Quest for mold-resistant strains, Hawaii outdoor greenhouse grow

[cbdhemp808]

I think most people who use cannabis buy some weed from somebody, and don't know whether it's indica or sativa, let alone the name of the strain. Most people don't know that what's called a sativa today is actually a hybrid of original sativa and indica. And then a very, very few people think about the origins of the cannabis species.

Although I have fun dissecting the science from my non-biological-science background, I actually don't have the knowledge or experience to know how plausible are the conclusions they're arriving at for the ancient origins. In other words, they could be making gross assumptions or flat-out mistakes, although that is probably much less likely if the studies are peer reviewed.

That said, there are definitely pollen grains of truth in all of it.

 

[cbdhemp808]

@Fenderbender said, "Indica & Sativa diverged a million years ago."

Coming back now to what Fenderbender said...

It may be true... way back in 2010, McPartland and Guy did a "molecular clock" type test on cannabis DNA...

"They estimated that Humulus and Cannabis diverged from a common ancestor 27.8  mya. C. sativa and Cannabis indica diverged 1.05 million years ago, but this was not published because the taxa differ at only one nucleotide site." [ source ]​

But notice that last bit... "the taxa differ at only one nucleotide site." I think that means one base pair in the DNA of the genome, of which there are over 800 million base pairs. Well, that surely isn't showing a distinction between sativa and indica biotypes.

This lead me to another study, published by the University of Toronto in 2018, which found evidence in the DNA related to the difference between THC-producing cannabis and CBD-producing cannabis, as a result of gene duplication and invading viruses...

"The enzymes making THC and CBD are encoded by THCA and CBDA synthase genes, respectively. Both are found on chromosome 6 of the ten chromosomes the cannabis genome is packaged into.​

• • •​

The gene sequences for the THCA and CBDA synthases are nearly identical supporting the idea that they come from the same gene which was duplicated millions of years ago. Over time, one or both gene copies became scrambled by invading [viruses], and by evolving separately, they eventually came to produce two different enzymes -- CBDA synthase found in hemp (fibre-type), and THCA synthase in drug-type (marijuana)."​

[ Review | Study ]​

I believe this can be viewed as an ancient (pre-human) emergence of the THC-producing biotype from the CBD-producing biotype.

Let's suppose for the moment that the divergence of sativa and indica did happen about 1 million years ago, and that viral attack coupled with evolutionary adaptation gave rise to THC production. What was also happening 1 million years ago?

The ice age of the Pleistocene Era started 1.6 million years ago, so 1 million years ago is about one third of the way into the ice age.

From an article by Sensi Seeds, 2020, titled "The Evolution of Cannabis Sativa & the Cannabis Ancestor":

"[during the ice age]...vast swathes of the planet iced over. Continental glaciers (vast ice sheets that cover entire land masses all the way to sea level) stretched as far as 40 degrees latitude from the poles, and thousands of plant and animal species went extinct, or were pushed into “refuges” that provided favourable enough conditions for survival.​

• • •​

The Cannabis genus was lucky enough to survive, and it is thought that it did so by occupying various refuges in Central and Southern Asia. There is little doubt among scientists that this period would have seen some of the most dramatic evolutionary change within the genus, as it rushed to produce genotypes that would survive in a radically different set of habitats. It is thought that the adaptations that led to the development of “sativa”, “indica” and “ruderalis” biotypes is likely to have occurred during this time.​

​

It is also believed that during this time, the cannabis plant gained the ability to produce THC, due to a mutation in the cannabinoid synthase gene. Thus, by the time cannabis began to split off into the types that we know today, it already had the ability to produce THC. The evolutionary pressures acting on it since then, both human and environmental, have influenced how much THC the various populations produce."​

Now let's think back again to the Oligocene cannabis of 28 mya in the subtropical environment of what would become the Tibetan Plateau, which split from humulus (hops) around that time, and may have resembled Humulus japonicus with its cannabis-like leaves. And remember, the plateau rose for a period of 5 million years, which may have gradually caused the natural selection of THC production and the emergence of the indica biotype. That would have happened between 28 and 23 million years ago. (Since 23 mya is the beginning of the Miocene Period, we could call this adapted biotype, Miocene cannabis.)

So which is it... sativa and indica split around 1 million years ago, or they split between 28 and 23 million years ago?

Could the Oligocene cannabis have survived and evolved as the Tibetan Plateau rose to its present-day elevation?

I wrote earlier in this thread: "...The possible epicenter of cannabis ("center of origin"), eastern Tibetan Plateau, near Qinghai Lake, elevation 10,500 ft., according to the 2019 study by McPartland, Hegman, and Long."

According to Sharma (1977), cannabis grows up to 10,000 ft in the Himalayas, and apparently its THC potency tends to increase with elevation.

So, yes... the Oligocene cannabis of the Tibetan Plateau may have evolved into the Miocene cannabis.

EDIT: If only it were possible to do a DNA analysis of Oligocene cannabis vs. the Miocene cannabis!

 

[Melville Hobbes]

the Oligocene cannabis of 28 mya in the subtropical environment of what would become the Tibetan Plateau,

I did some reading about the climate of Tibet in the Oligocene.
Eastern Tibet does seem to have been a wet, tropical environment during the Eocene-Oligocene transition (~33 mya), but central Tibet seems to have had an arid environment as far back as 26 mya.
Copied and pasted:
The time at which the Tibetan Plateau rose to its present high elevation remains controversial, with estimates ranging from 40 Ma to more recent than 7 Ma. New stable isotope analyses of modern and accurately dated ancient paleosol carbonate in the Nima basin of central Tibet point to an arid climate and high paleoelevation (4.5–5 km, comparable to today's setting) by 26 Ma. Oxygen isotope values of ancient (26 Ma) soil carbonate are both very negative and indistinguishable–after modest corrections for changes in global climate–from the lowest (least evaporated) oxygen isotope values of modern soil carbonates in the area.
Source

This paper seems to agree with that too, but is focussed more on South East Tibet.

 

[cbdhemp808]

I did some reading about the climate of Tibet in the Oligocene.
Eastern Tibet does seem to have been a wet, tropical environment during the Eocene-Oligocene transition (~33 mya), but central Tibet seems to have had an arid environment as far back as 26 mya.
Copied and pasted:
The time at which the Tibetan Plateau rose to its present high elevation remains controversial, with estimates ranging from 40 Ma to more recent than 7 Ma. New stable isotope analyses of modern and accurately dated ancient paleosol carbonate in the Nima basin of central Tibet point to an arid climate and high paleoelevation (4.5–5 km, comparable to today's setting) by 26 Ma. Oxygen isotope values of ancient (26 Ma) soil carbonate are both very negative and indistinguishable–after modest corrections for changes in global climate–from the lowest (least evaporated) oxygen isotope values of modern soil carbonates in the area.
Source

This paper seems to agree with that too, but is focussed more on South East Tibet.

OK, so the first paper you mentioned is from 2007. The paper I referred to is this one from 2020/2021, which makes these conclusions which I think generally apply to the whole Tibetan Plateau...

• The geology and climate of the region came together during the Mesozoic era, 252-66 mya
• The landscape was comprised of mountains and deep valleys
• The deep valleys contained subtropical plants and animals
• The area "did not rise as a pre-formed plateau... driven solely by the India–Eurasia collision"
• "The Tibetan Plateau did not form until the Neogene", 23 mya to 2.58 mya

I drew this conclusion... So, at 28 mya the valleys were likely still subtropical, and began "drying out" over the period of the next 5 million years. And by 23 mya, the high-elevation, cold, dry plateau was formed.

Here's that post again:

Quest for mold-resistant strains, Hawaii outdoor greenhouse grow

More on the origins of cannabis, from a joint study by the Max Planck Institute and Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2019... https://www.science.org/content/article/oldest-evidence-marijuana-use-discovered-2500-year-old-cemetery-peaks-western-china (The above article refers to the study...

www.420magazine.com

EDIT: By the way, I asked... "There's lots of wild cannabis growing in Central Asia, but I wonder if any strains have been identified that haven't been contaminated with cultivated cannabis."

The Real Seed Company says, "...it’s unlikely there are any pristine populations of truly wild Cannabis".

 

[Melville Hobbes]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being clear. What I was trying to say is that the arid, high altitude ecosystem was also present at that time.
In fact, given that the study you posted is stating that the humid subtropical climate is present at the bottom of deep valleys, there have to be mountainous landscapes surrounding them. The study you posted also states that there were temperate climate regions there, as well as the subtropical valley floors.
Both the studies you posted, and the ones I found agree that the formation of the plateau was over a very long period of time, and elevations of 4000m+ have existed in that region from before the start of the Oligocene.
Pollen assays can point to the presence of a plant in a general area, but the diverse environment within that area clouds what region the cannabis actually evolved in, and when it filled any specific environmental niche.

I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative, I really like debating stuff like this, and having ones ideas challenged can lead to more confidence in conclusions.

 

[cbdhemp808]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being clear. What I was trying to say is that the arid, high altitude ecosystem was also present at that time.
In fact, given that the study you posted is stating that the humid subtropical climate is present at the bottom of deep valleys, there have to be mountainous landscapes surrounding them. The study you posted also states that there were temperate climate regions there, as well as the subtropical valley floors.

Agreed.

Both the studies you posted, and the ones I found agree that the formation of the plateau was over a very long period of time, and elevations of 4000m+ have existed in that region from before the start of the Oligocene.

Agreed.

Pollen assays can point to the presence of a plant in a general area, but the diverse environment within that area clouds what region the cannabis actually evolved in, and when it filled any specific environmental niche.

Oh yeah, clouded indeed! Well, the technique they used to differentiate cannabis from humulus involved looking at the spatial pollen groupings ("assemblages"). From the McPartland (2019) study's abstract:

"To dissect these aggregate data, we used ecological proxies. C–H* pollen in a steppe assemblage (with Poaceae, Artemisia, Chenopodiaceae) was identified as wild-type Cannabis. C–H pollen in a forest assemblage (Alnus, Salix, Quercus, Robinia, Juglans) was identified as Humulus. C–H pollen curves that upsurged alongside crop pollen were identified as cultivated hemp. Subfossil seeds (fruits) at archaeological sites also served as evidence of cultivation. All sites were mapped using geographic information system software. The oldest C–H pollen consistent with Cannabis dated to 19.6 [mya], in northwestern northeast China. However, Cannabis and Humulus diverged 27.8 Ma, estimated by a molecular clock analysis. We bridged the temporal gap between the divergence date and the oldest pollen by mapping the earliest appearance of Artemisia. These data converge on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau, which we deduce as the Cannabis centre of origin, in the general vicinity of Qinghai Lake. This co-localizes with the first steppe community that evolved in Asia." (*C–H = Cannabis or Humulus)​

EDIT: It appears the authors made an error. The oldest C-H pollen (actually humulus) was located in northeast China, about 330 miles east of Qinghai Lake, not "northwestern China".

I actually didn't catch this before, so thanks for bringing the focus here. The whole theory presented by the paper, arriving at the very specific center of origin, is dependent on the logical analysis summarized in the above excerpt. And it all boils down to this sentence: "We bridged the temporal gap between the divergence date and the oldest pollen by mapping the earliest appearance of Artemisia." There could be a problem here... let's see if I can break it down...

1. They associate wild cannabis as part of a steppe community (semi-arid, warm/hot summer, cold winter)
2. They date the oldest cannabis-or-humulus pollen to 19.6 mya (fossil pollen study, northeast China)
3. They date the divergence of cannabis from humulus at 27.8 mya (DNA molecular clock test)
4. They consider the earliest appearance of Artemisia (fossil pollen study)

First, the whole center-of-origin theory comes into existence, in the area of the northeast Tibetan Plateau, because of (2)—fossil pollen study, northeast China.

EDIT: The study that's referenced for the date, 19.6 mya, actually identifies the fossil pollen as humulus, and not "indeterminant C/H". (study PDF)

The thing that jumps out at me is, they are strongly associating the presence of Artemisia (pollen) with the presence of wild cannabis. Without this, they don't have a theory. In fact, if any of 1-4 are in fact incorrect, they don't have a theory. If the whole method of using "ecological proxies" to differentiate cannabis and humulus is unreliable, they don't have a theory.

But for the moment, let's assume that 1-4 are correct. Does the logical analysis hold up? They are bridging a "date" gap and coming up with a geographic center of origin...

(A) C-H pollen 19.6 mya ∧ (B) oldest Artemisia pollen ? mya ∧ (C) C/H divergence 27.8 mya ⇒ (D) center of origin 27.8 mya

In this "equation", (B) is the critical element. Yes, they are drawing on data that shows Artemisia and Cannabis co-exist in steppe-type environments (arid, semi-arid). And yes, they are drawing on data that associates arid/semi-arid environments with Artemisia, and arriving at locating these arid/semi-arid environments in the region of the northeast Tibetan Plateau...

"...we deduced the location of Cannabis during the temporal “missing link” between its divergence date (27.8 [mya])​

and oldest pollen (19.6 [mya]), using two sets of indirect data. Bosboom et al. (2011) mapped an aridification zone arising at the Eocene–Oligocene boundary. The periphery of their zone is demarcated by the central Tarim Basin, southern Mongolia, and southeast of the Xining Basin. A best approximation of this palaeogeographic zone was transferred to a modern map in Fig. 4. The oldest C–H pollen consistent with Cannabis (site #1) is located at the south-eastern perimeter of the aridification zone (Fig. 4)."​

Bosboom (2011) says, a "...significant aridification step occurs at ~36.6 [mya] as recorded by regional sedimentary records of the Xining Basin along the northeastern Tibetan Plateau...".

So, hold on here! The location of the aridification zone might be in the right place, but McPartland's center of origin occurs at 28 mya, not 36 mya—that's a difference of 8 million years! A lot can happen in 8 million years. It is theorized that the Tibetan Plateau itself rose up over a period of 5 million years. Fast forward 8 million years from 36 mya, and we can consult the 2020/2021 paper I mentioned before (Spicer, et al) that discusses the climate on the Tibetan Plateau around the period of 28 mya to 23 mya (i.e. mountains and deep valleys).

At this point in the deep dive, as things are becoming quite convoluted, I'm inclined to pull back a bit and rely on some of my own knowledge...

I am very familiar with Artemisia in a subtropical environment, growing in the foothills in California. This was in an area with very mild year-round climate, and also semi-arid. Lots of Artemisia grew around the perennial creeks—I recall a couple of species. This is definitely a place where cannabis could have also grown, and hops as well. This type of environment is in potential conflict with McPartland's north China assessment of Artemisia, Humulus, and Cannabis, where he places cannabis with artemisia, and humulus with forest species. At any rate, perhaps we could say there is potential compatibility if we consider that a subtropical environment in northeast China, as described by Spicer et al, has a less arid range (valley floor) and a more arid range (foothills). And I don't see a compelling reason to consider the very arid/colder range (mountain). I see also that artemisia, humulus, and cannabis would favor a riverside or creekside environment (riparian zone) in a semi-arid climate, and there could be trees all around in such a zone.

So, I'm starting to feel that McPartland's "ecological proxies" are off, which would imply that differentiating the morphologically-identical cannabis and humulus pollen is, basically, impossible. I could be wrong.

Let's look at the logical analysis again...

(A) C-H pollen 19.6 mya [northeast China] ∧ (B) oldest Artemisia pollen ? mya ∧ (C) C/H divergence 27.8 mya ⇒ (D) center of origin 27.8 mya [northeast China]

So, (A) is solid if we consider that it's either cannabis or humulus, 19.6 mya, but we don't know for sure which. (B) is solid because artemisia pollen is unique (although I'm not sure of the time period), and artemisia, humulus, and cannabis could all occur in the same assemblage. (C) is solid as long as molecular clock DNA testing is reliable. (D) may still be plausible, given that the geographic position of (A) is about 330 miles east of the proposed center of origin, Qinghai Lake.

The thing that stands out for me now is, there's nothing definitive pointing to the entire area of what is now China as being the center general area of the origin of cannabis. I mean, there's no fossil record. We do have divergence of cannabis and humulus at 27.8 mya. And we do have humulus japonicus (wild hop) being native to China, and its leaf structure looking very similar to that of cannabis. So we can infer that maybe the fossil pollen of the ancient ancestor of this species, or even the ancient ancestor of cannabis, is what has been found in northeast China (19.6 mya), and perhaps exists in other places in China as well. And we have the temporal association of cannabis and humulus—i.e. when the divergence occurred, both species would tend to inhabit the same biomes. And we have a theory that the Tibetan Plateau at 28 mya was comprised of mountains and deep valleys that were subtropical/humid or subtropical/semi-arid and could have supported both cannabis and humulus.

McPartland's theory is perhaps challenged by the fact that the hard evidence (fossil pollen) only goes back to 19.6 mya, while the point of divergence from humulus is 27.8 mya—that's (another) difference of about 8 million years! A lot can happen in 8 million years. I mean, what if cannabis diverged from humulus somewhere distant from northeast China, and then dispersed to northeast China at some point during the 8 million years? And at 8 million years, I would think the temporal association (i.e. co-habitation of biomes) would be perhaps less likely, or less of a "signal" as they say. I don't know.

At this point, I'm more-or-less content to accept that the origin of cannabis may be about 28 million years ago, and it may have originated somewhere in northern China. ...until someone can convince me that there's convincing data on a more specific center of origin.

I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative, I really like debating stuff like this, and having ones ideas challenged can lead to more confidence in conclusions.

All good... thanks for your input!

 

[cbdhemp808]

I just made some significant edits above.

 

[cbdhemp808]

Today in the veg house... foreground is Humboldt Dream, background is taller Blueberry, and to the right is HI-BISCUS. All clones, all in 10 gal. pots. Next to move to flower house is the Blueberry, then the Humboldt Dream—I have clones of both. I'm trying to stagger the flips now by 2 weeks. The HI-BISCUS will need to be re-cloned.

Meanwhile in the flower house... White Widow clone in 10 gal., recently moved from veg. She was root bound before up-potting, so somewhat stunted.

 

[cbdhemp808]

Enjoy some California Sober...

...and now time to move the Blueberry to flower.

 

[cbdhemp808]

HI-BISCUS in veg, 10 gal pot. 2 more weeks and I'll transfer to flower. Very little leaf spot at this point and no PM.

Humboldt Dream in veg, 10 gal pot. Clones in the foreground.

Blueberry just transferred to flower today, in 10 gal. First time I've flowered BB in 10 gal. In this pic she just got a neem/Bronner's spray, as did the little WW in the background.

 

[CBDMed]

HI-BISCUS in veg, 10 gal pot. 2 more weeks and I'll transfer to flower. Very little leaf spot at this point and no PM.

Humboldt Dream in veg, 10 gal pot. Clones in the foreground.

Blueberry just transferred to flower today, in 10 gal. First time I've flowered BB in 10 gal. In this pic she just got a neem/Bronner's spray, as did the little WW in the background.

Your plants look great!
I am glad you are pioneering what strains have natural mold resistance.

 

[cbdhemp808]

Thanks to @CBDMed, I am thinking about SIPs again for my outdoor greenhouse grow. Not something I can jump into at the moment, but considering it as a longer term goal.

Does anyone have thoughts about 10 gal buckets for SIPs? 10 gal plastic trash cans? (I know people use plastic totes to build bigger SIPs, but I'm probably not going in that direction.)

I haven't given this much thought, but I am now somewhat concerned about the potential toxicity of growing in plastic. I did a quick survey of my pots and buckets...

• White food-grade 5 gal bucket is #2, High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
• The 10 gal black plastic pots I've been growing in don't even have a plastic#, but says "contains recycled material". I'm guessing they are mixed resin and #5, Polypropylene (PP)... but who knows what else.
• A plastic trash can I have is #4 plastic, Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE)
• Other black plastic pots I have are #5, Polypropylene (PP)
• Yet other black plastic pots I have are #2, High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

From what I know, HDPE is the least toxic.

A 10 gal. HDPE food grade bucket looks too tall for a SIP.

Do I even need 10 gal? Will 5 gal. w/ super soil be completely adequate for a big plant without HST or LST?

I did find a 10 gal HDPE drum on Amazon that's not too tall, but the price is $50!

 

[CBDMed]

Hola CBDHemp,
I asked myself the same questions.
I know that food grade plastic does not give off as much gases and stuff, so if you can get food grade, it is clearly better. But normally food grade buckets are 5 gallons, or smaller.
If you are not able to find food grade buckets, just be sure to wash the buckets out real well. They use a mold release on the buckets to get the plastic to turn loose from the mold, and they say they wash it, but I always like to wash it real good second time.
I cannot get food grade plastic here so I have to do with this regular plastic, and I am just guessing is not too bad if you wash it out real well.

I don't have time right now, and I would have to look, but there were some early threads where @Buds Buddy was just learning about SIP. I think he was growing sativas but he said he flipped when the plants were about waist height, and they got too big! Like monster plants. And he was looking for anything and everything to feed them sufficiently (meaning he had to supplement a lot).

@Azimuth has the SIP thread. I'm sure he will know where to find the pictures of @Buds Buddy and his 5G SIP experiments.
I think that thread would be about two years old now (more or less).
I hope that is helpful, I am on the run right now.

 

[Azimuth]

@Azimuth has the SIP thread. I'm sure he will know where to find the pictures of @Buds Buddy and his 5G SIP experiments.

Page one of the SIP Club thread, link in my sig.

 

[Azimuth]

Just over a pound for several grows in a row, veg 8 weeks maybe?

 

[CBDMed]

Just over a pound for several grows in a row, veg 8 weeks maybe?

Thanks. That does seem like one possibility.
EDIT: Sorry, I meant to put this on my own thread! (Need to pay attention!!)
I probably need to track my usage for a couple of weeks, and see how long I can hold out with the harvest of 4 additional Charlotte's Angel autos, AND with all of the stuff I put into cob several months ago now.

I am guessing I can probably hold out. And if I track my usage and decide that I might not make it, I am allowed 4 or 5 more plants, and it would be a big hoop jump to set up a grow room, but I could potentially do 4-5 more autos (I would just have to find some way to carve out another grow space).

Probably I just need to track my use for a couple of weeks, to see if it will be necessary to jump hoops, or not. (And when I think about the 4 Charlotte's Angel autos, I breathe easier.)

 

[cbdhemp808]

OK, so here's @Buds Buddy 's plant in a 5G SIP from 2022...

Uh... WOW! So, perhaps no need for anything bigger than 5G. However, I'd like to keep my grow simple, not using stress training, and using my current fert methods. Also, I'm outdoor in greenhouses, so my lighting is way different than indoor. (I'm off-grid with a small solar power system.) Solar exposure here varies greatly, with winter months being a lot less than summer months. We get a lot of bright sun, but also a lot of rain (cloud cover). Temperatures outdoors here are mild year round, rarely ever lower than 64°F (nighttime low in winter), and rarely ever higher than 85°F.

I use a custom organic living super soil mix, with a decent amount of coco coir in it, as well as perlite. I've been using 10 gal. plastic pots, and I would say the nutes in the soil last into mid to late veg. Then I start supplementing with high-N liquid fert. In flower I also supplement with solution grade Langbeinite (K, Mg, S), and seabird guano (P). I've also experimented with solution grade fish bone powder (high P). NOTE: When I used smaller pots, i.e. 5 to 7 gal, the plants typically didn't do well, especially toward harvest.

So, what do you all think? Would 5G work in my situation, or should I go with a 14G bin?

Another factor... I have a big challenge here with bud drying, due to our warm and humid climate. I'm building a bud dryer (see link in my signature), but I calculate it will only accommodate an 8 oz yield (dry buds).

So far in my perpetual grow, yields typically are about 2-3 oz, but this is prior to using 10 gal pots, and struggling with bud rot. (I have only recently started using 10 gal.) My last harvest in 10 gal was a big Humboldt Dream clone, and had I harvested a week earlier (avoiding bud rot), I'm guessing she would have yielded at least 8 oz...

 

[Azimuth]

I use a custom organic living super soil mix, with a decent amount of coco coir in it, as well as perlite. I've been using 10 gal. plastic pots, and I would say the nutes in the soil last into mid to late veg. Then I start supplementing with high-N liquid fert. In flower I also supplement with solution grade Langbeinite (K, Mg, S), and seabird guano (P). I've also experimented with solution grade fish bone powder (high P). NOTE: When I used smaller pots, i.e. 5 to 7 gal, the plants typically didn't do well, especially toward harvest.

So, what do you all think? Would 5G work in my situation, or should I go with a 14G bin?

Depends on what you use for nutes. Buds used synthetic nutrs in those 5 gallon buckets but if you're growing organic, bigger is better (said the guy trying to grow organic and flowering in 2 gallon buckets)

 

[cbdhemp808]

Depends on what you use for nutes. Buds used synthetic nutrs in those 5 gallon buckets but if you're growing organic, bigger is better

even if my goal is an 8 oz harvest?

 

[CBDMed]

OK, so here's @Buds Buddy 's plant in a 5G SIP from 2022...

Uh... WOW! So, perhaps no need for anything bigger than 5G. However, I'd like to keep my grow simple, not using stress training, and using my current fert methods. Also, I'm outdoor in greenhouses, so my lighting is way different than indoor. (I'm off-grid with a small solar power system.) Solar exposure here varies greatly, with winter months being a lot less than summer months. We get a lot of bright sun, but also a lot of rain (cloud cover). Temperatures outdoors here are mild year round, rarely ever lower than 64°F (nighttime low in winter), and rarely ever higher than 85°F.

I use a custom organic living super soil mix, with a decent amount of coco coir in it, as well as perlite. I've been using 10 gal. plastic pots, and I would say the nutes in the soil last into mid to late veg. Then I start supplementing with high-N liquid fert. In flower I also supplement with solution grade Langbeinite (K, Mg, S), and seabird guano (P). I've also experimented with solution grade fish bone powder (high P). NOTE: When I used smaller pots, i.e. 5 to 7 gal, the plants typically didn't do well, especially toward harvest.

So, what do you all think? Would 5G work in my situation, or should I go with a 14G bin?

Another factor... I have a big challenge here with bud drying, due to our warm and humid climate. I'm building a bud dryer (see link in my signature), but I calculate it will only accommodate an 8 oz yield (dry buds).

So far in my perpetual grow, yields typically are about 2-3 oz, but this is prior to using 10 gal pots, and struggling with bud rot. (I have only recently started using 10 gal.) My last harvest in 10 gal was a big Humboldt Dream clone, and had I harvested a week earlier (avoiding bud rot), I'm guessing she would have yielded at least 8 oz...

Hmmm....
Well, as a noob opinion, if you are mixing your own LOS (supersoil) and you want to grow girls to the same beautiful height as you have now, then unless you are mixing triple strength (!), I would go with 14G.
(And I would go with 14G anyway, just due to watering.)
You seem to like to let them grow all the way up, which seems right. I do not know, but I just guess you will need 14G to keep letting them grow all the way up.

In other words, I think the main thing in SIP sizing is just that it grows faster (and healthier), meaning you will have to take them to the bloom tent in less time. Only, just judging from Buds' picture above, I am just guessing that photos will eat AT LEAST as much chow as before.
I am in 5Gs here. Buds says he flipped at waist height, and I think those are sativas. Mine are mostly indicas, so I think I also will flip at about waist height, so I am not scrambling to try to feed them (to keep them from starvin' like Marvin).
Just my thoughts. Your thoughts may vary.