[CBG] Auto CBG-Force

Good luck with your grow mate!💪💪

Happy Growing, Buddy! 🌱🌱🌱

#OUTDOORGANG Welcome on board 😉🌞

Which chilis are you growing? I also grow chilis each year. This summer I have Jalapeños, Elephant, Saltillo, Madame Jeanette, Aurora, and Orange Cherry. Most are medium to hot. I'm not really into the super-hot chilis. 300-500K Scoville is more than enough for me.

Interesting strain 😁 All the best with her 😇

Special strain you got there 😎 wish you all the best ✌️

Good luck with your grow my friend 👨‍🌾, I wish you a nice weather 🌞🌞

Hello my friend, I can see that you growing medicinal weed, I am a THC loverz but I just stated to test CBD strains for my son, he stopped thc since 8 month and he smoke commercial CBD products from my country France. I just finished to dry the CBD Fix Automatic from Zamnesia, beautiful plant, my son smoke it and he was stoned, I don't understand why because that strain got less than 1% of THC, on the 3 plants it's the same effect for him..😢

Geniales ✌️🔥

I'm really interested in the effects of CBG. I would appreciate an extensiv smoke report. ;-)

Good luck mate, your kratom looks huge af😂

Grow Well an Stay Frosty 😶‍🌫️

You smoking that Kratom bro? 😄

Looks really great 💚

Dam caterpillars im battling them also. .

Good luck buddy 😎

Looks awesome, good luck! 😁

So lucky you get to grow outside. I would happily take a few CP over high electricity bills. Very nice grow. Good luck with the rest of flowering buddy.

Hey, Further to the question about the registered trademark of CBG-V, I've found a few things out: TL;DR: 1 - the CBG-V thing on the packet - it's a trademark, not indicative of anything about anything but the letters, "CBG-V". 2 - you can patent plants as an invention and copyright them 2 - you can patent the produce of a plant as an invention and copyright that 3 - CBG-V is not patentable 4 - no cannabis plant is patentable (yet..!) 5 - any plant that contains CBG-V (or doesn't) can still have its seeds put in packs with CBG-V in big letters on the packet, the same as this, as there's no way to hold the plant from the seed into account for not containing any CBG-V, as only CBG-V obtained from industrial hemp (cannabis with negligible THC) is legal... so to verify that there's CBG-V in the plant from the seed - you'd have to enter into illegal practices, which means you'd be upholding your claim that you are consistently producing an illegal substance in an illegal way, even though the chemical itself (if produced from industrial hemp) is legal! hahah :D ---- Since a case of General Electric & Prof. Chakrabarty vs US Patent Office, about 20 years ago, the US has allowed the patenting of ANY living thing, other than a full-term human being. GE went to patent a microbe that ate oil spills, and despite that the patent office stated, "no living thing" as the bottom line - for some reason the US supreme courts decided (even against appeals) to allow the patenting of life someone has "created". They said that they had modified the microbe in the lab and therefore it was an invention. Patent said, "no living thing", turned them down. When GE appealed to the courts, it was said that the microbe looked more like a detergent or reagent than a living thing, which defies basic biology, and it was allowed with a 3-2 vote. If it had eyes or wings, it probably wouldn't have been allowed and the world would be very different today. The patent office appealed this decision, saying again, "no living thing - living things are not patentable as they are not inventions". They appealed as, if allowed - it would mean, without congressional guidance or public discussion, corporations (a company that is given human legal status), and this was rejected by 5-4 vote. So, the patent office had to change their policy, and now it is, "you can patent anything that's alive except a full birth human being". Pretty crazy. So, this means that you can patent the genetic makeup of a cannabis plant, saying you have, "invented" it - simply by letting nature take its course (since you have put in all the effort to sit there and watch the plants fuck). Plants and seeds can be patented if they are defined by a single DNA sequence that has been individually created, (eg, genetically engineered plant which has a gene inserted to make it more resistant to herbicides). Though, plants have been patented since way before 1930, when it was allowed for an autoflowering rose to be patented. Discovered plants and those in uncultivated states can not be patented, even if it is discovered in a cultivated area - it has to be reproduced asexually. If the plant(s) exist within nature and has reproduced - it is not novel. If the patent examiner can find a previously reproducing version of the plant, it can't be patented. You can't just cross a cannabis sativa plant with cannabis ruderalis, as these can exist in nature. Roses are big business, huh. It can be granted if it is a unique aberration, incapable of reproducing. Seedless plants are therefore patentable. It may be said that that autoflowers are seedless plants, as they by themselves do not produce seeds - but they are capable of reproduction. Put pollen on the flowers and they will grow seeds, ergo reproduce. You cannot just sit there and watch the plants fuck - it has to be cloned or grafted, as this proves that the inventor can reproduce the plant exactly. This is an important thing, as this means no-one can be sued for patent violation for growing a seed from this "invented" mother plant, as - even though it has the same DNA (kinda) - it is not a copy of the plant. It's a derivative. Feminised seeds are not a product of the plant without interference in its process - and the plant has reproduced so by this fact is not patentable. Therefore - no weed is patentable, unless it cannot reproduce. It would have to have no ovules or stigma in order to be patentable - and therefore only clones would be protected - if it ever reproduced via seed, it would not be the same "invention". But what if someone does make a weed plant like this..? If, for example, I decided to graft a San Pedro cactus in the middle of a Peyote, so as to make it grow faster and still retain the same quality whereby it produces a larger quantity of mescaline - that plant is "invented", and I could patent this grafted plant, and any clones - but would I also own the sole proprietary rights to the mescaline it produced..? Well, no. Not unless the mescaline was different and unique to this plants process, a result of the unique qualities the plant possessed. If it was mescaline that was different because of something that happened with the san pedro and peyote graft - then I could patent this new mescaline type and therefore own the chemical. Bananas are patented (since 1888), but no-one has ever filed a patent for "bananadine" :D haha Bananas can be copyrighted, if they are sufficiently creative. Bananas is also a registered trademark of Better Tools LLS (2006). Bananas is a word, made of letters. Therefore, even though CBG-V is a registered trademark - this does not refer to the chemical, which is not a result of anything protected by copyright - as it is not a novel chemical uniquely produced by a novel, patented plant, unique in its design and incapable or reproduction - a trademark is simply a name, which is simply letters. This trademark does not mean that the chemical is unique to the plant, nor anything else like this, and anyone else will be able to emblazon their packaging with CBG-V if the plant contains this - but without a little r next to it, which is the what denotes it as a trademark, and not the fact that the plant may contain ANY CBG-V at all..! So the plant could contain no CBG-V, but could still have in big letters on the packaging, CBG-V as it is a trademark! haha :D Absolutely bananas! But, not many people bother to think about these things, nor do they go off and research about how someone can patent, copyright and trademark a chemical that is produced by a plant (patented or not). For the average consumer, if they want or feel they need CBG-V for whatever reason - advertised or marketed to them or not - they will go out and find and buy CBG-V labelled products. So, trademarking this and putting it on the packet is a pretty standard type of advertisery-fuckery move by people who have sold their souls to the gods of advertising, especially in the new world of search terms - standard fayre :D Fascinating! Since there is no way to guarantee the content of this chemical, nor is there anyway to enforce or hold the advertisers to their claims that it will be in the resulting plant (it's a seed of a plant - not unique and patentable nor capable of producing this novel chemical to the exact same specification of the mother, patented plant) - nor is there any way of knowing how many generations have passed since the line started since the "High CBG plant" was used - we really do have to just take people at their word about these things... Offspring do not necessarily retain all the traits inherent to their parentage (just look at albino black kids, though, that's a bad example for hereditary qualities), so to back up their claims - it might be useful for people who are supplying CBD/CBG plants to have each generation tested, or to only allow seeds from clones that are brought to flower. Which is what I guess the medical people do, which is why it's so easily possible to create "high CBD" strains simply by crossing whatever strain of cannabis with a medical CBD plant. Well, that was an interesting journey through the labelling of the CBG-V thing there :D I hope that the plants journey is as full and fruitful..!!! Finally - when cannabis is fertilised, it produces the hormone that makes it die - which is why a plant can be re-vegged after flowering - so any patentable cannabis plant would likely be an immortal cannabis plant!!! It's the dream! hahahaha :D

Oh cool! It has all the lab-test results..! That's interesting - we don't have many reports for this over at Erowid.org: https://erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Cannabidiol.shtml I don't think we have a specialist CBG/Cannabigerol vault - the CBD vault might act as a catch-all for this. It might be also useful to find some more literature to update the chemistry vaults as to new research. The current cannabinoids section focuses heavily on THC: https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/psychedelicchemistry/chapter2.html https://erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info2.shtml despite that CBG is listed as a major component, the literature collection suggests that it has little activity. This seems to be out of date, given that strains of cannabis are being selected now to not only have high CBD, but specifically CBG content... To be honest, I am surprised that there are not more experiential reports for CBD (but this may be because of the "snake oil" reputation, and that it is not a psychedelic component of cannabis). It's an interesting subject, to be sure. I'm wondering if the idea here is to produce cannabigerol by decarboxylation of the CBG..? The legal issue when it comes to production of CBG from cannabis, as opposed to industrial hemp, is interesting and also suggestive that CBG may produce more psychedelic effects, considering it is produced during the flowering, and also since it binds to CB1/2 and is a CB1 and - importantly - a 5HT agonist. I'm interested in how it is that you have tested and reviewed such products and these in your work..? Are you a professional smoker? :D I'm going to suggest to extend the cannabidiol vault to include CBG as well as CBD as a catch-all, as I had not heard of specific strains of cannabis being bred for increased CBG production, and I doubt that the others have (though I bet they will say they have hahaha)! I hope it all goes well, and I'd love to hear more about this..! :D