Emmy Finally Goes Auto, Convinced Because Of Its Name!

[Emilya Green]

Our Auto just got watered last night, and she is really becoming a beauty. She is at day 33 of bloom and building those buds like a champ. So far, she is having no trouble holding up the weight, but I am curious what happens after a few more weeks.

 

[Timhomegrow]

I'll be curious if you find a difference in taste or potency with the auto. My favorite two smokes from my limited grows were both autos. Granted, my only photo harvest was a bit rough, so I'll see how this photo harvest compares. But so far, I'm not believing the hype that photos are more potent

 

[Jon]

Our Auto just got watered last night, and she is really becoming a beauty. She is at day 33 of bloom and building those buds like a champ. So far, she is having no trouble holding up the weight, but I am curious what happens after a few more weeks.

Wow. Looks like those colas will be big spears. Awesome. Are you surprised at the volume of bud you’re seeing your auto generate? And has this experience changed your opinion at all on autos, besides that you’re having a blast with this one?

 

[Emilya Green]

I'll be curious if you find a difference in taste or potency with the auto. My favorite two smokes from my limited grows were both autos. Granted, my only photo harvest was a bit rough, so I'll see how this photo harvest compares. But so far, I'm not believing the hype that photos are more potent

I am thinking that at my level of growing expertise at the moment, which I will describe as still not producing the consistent A+ quality buds that I desire, I am convinced that the Auto buds will be totally acceptable, if not outstanding, when compared to the rest of what I have grown lately. This one plant with a high enough THC level is going to convince me that my previous prejudices regarding Autos were probably baseless and needing to be updated for a while now. The ability for this plant to sit in a veg room and still bloom... that is priceless and I am going to quickly get used to filling in gaps in my plant count in this way. I do have more Autos planned in the near future.

 

[Emilya Green]

Wow. Looks like those colas will be big spears. Awesome. Are you surprised at the volume of bud you’re seeing your auto generate? And has this experience changed your opinion at all on autos, besides that you’re having a blast with this one?

Now I watch to see how much bulk she can put on. I am not surprised yet with the volume, but I am impressed with how fast she is building that weight. If she keeps going at the present rate she is going to be impressively large, and that does surprise me a little bit. My opinions on growing an Auto have not changed much, since I have proven what I have been saying all along, that a plant is a plant is a plant and that you need to feed this plant heavily from the start, uppotting is desirable and that training can be done effectively, just as with any other plant. I have found the reason that so many people have problems feeding and watering an Auto correctly, the way it stalls out in the first week, and should now with this experience be better able to advise in that regard, although I still want to grow out a few more to see if what I have noted is consistent across many Auto varieties. My overall opinion however will be mostly based on the quality of the smoke. If it tastes wonderful and gets us all stoned for a good while, yes, my opinion will have changed regarding the entire Auto scene. I still see it as a large marketing racket akin to selling only feminized seeds and I really dislike a lot of the bro-science that has grown up around Autos, but maybe I can help dispel some of those notions that annoy me so much as I continue to experiment with Autos in the veg room. I may not be able to change the world from here, but at least I can try to lead by example.

 

[CaptainLucky]

I am thinking that at my level of growing expertise at the moment, which I will describe as still not producing the consistent A+ quality buds that I desire, I am convinced that the Auto buds will be totally acceptable, if not outstanding, when compared to the rest of what I have grown lately. This one plant with a high enough THC level is going to convince me that my previous prejudices regarding Autos were probably baseless and needing to be updated for a while now. The ability for this plant to sit in a veg room and still bloom... that is priceless and I am going to quickly get used to filling in gaps in my plant count in this way. I do have more Autos planned in the near future.

But can you grow them as big as a photo?

 

[CBDMed]

But can you grow them as big as a photo?

@CaptainLucky , good question!
Emilya says she will investigate the question of taste.

And is perhaps another practical question, what yields more stone per "growing day"?
Or perhaps, what yields more stone per hour of labor invested?
(Because prize winning size is great, but in the final analysis, I am just guessing that we are all here to enjoy all the many medicinal benefits of cannabis, and also to get stoned?)

 

[Chuckeye]

But can you grow them as big as a photo?

The easy answer is, depends

My largest auto to date yielded 11g short of pound.

My last two photos vegged for 50 days yielded a half pound each.

If your space allows you can easily out yield an auto with a longer veg time.

Cheers

 

[Emilya Green]

But can you grow them as big as a photo?

Absolutely not. I can veg a photo for 3 months and create a monster plant that would vastly outsize any Auto. You also can't clone Autos and if problems occur, you can't just slide back into veg in order to correct the mistake and go on with bloom later.

This being said, an Auto runs for 3 months, 1 month in veg and 2 in bloom. To get a similarly sized photo you will need to run 2 months in veg and 2 months in bloom, a month longer to get the same result. This allows for 3 photo grows in a year, and 4 Auto grows... so you get one more plant in the same amount of time, in the long run. I am not sure, but it seems that actual yield after that year would be about the same if not slightly better on the faster Auto side... that is if they are all like this one, and can rival the size plants able to be produced from the same sized container on the photo side.

 

[CBDMed]

Absolutely not. I can veg a photo for 3 months and create a monster plant that would vastly outsize any Auto. You also can't clone Autos and if problems occur, you can't just slide back into veg in order to correct the mistake and go on with bloom later.

This being said, an Auto runs for 3 months, 1 month in veg and 2 in bloom. To get a similarly sized photo you will need to run 2 months in veg and 2 months in bloom, a month longer to get the same result. This allows for 3 photo grows in a year, and 4 Auto grows... so you get one more plant in the same amount of time, in the long run. I am not sure, but it seems that actual yield after that year would be about the same if not slightly better on the faster Auto side... that is if they are all like this one, and can rival the size plants able to be produced from the same sized container on the photo side.

Em, what you are doing with that modified Ruderalis bush is nothing short of amazing!

Have you heard anything about those (new?) sub-irrigation planters?
They say they work extremely well for autos.
One friend says his plants grew "too fast", and his bucket ran out of nutes! So now he is having to augment.
So, I was just wondering what kind of monsters you could grow with an SIP setup, or if there is a problem with SIPs.
As always, thank you for the wonderful work of education that you do!

 

[Emilya Green]

Em, what you are doing with that modified Ruderalis bush is nothing short of amazing!

Have you heard anything about those (new?) sub-irrigation planters?
They say they work extremely well for autos.
One friend says his plants grew "too fast", and his bucket ran out of nutes! So now he is having to augment.
So, I was just wondering what kind of monsters you could grow with an SIP setup, or if there is a problem with SIPs.
As always, thank you for the wonderful work of education that you do!

SIP planters are not new. "They", that ubiquitous group of people who comment on everything, are not people that I listen to... I have never been one to follow the crowd or do the things that "they" claim work better than the age old tried and true methods, because frankly, their results rarely hold up to the claims that "they" make about them.

I consider SIP the lazy man's way of improperly watering or the hydro person's method of playing with soil, a person who thinks that the water does all the work. Yes, the plants can adapt to a SIP system and you can get a perfectly good grow out of them, but was it as good as you could have done with proper watering from the top, drawing oxygen down deep into the rootball because of the suction created by the water table as it falls through the medium? Will the specialized set of spreader roots in the top of the container be properly taken care of or even properly utilized with the SIP method of watering? Let's just say that those top roots can't and won't get nourished nearly as well as in a top watering situation. Ask yourself, what is it about an Auto that would make bottom watering with a reservoir of nutes a better system than soil being topwatered? What then is the difference between SIP and a typical DWC or even Hempy setup considering the fact that in both there is constant access to the nute rez at the bottom? Why is this specially suited toward an Auto? I see no logic amplifying that point. I will also state that with proper fertilizing and watering, a top fed plant along with soil's ability to temporarily store nutrient, makes it unnecessary to need to store nutes in a Rez for the plants to access them and that by utilizing the entire root system by topfeeding, I can still provide just as much access to the nutes and the ability to quickly get them into the plant as I can in a water based system, especially one primarily feeding from the bottom.

I have shown very clearly in this thread that an Auto can and should be fed heavily from the very start, it can be transplanted multiple times, and it can be trained by topping and LST and otherwise generally abused. Using these skills I have produced a pretty decent sized plant, ignoring most of the common advice that "they" generally give regarding Autos. I will keep repeating, a plant is a plant is a plant. If you want to feed it from the bottom or even grow it upside down, you can do that, but the big question is why?

 

[CaptainLucky]

@CaptainLucky , good question!
Emilya says she will investigate the question of taste.

And is perhaps another practical question, what yields more stone per "growing day"?
Or perhaps, what yields more stone per hour of labor invested?
(Because prize winning size is great, but in the final analysis, I am just guessing that we are all here to enjoy all the many medicinal benefits of cannabis, and also to get stoned?)

True

 

[CaptainLucky]

The easy answer is, depends

My largest auto to date yielded 11g short of pound.

My last two photos vegged for 50 days yielded a half pound each.

If your space allows you can easily out yield an auto with a longer veg time.

Cheers

Exactly ,we’ve all seen 10-11’ Sativas that had to yield a lbs. each. I’m pretty sure that’s just not possible with a auto. I know people that plant outdoors with very little labor involved and have enormous plants.

 

[CBDMed]

SIP planters are not new. "They", that ubiquitous group of people who comment on everything, are not people that I listen to... I have never been one to follow the crowd or do the things that "they" claim work better than the age old tried and true methods, because frankly, their results rarely hold up to the claims that "they" make about them.

I consider SIP the lazy man's way of improperly watering or the hydro person's method of playing with soil, a person who thinks that the water does all the work. Yes, the plants can adapt to a SIP system and you can get a perfectly good grow out of them, but was it as good as you could have done with proper watering from the top, drawing oxygen down deep into the rootball because of the suction created by the water table as it falls through the medium? Will the specialized set of spreader roots in the top of the container be properly taken care of or even properly utilized with the SIP method of watering? Let's just say that those top roots can't and won't get nourished nearly as well as in a top watering situation. Ask yourself, what is it about an Auto that would make bottom watering with a reservoir of nutes a better system than soil being topwatered? What then is the difference between SIP and a typical DWC or even Hempy setup considering the fact that in both there is constant access to the nute rez at the bottom? Why is this specially suited toward an Auto? I see no logic amplifying that point. I will also state that with proper fertilizing and watering, a top fed plant along with soil's ability to temporarily store nutrient, makes it unnecessary to need to store nutes in a Rez for the plants to access them and that by utilizing the entire root system by topfeeding, I can still provide just as much access to the nutes and the ability to quickly get them into the plant as I can in a water based system, especially one primarily feeding from the bottom.

I have shown very clearly in this thread that an Auto can and should be fed heavily from the very start, it can be transplanted multiple times, and it can be trained by topping and LST and otherwise generally abused. Using these skills I have produced a pretty decent sized plant, ignoring most of the common advice that "they" generally give regarding Autos. I will keep repeating, a plant is a plant is a plant. If you want to feed it from the bottom or even grow it upside down, you can do that, but the big question is why?

Em, sorry, I don't know the answer to any of your questions. I don't even know what DWC is!

I was just curious if you have ever tried SIPs, because you had not tried autos either, and now you are impressed.
And I had a friend tell me that his SIP experiment is going too good.

I appreciate you very much, and there are many here who follow your advice in everything. But, with all due respect and appreciation for all of your help. I still do not understand your adage about how "a plant is a plant is a plant".
Of course it is!
But you are saying that the wet/dry cycle is mandatory for cannabis plantas, and there is another school of thought (SIP) that maintains uniform moisture (more or less), and some people are saying that it yields a better result for them than wet/dry, then why is that wrong?

Respectfully, if a plant is a plant is a plant (and there are no other factors), then why do some plants (like Mary Jane) seem to like wet/dry cycles, and others not seem to grow super-B with a wick?

I don't know, and you are far and away vastly more knowledgeable than me, but does it kind of seem like wet/dry vs NOT-wet/dry is a slightly different approach to growing plants?
And if there is another group that seems to be having good success with wicks, then is it wrong for me to ask if you have ever tried it?
Or (like autos) have you perhaps NOT tried it, and yet you have already formed an indelible opinion?
I ask this in respect and appreciation for all of knowledge, expertise, and help.

 

[CaptainLucky]

Absolutely not. I can veg a photo for 3 months and create a monster plant that would vastly outsize any Auto. You also can't clone Autos and if problems occur, you can't just slide back into veg in order to correct the mistake and go on with bloom later.

This being said, an Auto runs for 3 months, 1 month in veg and 2 in bloom. To get a similarly sized photo you will need to run 2 months in veg and 2 months in bloom, a month longer to get the same result. This allows for 3 photo grows in a year, and 4 Auto grows... so you get one more plant in the same amount of time, in the long run. I am not sure, but it seems that actual yield after that year would be about the same if not slightly better on the faster Auto side... that is if they are all like this one, and can rival the size plants able to be produced from the same sized container on the photo side.

You make a very concise statement and it’s just a question if all auto’s are capable of growing as big as yours.

 

[Emilya Green]

You make a very concise statement and it’s just a question if all auto’s are capable of growing as big as yours.

Yes, I believe that they are all capable of doing what I have done here... its just a matter of getting the timing right.

 

[Emilya Green]

Em, sorry, I don't know the answer to any of your questions. I don't even know what DWC is!

I was just curious if you have ever tried SIPs, because you had not tried autos either, and now you are impressed.
And I had a friend tell me that his SIP experiment is going too good.

I appreciate you very much, and there are many here who follow your advice in everything. But, with all due respect and appreciation for all of your help. I still do not understand your adage about how "a plant is a plant is a plant".
Of course it is!
But you are saying that the wet/dry cycle is mandatory for cannabis plantas, and there is another school of thought (SIP) that maintains uniform moisture (more or less), and some people are saying that it yields a better result for them than wet/dry, then why is that wrong?

Respectfully, if a plant is a plant is a plant (and there are no other factors), then why do some plants (like Mary Jane) seem to like wet/dry cycles, and others not seem to grow super-B with a wick?

I don't know, and you are far and away vastly more knowledgeable than me, but does it kind of seem like wet/dry vs NOT-wet/dry is a slightly different approach to growing plants?
And if there is another group that seems to be having good success with wicks, then is it wrong for me to ask if you have ever tried it?
Or (like autos) have you perhaps NOT tried it, and yet you have already formed an indelible opinion?
I ask this in respect and appreciation for all of knowledge, expertise, and help.

Hi Amigo, sorry I went on a tirade on you there. dwc is deep water culture, basically growing in a bucket of water. I compared SIP to that hydroponic system, basically roots hanging in the water.

My argument is against groupthink. They say this... they say that... I see it all over the internet... Everyone thinks this or that. No. I don't participate in groupthink and I don't use that argument to prove a concept. I know what my personal experiments and study have given me. I know that in the case of SIP, very very few people use this method as compared to traditional methods, yet despite their relatively low numbers, they are very loud on the internet and it is easy to see why someone might think this is an acceptable way to grow prize winning plants. In some hands, that might be true, but in general, I see SIP as a shortcut, or as a way to get around the 5 or 6 hours a week that I spend hand watering.

Whatever works I guess... but I know the importance of using the top water to draw oxygen down into the soil, I have studied the advantages gained by migrating the soil around in the container by the way you water a container and the abilities of forcing a wet/dry cycle in order to grow massive roots. I can't imagine in a side by side test that the wick watered plant could ever actually compete with a plant hand watered from the top.

The quip that a plant is a plant is a plant, simply means that I see no significant difference in Autos vs Photos that requires that one group needs to be treated any differently than the other. I am not comparing plants across different species. Here in the cannabis world they all need the same basics and I believe that based on the clues the plant gives you, they are fed and watered in exactly the same way. Likewise, I believe they can be transplanted, topped and trained, also in the same way as photoperiod plants... just at a faster pace in the case of the Autos.

Our plant is extremely adaptable, so it can learn to grow in multitudinous ways. Bottom watering, dunking, wicking, and growing sideways and upside down can be done, just as people try to do with tomatoes and strawberries. Some people have great luck with these strange methods and some do not. The method of watering that I teach is the age old method of top watering. We have studied it for centuries and we know why it works and we know what is not allowed to happen when we keep the medium wet and when we try to do things unnaturally such as watering from the bottom or purposely exclude the functions of the top spreader roots. I have seen what happens when we fail to force the plant to grow roots by keeping the medium too wet as well as some of the other things that can happen when we allow too much water into our grow rooms.

And yes, I have tried some of these methods, including wicking. If I had been impressed, I would probably still be using those techniques. Unfortunately, I have found that the very best way to water is to water from the top using my small hand watering pitcher, taking time to water properly. If it was more effective doing things an easier way, I would be all over it.

 

[CaptainLucky]

Hi Amigo, sorry I went on a tirade on you there. dwc is deep water culture, basically growing in a bucket of water. I compared SIP to that hydroponic system, basically roots hanging in the water.

My argument is against groupthink. They say this... they say that... I see it all over the internet... Everyone thinks this or that. No. I don't participate in groupthink and I don't use that argument to prove a concept. I know what my personal experiments and study have given me. I know that in the case of SIP, very very few people use this method as compared to traditional methods, yet despite their relatively low numbers, they are very loud on the internet and it is easy to see why someone might think this is an acceptable way to grow prize winning plants. In some hands, that might be true, but in general, I see SIP as a shortcut, or as a way to get around the 5 or 6 hours a week that I spend hand watering.

Whatever works I guess... but I know the importance of using the top water to draw oxygen down into the soil, I have studied the advantages gained by migrating the soil around in the container by the way you water a container and the abilities of forcing a wet/dry cycle in order to grow massive roots. I can't imagine in a side by side test that the wick watered plant could ever actually compete with a plant hand watered from the top.

The quip that a plant is a plant is a plant, simply means that I see no significant difference in Autos vs Photos that requires that one group needs to be treated any differently than the other. I am not comparing plants across different species. Here in the cannabis world they all need the same basics and I believe that based on the clues the plant gives you, they are fed and watered in exactly the same way. Likewise, I believe they can be transplanted, topped and trained, also in the same way as photoperiod plants... just at a faster pace in the case of the Autos.

Our plant is extremely adaptable, so it can learn to grow in multitudinous ways. Bottom watering, dunking, wicking, and growing sideways and upside down can be done, just as people try to do with tomatoes and strawberries. Some people have great luck with these strange methods and some do not. The method of watering that I teach is the age old method of top watering. We have studied it for centuries and we know why it works and we know what is not allowed to happen when we keep the medium wet and when we try to do things unnaturally such as watering from the bottom or purposely exclude the functions of the top spreader roots. I have seen what happens when we fail to force the plant to grow roots by keeping the medium too wet as well as some of the other things that can happen when we allow too much water into our grow rooms.

And yes, I have tried some of these methods, including wicking. If I had been impressed, I would probably still be using those techniques. Unfortunately, I have found that the very best way to water is to water from the top using my small hand watering pitcher, taking time to water properly. If it was more effective doing things an easier way, I would be all over it.

I can personally testify that Em’s watering technique works wonders. When I Uppotted from solos to grow bags the soil came out whole covered in beautiful white roots. Thanks again Em.

 

[CBDMed]

Hi amiga!
Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail.

Hi Amigo, sorry I went on a tirade on you there.

S'ok. No worries.

dwc is deep water culture, basically growing in a bucket of water. I compared SIP to that hydroponic system, basically roots hanging in the water.

Ahh, ok! Thank you!

My argument is against groupthink. They say this... they say that... I see it all over the internet... Everyone thinks this or that. No. I don't participate in groupthink and I don't use that argument to prove a concept.

Ok!
That isn't what I was trying to do was to say, "Hey! There is a great stock tip!"
What I was trying to say is that I have another friend who is also helping me who is encouraging me to check out SIPs. He says it is working much better for him than wet/dry, such that his plants are growing "too fast"!
I can't speak to his techniques because I don't know them, but since you have helped me so much, I thought I would ask if you have ever tried this method.
(Now that I am writing this, I seem to recall someone butting in on one of your threads and being nasty. Was that an SIP guy?)
Anyway, I have got a friend in the other ear (whom I would prefer not to name, because I don't want a fight) who is telling me it is working great for him, so I thought I would ask.

I know what my personal experiments and study have given me.

Ok.

I know that in the case of SIP, very very few people use this method as compared to traditional methods, yet despite their relatively low numbers, they are very loud on the internet and it is easy to see why someone might think this is an acceptable way to grow prize winning plants. In some hands, that might be true, but in general, I see SIP as a shortcut, or as a way to get around the 5 or 6 hours a week that I spend hand watering.

I can understand if your goal is winning prizes. You go, girl!
But I guess my goal is not winning prizes. My goal is to grow my tasty yummy medicine with as least time as possible, so saving 5-6 hours a week would be huge for me, with my 95+ hour a week schedule.

Whatever works I guess... but I know the importance of using the top water to draw oxygen down into the soil, I have studied the advantages gained by migrating the soil around in the container by the way you water a container and the abilities of forcing a wet/dry cycle in order to grow massive roots.

Your results are obvious, for everyone to see!
But I must confess I am having a hard time following the watering routine as given when I have branches LST and hoops all the way to the outside of the pot.

I can't imagine in a side by side test that the wick watered plant could ever actually compete with a plant hand watered from the top.

Ok. I think it would be great to run some tests like that!
Are there any existing tests like that out there, on the internet? (In 420 land??)

The quip that a plant is a plant is a plant, simply means that I see no significant difference in Autos vs Photos that requires that one group needs to be treated any differently than the other.

Ok.

I am not comparing plants across different species.

Ok.

Here in the cannabis world they all need the same basics and I believe that based on the clues the plant gives you, they are fed and watered in exactly the same way. Likewise, I believe they can be transplanted, topped and trained, also in the same way as photoperiod plants... just at a faster pace in the case of the Autos.

Ok.

Our plant is extremely adaptable, so it can learn to grow in multitudinous ways. Bottom watering, dunking, wicking, and growing sideways and upside down can be done, just as people try to do with tomatoes and strawberries. Some people have great luck with these strange methods and some do not. The method of watering that I teach is the age old method of top watering. We have studied it for centuries and we know why it works and we know what is not allowed to happen when we keep the medium wet and when we try to do things unnaturally such as watering from the bottom or purposely exclude the functions of the top spreader roots. I have seen what happens when we fail to force the plant to grow roots by keeping the medium too wet as well as some of the other things that can happen when we allow too much water into our grow rooms.

And yes, I have tried some of these methods, including wicking.

Ok, thank you! That seems very good to know.

If I had been impressed, I would probably still be using those techniques.

Yes, that seems very logical.

Unfortunately, I have found that the very best way to water is to water from the top using my small hand watering pitcher, taking time to water properly. If it was more effective doing things an easier way, I would be all over it.

Yeah, it is just that 5-6 hours a week would be huge for me.
And while I love plants in general and my garden in particular, I have some other things I am working toward in my life, and so while I respect that you are "going for the gold", my real goal is only to get my medicine with the least possible amount of time spent, and while saving costs as best I can, in a self-sustainable way.
But I am learning a ton by watching your technique, so I am glad you are doing what you are doing!
And thank you again for always taking the time.

 

[CBDMed]

I can personally testify that Em’s watering technique works wonders. When I Uppotted from solos to grow bags the soil came out whole covered in beautiful white roots. Thanks again Em.

My plants were dying from a whole host of issues!
Emmy and a few others patiently helped me to get things right!
And there is no questioning her results.
The photos speak for themselves!
I think we are all benefitting from her labors (or else why are we here, right?).