For max yield as a home grower, which form of regulation would you prefer? Limit of:

[zif]

Note that both scenarios limiting plants in flower place no restrictions on any other plants.

How much could you yield on a monthly basis, under your preferred scenario? Would this be enough for you, your family, and friends?

Which would produce the worst yield and how low would it be?

I ask, because pressure is increasing where I live to relax the current limits. If it were just up to growers - and we only cared about yield - what would we choose? When, of course, we had to set *some* limit.

The question assumes we only care about yield, because policy makers are rarely equipped to think about any of the other reasons we might grow.

 

[Gaussamer]

Tons of young plants trained for main colas.

 

[f-e]

9 square meters. That's 25kg a year without breaking a sweat

 

[zif]

9 square meters. That's 25kg a year without breaking a sweat

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Which kind of plant count would let you produce a higher annual yield?[/FONT]

 

[f-e]

Which kind of plant count would let you produce a higher annual yield?

Of the two choices 10 in flower.

10 in the flower area needs at least 10 in the grow area to take their place. The 24 limit allows 14 seeds in the grow area and you must keep 10 of them. I would rather have 10 known plants in flower and 3 cuttings off each rooting. 40 plants. The 30 would be dwindled down to 10 good known plants over time.

If you forget self sufficiency and put your faith in an outside supply chain you could buy in 24 plantlets to give a very minimal veg time before flowering. That's going to be the same 6 meters though a crop less a year.


So best case is 9 meters
Coming in about 15% under, 24 from another supply chain.
Then 10 in 2.5 meters with your own cuttings
Then 24 with your own seeds.

Why do I feel like I'm taking a government survey

​

I have not exhausted all options. 9 meters all in flower using plantlets from an outside source would be in the 30kg region. Until your supply chain lets you down. Realistically that will be straight away as you are forced to spend an extra week in veg and the 5kg extra evaporates. Leaving just a smudge on your wallet and a bad experience.

This is all based on 18oz per meter in 7 weeks

 

[St. Phatty]

One of the highest yielding Gangs/Communes I've seen was in Mendocino, in Willits.

They had the 25 plant limit and seemed to average 2 pounds per plant.

The $$ income from that was very impressive.

 

[zif]

Why do I feel like I'm taking a government survey

It’s really freaking strange how having the idea of speaking to policy types in mind when I posted this totally changed the tone. I really appreciate the contribution, though, because I am mad as hell and not going to take it anymore (relant limits).

 

[Switcher56]

4 is what we are allowed and it is more than I need!

 

[zif]

4 is what we are allowed and it is more than I need!

I hear ya.

The entire focus on yield in regulation really ticks me off, because lots of us have no problem growing more than we need. What bites under low plant counts is finding the plants we want, and love, to service those needs.

For me, the perfect system would be grow as much as you like, but leave sales to licensed providers. Nothing else, all done.

Pushing back on a century of insane propaganda, though. So much more work to be done....

 

[Guest]

Regulation seems to favor feminized seeds and cuttings. Seedlings and veg plants shouldn't matter. Males shouldn't matter. Flowering by square footage should be the limit. 25 sq feet is not enough though.

 

[PDX Dopesmoker]

People in government have bigger fish to fry than worrying about how much marijuana someone is growing on private property. The production of "too much marijuana" has never once, in all of recorded history, negatively impacted anyone anywhere ever. India is covered in wild marijuana to go along with great masses of the cultivated stuff and India is thriving with life, by that measure there should be minimum production requirements instead of limit on maximums.

 

[Chappi]

All these limits are set to keep competition from the legal market producers. They claim it’s due to water usage but they don’t mind using 1gallon per almond produced. I don’t worry about limits, I try to keep as low key as possible and if there’s ever a problem I’ll just have to sacrifice a few, I don’t grow many anyway so 24 total is fine with me.

 

[armedoldhippy]

4 is what we are allowed and it is more than I need!

keeping a cycle of four plants total going should keep someone , family, and a friend or "two" in weed throughout the year unless somebody smokes way too much weed, lol.

 

[zif]

All these limits are set to keep competition from the legal market producers. They claim it’s due to water usage but they don’t mind using 1gallon per almond produced. I don’t worry about limits, I try to keep as low key as possible and if there’s ever a problem I’ll just have to sacrifice a few, I don’t grow many anyway so 24 total is fine with me.

I think you’re right - but that in practice it amounts to discrimination against home growers.

Many of us live in states where commercial producers can choose any grow style over thousands of square meters of canopy. Home growers, on the other hand, grow under insane limits. Even worse, some “legal” states have insanely low thresholds for the harshest level of punishment, which is indeed harsh as fuck:

​

​

Penalties listed are the max you could land for a given level, but who wants to gamble with prosecutorial discretion? In South Dakota, you had better be content with three plants. And WTF is going on with Montana?

The bottom line is that in most legal states, home growers are second class citizens.

 

[Chappi]

Discrimination is a nice way of putting it, these filthy politicians are putting us in cages and breaking up families for growing a damn plant. Hopefully as people experience cannabis and see it as a miracle healing plant primarily that like anything else can also affect some people negatively. The number of people in favor of cannabis will grow. This in turn will naturally lead the masses to demand these bullshit laws to change. I think the pace has hastened relatively quickly since SB420, the last 30 years has seen cannabis acceptance in American culture 1000 fold what it did in the 30 years preceding SB420. What I wish we had is some type of legal representation available to anyone free of charge when related to cannabis charges. Does a thing exist? Maybe even a pre paid legal plan thats cheap but just for cannabis cultivators but preferably free/non profit.

 

[zif]

Discrimination is a nice way of putting it, these filthy politicians are putting us in cages and breaking up families for growing a damn plant. Hopefully as people experience cannabis and see it as a miracle healing plant primarily that like anything else can also affect some people negatively. The number of people in favor of cannabis will grow. This in turn will naturally lead the masses to demand these bullshit laws to change. I think the pace has hastened relatively quickly since SB420, the last 30 years has seen cannabis acceptance in American culture 1000 fold what it did in the 30 years preceding SB420. What I wish we had is some type of legal representation available to anyone free of charge when related to cannabis charges. Does a thing exist? Maybe even a pre paid legal plan thats cheap but just for cannabis cultivators but preferably free/non profit.

Right on, man!

Good question re:legal help. It’d be great to see some aggressive challenges to the legitimacy of the system in the courts.

 

[Gaussamer]

People in government have bigger fish to fry than worrying about how much marijuana someone is growing on private property. The production of "too much marijuana" has never once, in all of recorded history, negatively impacted anyone anywhere ever.

Not true but it's not strictly the amount that has negatively impacted many people, it's mostly the methods. Rolling brownouts, massive water shortages, destruction of national park land, now very questionable Chinese carts and other disposable (wasteful) smoking equipment, etc. Time and time again we see human impact on industrial or worldwide levels almost NEVER has had no negative impacts either for ourselves or our environment. Nothing comes straight from hopes and dreams, and you can't expect everyone to do things the right way otherwise.

 

[zif]

Not true but it's not strictly the amount that has negatively impacted many people, it's mostly the methods. Rolling brownouts, massive water shortages, destruction of national park land, now very questionable Chinese carts and other disposable (wasteful) smoking equipment, etc. Time and time again we see human impact on industrial or worldwide levels almost NEVER has had no negative impacts either for ourselves or our environment. Nothing comes straight from hopes and dreams, and you can't expect everyone to do things the right way otherwise.

A solid argument for allowing more productive home growing.

 

[Gaussamer]

A solid argument for allowing more productive home growing.

I think that's probably the most viable direction for sure, at least for outdoor. In any case there WILL be impacts, whether that be nitrate levels in the ground water or stress on the power grid, things just can't be perfect everyday for everyone.

 

[zif]

I think that's probably the most viable direction for sure, at least for outdoor. In any case there WILL be impacts, whether that be nitrate levels in the ground water or stress on the power grid, things just can't be perfect everyday for everyone.

With less onerous regulation of homegrown, much more of it would likely happen outdoors and in greenhouses.

I agree re:the inevitability of impacts, but that’s something that we can improve through education. It’s also notable that Cannabis is a relatively productive crop. If it weren’t for indoor grows, it could have less impact than most food crops.

Hopefully as legalization prevails, regs that support sustainable production will become the norm!