations or products used for aiding cultivation or consumption rather than the product itself. As they can be used for more than just that one specific crop. I’m also curious where Hemp’s legality will fall now that Cannibus is moving forward. It doesn’t compare in a ROI standpoint, but it has more uses(maybe) and almost no potential for abuse. Maybe investing in a company “GMOing” a hemp strain similar to Miscanthus??
[quote]on edge wrote:
So, how are we going to get rich?[/quote]
I’m telling you, until it is legal federally, you are looking at an uphill struggle.
People will be paying tax on their top line, you are looking at 20-40% in tax, on the TOP LINE. That is an insane amount of tax. Now, you may be able to layer in some pass through entities and dump some management fees along the way to get that taxable income down a bit by the time it reaches the ultimate tax payer, however, the rules will be cloudy and you’d be ripe for audit/will lose in court.
This factor alone will keep the price of the legal weed higher than it would be in a different market place, which will hurt volume, therefore putting (at least materially significant, but likely not crippling) downward pressure on revenues.
Whether you invest in a pot company, start one, or work at one, the choo-choo train to richville isn’t a modern high speed rail until it is legal federally.
And of course this ignores the fact that the FDA, EPA, DOJ and all the other letter bureaucracy may suddenly want to clamp down on this shit. Cotton, tobacco, oil & pharma lobbies aren’t about to sit back and lose 1% of revenues over the cultivation and technological advancements weed/hemp can create let alone the much larger realistic revenue losses that are possible. Legal weed offers so much more to society than a bunch of stoned hippies listening to god awful music. And for everyone that stands to profit off that, there are a coupel established people, lobbies, that stand to lose.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And of course this ignores the fact that the FDA, EPA, DOJ and all the other letter bureaucracy may suddenly want to clamp down on this shit. Cotton, tobacco, oil & pharma lobbies aren’t about to sit back and lose 1% of revenues over the cultivation and technological advancements weed/hemp can create let alone the much larger realistic revenue losses that are possible. Legal weed offers so much more to society than a bunch of stoned hippies listening to god awful music. And for everyone that stands to profit off that, there are a coupel established people, lobbies, that stand to lose. [/quote]
That is exactly what happened here in PA with the rise in RYO places. As soon as Philip Morris and Ligget realized a significant loss they didn’t hesitate to pull every maneuver they could to knock it out.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Claudan wrote:
how can i tell a female from a male db
and would you only recommend female clones?[/quote]
Recommend?
Yes, because otherwise you only get lots and lots of seeds.
Get some feminized seeds, make mother plants, cut clones, …, profit. [/quote]
I may be way behind the times but I think the way to grow for your personal use is to get some quality seeds and grow 4-5 plants from them. When you start cutting the light hours or, if growing outside, when the days start getting shorter, watch the plants closely for flowering and cut out any males at the 1st sign of a flower.
My belief is plants grown from cuttings grow way slower than from seeds plus you have to keep their light hours high all the time so they don’t go to flower until they’ve grown large enough. Cuttings would also be a lot of work for the casual grower growing for their personal use. If you want to maintain a line from a great plant via cuttings you will have to take cuttings from all your plants because you won’t know which ones will be the good ones until they’ve gone to flower and I don’t think you can get cuttings to grow after they’ve started to flower.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe DBC will come on here and say you can take cuttings from a flowering plant, blast it with nitrogen and 24 hours of light and it will grow. I don’t think most people want to mess with that though. The easiest is probably to grow enough seeds to make sure you will get at least one female, cut out males as they appear, and grow from quality stock. Maybe that feminized seed thing Orion mentioned would be worth while.[/quote]
You are right, seedlings do way better than clones.
However, over here, clones are legal, as are seeds, so you just put 30 on a square meter and off you go.
No way I am paying for inferior shit if I can do it ten times better.
if nothing else I’m gonna try to grow for the experience of it.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And of course this ignores the fact that the FDA, EPA, DOJ and all the other letter bureaucracy may suddenly want to clamp down on this shit. Cotton, tobacco, oil & pharma lobbies aren’t about to sit back and lose 1% of revenues over the cultivation and technological advancements weed/hemp can create let alone the much larger realistic revenue losses that are possible. Legal weed offers so much more to society than a bunch of stoned hippies listening to god awful music. And for everyone that stands to profit off that, there are a coupel established people, lobbies, that stand to lose. [/quote]
That is exactly what happened here in PA with the rise in RYO places. As soon as Philip Morris and Ligget realized a significant loss they didn’t hesitate to pull every maneuver they could to knock it out.
[/quote]
I live in a area that used to be nothing but Tobacco fields and was speaking to a family friend about how the tobacco companies will respond to this. He used to work for them setting up networks and their security framework. He may have been blowing smoke up my ass, but he said they have already put together branding packages. He has seen for example “Marlboro Cannibus Cigarette packs”. Not the product itself, but the proposed labels and branding campaigns. So big tobacco may actually be lobbying for it? If a company was to mass produce a product, who better than big tobacco?
[quote]Snookerd wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And of course this ignores the fact that the FDA, EPA, DOJ and all the other letter bureaucracy may suddenly want to clamp down on this shit. Cotton, tobacco, oil & pharma lobbies aren’t about to sit back and lose 1% of revenues over the cultivation and technological advancements weed/hemp can create let alone the much larger realistic revenue losses that are possible. Legal weed offers so much more to society than a bunch of stoned hippies listening to god awful music. And for everyone that stands to profit off that, there are a coupel established people, lobbies, that stand to lose. [/quote]
That is exactly what happened here in PA with the rise in RYO places. As soon as Philip Morris and Ligget realized a significant loss they didn’t hesitate to pull every maneuver they could to knock it out.
[/quote]
I live in a area that used to be nothing but Tobacco fields and was speaking to a family friend about how the tobacco companies will respond to this. He used to work for them setting up networks and their security framework. He may have been blowing smoke up my ass, but he said they have already put together branding packages. He has seen for example “Marlboro Cannibus Cigarette packs”. Not the product itself, but the proposed labels and branding campaigns. So big tobacco may actually be lobbying for it? If a company was to mass produce a product, who better than big tobacco? [/quote]
I think he watched the show “WEEDS” that is exactly what happened.
You may be right Serephin, but then again it could be a case of art imitating life. Like how some writer’s take a small story, then apply their writers touch. I honestly haven’t seen the show.
[quote]Snookerd wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And of course this ignores the fact that the FDA, EPA, DOJ and all the other letter bureaucracy may suddenly want to clamp down on this shit. Cotton, tobacco, oil & pharma lobbies aren’t about to sit back and lose 1% of revenues over the cultivation and technological advancements weed/hemp can create let alone the much larger realistic revenue losses that are possible. Legal weed offers so much more to society than a bunch of stoned hippies listening to god awful music. And for everyone that stands to profit off that, there are a coupel established people, lobbies, that stand to lose. [/quote]
That is exactly what happened here in PA with the rise in RYO places. As soon as Philip Morris and Ligget realized a significant loss they didn’t hesitate to pull every maneuver they could to knock it out.
[/quote]
I live in a area that used to be nothing but Tobacco fields and was speaking to a family friend about how the tobacco companies will respond to this. He used to work for them setting up networks and their security framework. He may have been blowing smoke up my ass, but he said they have already put together branding packages. He has seen for example “Marlboro Cannibus Cigarette packs”. Not the product itself, but the proposed labels and branding campaigns. So big tobacco may actually be lobbying for it? If a company was to mass produce a product, who better than big tobacco? [/quote]
I’ve considered that too in previous discussions and even used a tobacco shop analogy in this one. It seems logical that they would be interested in capitalizing on the movement, what with the knowledge, implements and established distribution networks they already have.
They’re about the only ones capable of doing a lot of the heavy lifting involved in actually commercializing a product like pot. By commercialization I mean producing the next Marlboro red or Newport. The small growers aren’t going to cut it on production, consistency, or any other real commercial element required to do that. They may succeed as a boutique type producer or by having the rights to a great strain but there isn’t much chance that a small grower will trump proven successful business practices that the tobacco companies use.
edit: But as Beans pointed out, there is the federal stuff. Thats a big roadblock.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
edit: But as Beans pointed out, there is the federal stuff. Thats a big roadblock.
[/quote]
lol, yeah.
Guys, this is just the beginning of a huge mess.
By the time the PM’s of the world are selling packs of 5 joints that look like a MArlboro lite, the FDA will have regulated strength, strain, potency, filter contents, and legal driving limits.
This shit is going to be more controlled than alcohol and every bureaucracy is going to want their cut of the pie. DOJ will make up for the lost revenue from pot dealers in jail somehow, lol.
This isn’t all blue skies and rainbows. This is the US government.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Whether you invest in a pot company, start one, or work at one, the choo-choo train to richville isn’t a modern high speed rail until it is legal federally.
[/quote]
Personally I’m not interested in growers, processors or retailers. I’m interested in the types of businesses that will benefit from the trend of the pot trade. The pick & shovel companies or related businesses.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Snookerd wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And of course this ignores the fact that the FDA, EPA, DOJ and all the other letter bureaucracy may suddenly want to clamp down on this shit. Cotton, tobacco, oil & pharma lobbies aren’t about to sit back and lose 1% of revenues over the cultivation and technological advancements weed/hemp can create let alone the much larger realistic revenue losses that are possible. Legal weed offers so much more to society than a bunch of stoned hippies listening to god awful music. And for everyone that stands to profit off that, there are a coupel established people, lobbies, that stand to lose. [/quote]
That is exactly what happened here in PA with the rise in RYO places. As soon as Philip Morris and Ligget realized a significant loss they didn’t hesitate to pull every maneuver they could to knock it out.
[/quote]
I live in a area that used to be nothing but Tobacco fields and was speaking to a family friend about how the tobacco companies will respond to this. He used to work for them setting up networks and their security framework. He may have been blowing smoke up my ass, but he said they have already put together branding packages. He has seen for example “Marlboro Cannibus Cigarette packs”. Not the product itself, but the proposed labels and branding campaigns. So big tobacco may actually be lobbying for it? If a company was to mass produce a product, who better than big tobacco? [/quote]
I’ve considered that too in previous discussions and even used a tobacco shop analogy in this one. It seems logical that they would be interested in capitalizing on the movement, what with the knowledge, implements and established distribution networks they already have.
They’re about the only ones capable of doing a lot of the heavy lifting involved in actually commercializing a product like pot. By commercialization I mean producing the next Marlboro red or Newport. The small growers aren’t going to cut it on production, consistency, or any other real commercial element required to do that. They may succeed as a boutique type producer or by having the rights to a great strain but there isn’t much chance that a small grower will trump proven successful business practices that the tobacco companies use.
edit: But as Beans pointed out, there is the federal stuff. Thats a big roadblock.
[/quote]
I’m not sure Phillip Morris wins the trade. In Washington, the way it’s set up it’s not a market for big business. It’s set up for small timers and set up to stay in the hands of small time operators. If other states follow suit big tobacco won’t be able to get in the market.
mdbx was up over ten percent today.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Claudan wrote:
how can i tell a female from a male db
and would you only recommend female clones?[/quote]
Recommend?
Yes, because otherwise you only get lots and lots of seeds.
Get some feminized seeds, make mother plants, cut clones, …, profit. [/quote]
I may be way behind the times but I think the way to grow for your personal use is to get some quality seeds and grow 4-5 plants from them. When you start cutting the light hours or, if growing outside, when the days start getting shorter, watch the plants closely for flowering and cut out any males at the 1st sign of a flower.
My belief is plants grown from cuttings grow way slower than from seeds plus you have to keep their light hours high all the time so they don’t go to flower until they’ve grown large enough. Cuttings would also be a lot of work for the casual grower growing for their personal use. If you want to maintain a line from a great plant via cuttings you will have to take cuttings from all your plants because you won’t know which ones will be the good ones until they’ve gone to flower and I don’t think you can get cuttings to grow after they’ve started to flower.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe DBC will come on here and say you can take cuttings from a flowering plant, blast it with nitrogen and 24 hours of light and it will grow. I don’t think most people want to mess with that though. The easiest is probably to grow enough seeds to make sure you will get at least one female, cut out males as they appear, and grow from quality stock. Maybe that feminized seed thing Orion mentioned would be worth while.[/quote]
You are right, seedlings do way better than clones.
However, over here, clones are legal, as are seeds, so you just put 30 on a square meter and off you go.
No way I am paying for inferior shit if I can do it ten times better.[/quote]
Seeds only represent a clear improvement over clones if you plan on growing outdoors for years at a time. Seeds are grown outdoors and take about a month or so longer than clones to grow. The only real advantage they offer is if you plan on growing outdoors for years at a time, because they develop a stronger, deeper root system that leads to greater and greater yields each year.
However, that is really the only advantage, and it’s a moot point if you have to grow indoors. Growing indoors is more expensive, but it also lessens the risks of pests, theft, detection, etc.
A clone will grow at about the same speed as a seed, and the yields are comparable if it’s a first-time seed. But if you don’t cut the stalk down and dig the thing up, the plant from seeds will grow back stronger the next year. But the advantage with clones is that you don’t have to wait until next year. A lot of people don’t want a huge harvest all at once, like what they would get from seeds.
Trust me, it’s a fucking bitch to have trim and manicure several plants’ worth of weed, especially if you started growing early in the spring and now have a pound or so (after curing) to get through. Add in the constant race against mold developing, and it’s not a fun time of year. Plus, the fact is that getting rid of all the trimmings is a waste since you can boil them all up in olive oil and get fucking wasted from an ounce of extra virgin weed/olive oil.
With clones, you can grow all year and have a constant, but much more manageable, harvest to deal with. You can stagger things so that every month or so you’re ending up with a few ounces. That makes it easier to store, trim, sell off if need be (it’s pretty tough to find someone who wants a couple pounds compared to finding a few people looking for an ounce).
Clones are a little bit more work, a little bit more money, and well worth all of it. Even if you get super high-quality seeds, when growing outdoors there are all sorts of variables at play that can negate that quality. Nothing is worse than spending all spring, summer and fall growing a few humungous plants, and then you find that you’re stuck with a bunch of garbage and have to wait until next year to start everything all over again. With clones, you don’t have to wait as long to get some buds, and if you fuck something up along the way, you just get more clones and start over. And starting over means saving at least a couple months.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Claudan wrote:
how can i tell a female from a male db
and would you only recommend female clones?[/quote]
Recommend?
Yes, because otherwise you only get lots and lots of seeds.
Get some feminized seeds, make mother plants, cut clones, …, profit. [/quote]
I may be way behind the times but I think the way to grow for your personal use is to get some quality seeds and grow 4-5 plants from them. When you start cutting the light hours or, if growing outside, when the days start getting shorter, watch the plants closely for flowering and cut out any males at the 1st sign of a flower.
My belief is plants grown from cuttings grow way slower than from seeds plus you have to keep their light hours high all the time so they don’t go to flower until they’ve grown large enough. Cuttings would also be a lot of work for the casual grower growing for their personal use. If you want to maintain a line from a great plant via cuttings you will have to take cuttings from all your plants because you won’t know which ones will be the good ones until they’ve gone to flower and I don’t think you can get cuttings to grow after they’ve started to flower.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe DBC will come on here and say you can take cuttings from a flowering plant, blast it with nitrogen and 24 hours of light and it will grow. I don’t think most people want to mess with that though. The easiest is probably to grow enough seeds to make sure you will get at least one female, cut out males as they appear, and grow from quality stock. Maybe that feminized seed thing Orion mentioned would be worth while.[/quote]
You are right, seedlings do way better than clones.
However, over here, clones are legal, as are seeds, so you just put 30 on a square meter and off you go.
No way I am paying for inferior shit if I can do it ten times better.[/quote]
Seeds only represent a clear improvement over clones if you plan on growing outdoors for years at a time. Seeds are grown outdoors and take about a month or so longer than clones to grow. The only real advantage they offer is if you plan on growing outdoors for years at a time, because they develop a stronger, deeper root system that leads to greater and greater yields each year.
However, that is really the only advantage, and it’s a moot point if you have to grow indoors. Growing indoors is more expensive, but it also lessens the risks of pests, theft, detection, etc.
A clone will grow at about the same speed as a seed, and the yields are comparable if it’s a first-time seed. But if you don’t cut the stalk down and dig the thing up, the plant from seeds will grow back stronger the next year. But the advantage with clones is that you don’t have to wait until next year. A lot of people don’t want a huge harvest all at once, like what they would get from seeds.
Trust me, it’s a fucking bitch to have trim and manicure several plants’ worth of weed, especially if you started growing early in the spring and now have a pound or so (after curing) to get through. Add in the constant race against mold developing, and it’s not a fun time of year. Plus, the fact is that getting rid of all the trimmings is a waste since you can boil them all up in olive oil and get fucking wasted from an ounce of extra virgin weed/olive oil.
With clones, you can grow all year and have a constant, but much more manageable, harvest to deal with. You can stagger things so that every month or so you’re ending up with a few ounces. That makes it easier to store, trim, sell off if need be (it’s pretty tough to find someone who wants a couple pounds compared to finding a few people looking for an ounce).
Clones are a little bit more work, a little bit more money, and well worth all of it. Even if you get super high-quality seeds, when growing outdoors there are all sorts of variables at play that can negate that quality. Nothing is worse than spending all spring, summer and fall growing a few humungous plants, and then you find that you’re stuck with a bunch of garbage and have to wait until next year to start everything all over again. With clones, you don’t have to wait as long to get some buds, and if you fuck something up along the way, you just get more clones and start over. And starting over means saving at least a couple months. [/quote]
Two weeks ago I would have agreed with you, but we tried out some new ideas with seedlings and got around 950g under one 600hps lamp with seedlings, with only 9 on a square meter and no vegetative growth.
So, I am questioning conventional wisdom a bit at this point.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Claudan wrote:
how can i tell a female from a male db
and would you only recommend female clones?[/quote]
Recommend?
Yes, because otherwise you only get lots and lots of seeds.
Get some feminized seeds, make mother plants, cut clones, …, profit. [/quote]
I may be way behind the times but I think the way to grow for your personal use is to get some quality seeds and grow 4-5 plants from them. When you start cutting the light hours or, if growing outside, when the days start getting shorter, watch the plants closely for flowering and cut out any males at the 1st sign of a flower.
My belief is plants grown from cuttings grow way slower than from seeds plus you have to keep their light hours high all the time so they don’t go to flower until they’ve grown large enough. Cuttings would also be a lot of work for the casual grower growing for their personal use. If you want to maintain a line from a great plant via cuttings you will have to take cuttings from all your plants because you won’t know which ones will be the good ones until they’ve gone to flower and I don’t think you can get cuttings to grow after they’ve started to flower.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe DBC will come on here and say you can take cuttings from a flowering plant, blast it with nitrogen and 24 hours of light and it will grow. I don’t think most people want to mess with that though. The easiest is probably to grow enough seeds to make sure you will get at least one female, cut out males as they appear, and grow from quality stock. Maybe that feminized seed thing Orion mentioned would be worth while.[/quote]
You are right, seedlings do way better than clones.
However, over here, clones are legal, as are seeds, so you just put 30 on a square meter and off you go.
No way I am paying for inferior shit if I can do it ten times better.[/quote]
Seeds only represent a clear improvement over clones if you plan on growing outdoors for years at a time. Seeds are grown outdoors and take about a month or so longer than clones to grow. The only real advantage they offer is if you plan on growing outdoors for years at a time, because they develop a stronger, deeper root system that leads to greater and greater yields each year.
However, that is really the only advantage, and it’s a moot point if you have to grow indoors. Growing indoors is more expensive, but it also lessens the risks of pests, theft, detection, etc.
A clone will grow at about the same speed as a seed, and the yields are comparable if it’s a first-time seed. But if you don’t cut the stalk down and dig the thing up, the plant from seeds will grow back stronger the next year. But the advantage with clones is that you don’t have to wait until next year. A lot of people don’t want a huge harvest all at once, like what they would get from seeds.
Trust me, it’s a fucking bitch to have trim and manicure several plants’ worth of weed, especially if you started growing early in the spring and now have a pound or so (after curing) to get through. Add in the constant race against mold developing, and it’s not a fun time of year. Plus, the fact is that getting rid of all the trimmings is a waste since you can boil them all up in olive oil and get fucking wasted from an ounce of extra virgin weed/olive oil.
With clones, you can grow all year and have a constant, but much more manageable, harvest to deal with. You can stagger things so that every month or so you’re ending up with a few ounces. That makes it easier to store, trim, sell off if need be (it’s pretty tough to find someone who wants a couple pounds compared to finding a few people looking for an ounce).
Clones are a little bit more work, a little bit more money, and well worth all of it. Even if you get super high-quality seeds, when growing outdoors there are all sorts of variables at play that can negate that quality. Nothing is worse than spending all spring, summer and fall growing a few humungous plants, and then you find that you’re stuck with a bunch of garbage and have to wait until next year to start everything all over again. With clones, you don’t have to wait as long to get some buds, and if you fuck something up along the way, you just get more clones and start over. And starting over means saving at least a couple months. [/quote]
Two weeks ago I would have agreed with you, but we tried out some new ideas with seedlings and got around 950g under one 600hps lamp with seedlings, with only 9 on a square meter and no vegetative growth.
So, I am questioning conventional wisdom a bit at this point. [/quote]
I should have prefaced all of this by pointing out that I am referring strictly to people who are casual growers, people who grow primarily for themselves and maybe to make a little extra money on the side. I would assume that someone who tried out some new ideas has way more experience and knowledge than the casual grower.
Besides, to get back to my original point, conventional wisdom says that no product that is easy to produce will make money from tax revenue if the taxes themselves provide the incentive to produce it on one’s own.