rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
autos for sure. they use the genetics from ruderalis into sativa or indica.
Miracle Grow Perlite ruined my plant
- Thread starter LOLLIFUKU
- Start date
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
ruderalis genetics infused into sativa or indica is for sure genetically modified organisms.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
@OldMedUser better pick yourself off the floor. LMAO>
Autoflowering cannabis plants are genetically modified plants. This type of cannabis plant was genetically modified to bloom early, bloom anytime, to mature and be ready for harvest in just 8 weeks. Auto seeds bloom early regardless what time of the year it is and how many hours of light it gets. Therefore it makes sense to use autoflowering seeds to get more profit out of growing cannabis.
Autoflowering cannabis plants are genetically modified plants. This type of cannabis plant was genetically modified to bloom early, bloom anytime, to mature and be ready for harvest in just 8 weeks. Auto seeds bloom early regardless what time of the year it is and how many hours of light it gets. Therefore it makes sense to use autoflowering seeds to get more profit out of growing cannabis.
coherent
Well-Known Member
Yea maybe so, but actually the fertilizer analysis on their web site says its 0.07 - 0.07 - 0.07. "Enriched with Miracle-Gro Plant Food". I agree that those are very small amounts but I can never find info on exactly what their soils or plant foods contain.
xtsho
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure it's just pre-treated with a mild nutrient solution. Kind of like pre-soaking coco coir prior to using. I've used it before and never experienced any issues.
Most fertilizers come from the same factories so most nutrients are getting their ingredients from the same source. The relationship between Monsanto and Scotts is with Roundup which Monsanto makes and Scots has an exclusive license to market and sell.I'm not trying to crap on anyone who's using MG products, just passing on some info. I use GH and I'm trying to quit it because of Monsanto.
"GMO giant Monsanto is intimately connected with Scotts Miracle-Gro, a voracious company that started trying to take over the hydroponics industry in 2015, via its front company Hawthorne LLC.
If you use General Hydroponics, Botanicare, Gavita, Vermicrop, Agrolux, Sunlight Supply, Can-Filters, Black Magic and other brands, you’re using Hawthorne products."
Why Marijuana Growers Should Care about Monsanto Roundup, Scotts Miracle-Gro, Hawthorne Gardening
Monsanto, Scotts Miracle-Gro, Bayer, Hawthorne Gardening, Roundup, glyphosate…here’s why marijuana growers should care about themgrowingmarijuanaperfectly.com
Those companies you listed do fall under the Hawthorn umbrella. They were started by individuals that decided to to take a payday and sell. There is nothing wrong with that. It happens in all industries. A small business gets acquired and the founders that spent years building their business get rewarded for their hard work. Those companies still operate with some autonomy and have employees that have been with them for years and depend on them for their livelihoods. To stop using these products because of some belief that they are tied in with Monsanto does nothing to Monsanto but could effect the employment of many hard working people just trying to support their families.
Monsanto has nothing to do with GH, Botanicare, Sunlight Supply, Gavita, or any of the dozens of companies under the Hawthorn umbrella. If you are opposed to Monsanto then don't buy their products. But none of those companies are owned by or make Monsanto products and Scotts only relationship with Monsanto is as the exclusive distributor of roundup.
coherent
Well-Known Member
That seems awfully expensive. Have you tried your local nurseries? I use a brand of plain perlite called Vigoro (no fertilizers) from Home Depot and it's $16 per 2 cf bag (which is about 60L I think). Never had any issues with it.
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
No it's not. You really should read up about what GMO is. Genetic engineering is done in a lab. Pollination with a different strain is just selective breeding and has gone on since humans domesticated plants. Scientists now say that there is no sativa, indica or ruderalis. They are all the same but for natural selection that had them adapt over millenia to their growing conditions and locality.
Ruderalis was found growing naturally in Siberia and had adapted to the local growing conditions by autoflowering so it would have time to set seed before the snow flew. It was not modified by humans at all. Might as well call all dogs other than wolves GMO then as all dogs came from wolf parents.
Ruderalis plants were bred with other breeds of pot and the autoflowering gene was chosen from the resulting offspring. It's generally called 'pheo hunting'. This is also called selective breeding and the same methods were used to get all the wheat in a field to be the same height so machines could harvest it more efficiently.
Making fem seeds is closer to being GMO but still not GMO.
Read a book.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
. autos are GMO. get over it. you're wrong, plain and simple. now go roll on the floor like an idiot.
kovidkough
Well-Known Member
I eat McDonald's. I'm fked.
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Actually there was an original financing deal between Monsanto and Scotts to the tune of 300 million dollars that spun off into Hawthorn so they are all under the same crappy umbrella. Don't forget to toss the Nazi derived company Bayer into the mix since they merged with Mon$atan.
All to be avoided IMO.
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
You're the one who should be doing the rolling. You obviously don't know what GMO really is. RoundUp ready plants that Mon$anto and others make in labs are GMO but autos are a naturally occuring plant related to other breeds of G. Cannabis and were cross-bred using selective breeding techniques so by definition are not GMO.
NanoGadget
Well-Known Member
"
What constitutes a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not always clear and can vary widely. At its broadest it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature.[1][2] Taking a less broad view it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans, which would include all crops and livestock. In 1993 the Encyclopedia Britannica defined genetic engineering as "any of a wide range of techniques ... among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., "test-tube" babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation."[3] The European Union (EU) included a similarly broad definition in early reviews, specifically mentioning GMOs being produced by "selective breeding and other means of artificial selection."[4] They later excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[5]
A narrower definition provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the European Commission says that the organisms must be altered in a way that does "not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination".[6][7][8] There are examples of crops that fit this definition, but are not normally considered GMOs.[9] For example, the grain crop triticale was fully developed in a laboratory in 1930 using various techniques to alter its genome.[10] The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2000 used the synonym living modified organism (LMO) and defined it as "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology."[11] Modern biotechnology is further defined as "In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family."[12]
Genetically engineered organism (GEO) can be considered a more precise term compared to GMO when describing organisms' genomes that have been directly manipulated with biotechnology.[13] The term GMO originally was not typically used by scientists to describe genetically engineered organisms until after usage of GMO became common in popular media.[14] The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers GMOs to be plants or animals with heritable changes introduced by genetic engineering or traditional methods, while GEO specifically refers to organisms with genes introduced, eliminated, or rearranged using molecular biology, particularly recombinant DNA techniques, such as transgenesis.[15]
The definitions focus on the process more than the product, which means there could be GMOS and non-GMOs with very similar genotypes and phenotypes.[16][17] This has led scientists to label it as a scientifically meaningless category,[18] saying that it is impossible to group all the different types of GMOs under one common definition.[19] It has also caused issues for organic institutions and groups looking to ban GMOs.[20][21] It also poses problems as new processes are developed. The current definitions came in before genome editing became popular and there is some confusion as to whether they are GMOs. The EU has adjudged that they are[22] changing their GMO definition to include "organisms obtained by mutagenesis".[23] In contrast the USDA has ruled that gene edited organisms are not considered GMOs.[24]"
What constitutes a genetically modified organism (GMO) is not always clear and can vary widely. At its broadest it can include anything that has had its genes altered, including by nature.[1][2] Taking a less broad view it can encompass every organism that has had its genes altered by humans, which would include all crops and livestock. In 1993 the Encyclopedia Britannica defined genetic engineering as "any of a wide range of techniques ... among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., "test-tube" babies), sperm banks, cloning, and gene manipulation."[3] The European Union (EU) included a similarly broad definition in early reviews, specifically mentioning GMOs being produced by "selective breeding and other means of artificial selection."[4] They later excluded traditional breeding, in vitro fertilization, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[5]
A narrower definition provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the European Commission says that the organisms must be altered in a way that does "not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination".[6][7][8] There are examples of crops that fit this definition, but are not normally considered GMOs.[9] For example, the grain crop triticale was fully developed in a laboratory in 1930 using various techniques to alter its genome.[10] The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2000 used the synonym living modified organism (LMO) and defined it as "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology."[11] Modern biotechnology is further defined as "In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family."[12]
Genetically engineered organism (GEO) can be considered a more precise term compared to GMO when describing organisms' genomes that have been directly manipulated with biotechnology.[13] The term GMO originally was not typically used by scientists to describe genetically engineered organisms until after usage of GMO became common in popular media.[14] The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers GMOs to be plants or animals with heritable changes introduced by genetic engineering or traditional methods, while GEO specifically refers to organisms with genes introduced, eliminated, or rearranged using molecular biology, particularly recombinant DNA techniques, such as transgenesis.[15]
The definitions focus on the process more than the product, which means there could be GMOS and non-GMOs with very similar genotypes and phenotypes.[16][17] This has led scientists to label it as a scientifically meaningless category,[18] saying that it is impossible to group all the different types of GMOs under one common definition.[19] It has also caused issues for organic institutions and groups looking to ban GMOs.[20][21] It also poses problems as new processes are developed. The current definitions came in before genome editing became popular and there is some confusion as to whether they are GMOs. The EU has adjudged that they are[22] changing their GMO definition to include "organisms obtained by mutagenesis".[23] In contrast the USDA has ruled that gene edited organisms are not considered GMOs.[24]"
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
i like the simple definiton:
if you take a photoperiod Ak47 and introduce ruderalis genetics to make an auto Ak47, then you have genetically modified it. i don't give a F what grampa says about it having to be done in a lab.
NanoGadget
Well-Known Member
so you are both kind of right and kind of wrong. Lol.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
i use the literal definition of genetically modified.
Dank Bongula
Well-Known Member
Damn near everything is GMO then with that broad of a definition
xtsho
Well-Known Member
Lets see what modern science says. But GMO isn't always bad. In fact GMOs have benefits that help millions of people everyday. The insulin many people have to inject themselves with is GMO and it saves lives. Land around the world where non GMO crops won't grow are producing GMO crops that feed millions of people. So you can't just say GMO bad. It's not black and white.
What is a GMO?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.
www.nongmoproject.org
.
GMOs are living beings that have had their genetic code changed in some way. While conventional breeding, which has been going on for centuries, involves mixing all of the genes from two different sources, producing a GMO is much more targeted. Rather than crossing two plants out in the field, they insert a gene or two into individual cells in a lab. Yet, as mentioned earlier, GM technology can also be used on microorganisms. For example, bacteria have been genetically modified to produce medicines that can cure diseases or vaccines that prevent them. A commonly used medicine that comes from a genetically modified source is insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, but there are many others.
In contrast to a plant created by modifying its DNA using traditional breeding methods, a GMO plant is created using a newer, more controlled method referred to as genetic engineering. This method changes plants by inserting a gene from another organism to add a useful trait to the recipient organism, such as disease or pest resistance. With genetic engineering, the DNA can come from organisms that cannot mate with the crop being modified, e.g., bacteria, fungi or another crop or unrelated plant. For example, one might move a drought tolerant gene from a drought tolerant plant to a corn plant. Since the 1980s, an important GMO is bacteria that have been modified to produce human insulin. These bacteria resulted from inserting the human gene for insulin into the bacteria DNA, so they can produce the human insulin protein. Bacteria produce about 90 percent of human insulin today.
www.canr.msu.edu
What is a GMO?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are living organisms whose genetic material has been artificially manipulated in a laboratory through genetic engineering. This creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and virus genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.
GMO Facts – The Non-GMO Project
www.nongmoproject.org
GMOs are living beings that have had their genetic code changed in some way. While conventional breeding, which has been going on for centuries, involves mixing all of the genes from two different sources, producing a GMO is much more targeted. Rather than crossing two plants out in the field, they insert a gene or two into individual cells in a lab. Yet, as mentioned earlier, GM technology can also be used on microorganisms. For example, bacteria have been genetically modified to produce medicines that can cure diseases or vaccines that prevent them. A commonly used medicine that comes from a genetically modified source is insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, but there are many others.
In contrast to a plant created by modifying its DNA using traditional breeding methods, a GMO plant is created using a newer, more controlled method referred to as genetic engineering. This method changes plants by inserting a gene from another organism to add a useful trait to the recipient organism, such as disease or pest resistance. With genetic engineering, the DNA can come from organisms that cannot mate with the crop being modified, e.g., bacteria, fungi or another crop or unrelated plant. For example, one might move a drought tolerant gene from a drought tolerant plant to a corn plant. Since the 1980s, an important GMO is bacteria that have been modified to produce human insulin. These bacteria resulted from inserting the human gene for insulin into the bacteria DNA, so they can produce the human insulin protein. Bacteria produce about 90 percent of human insulin today.
Understanding the biology behind GMOs can help consumers evaluate GMO safety
What are GMOs and are they safe to eat?
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
bingo. it's just a buzzword that most people think has a negative connotation.