Haze #21
An obscure Haze-family selection often cited by old-school breeders but poorly documented outside grower folklore.
Haze #21 is one of those names that floats around old-school grower forums and a handful of breeder catalogs, usually presented as a specific phenotype pulled from the Original Haze gene pool. The honest reality: there is no peer-reviewed work on this cut, no chemovar database entry I can point to, and no verifiable seedbank pedigree that matches across sources. Treat everything below as community-level information about the broader Haze lineage, not verified facts about a specific clone.
Overview
Haze #21 is referenced in grower communities as a numbered phenotype selection from within the Original Haze gene pool — the same Northern California sativa lineage that produced cuts like Haze A, Haze C, and the parents used in Neville's Haze and Super Silver Haze Anecdote. Unlike those better-known selections, Haze #21 does not appear in any peer-reviewed chemovar study, government cannabis registry, or major seedbank catalog that I can verify. It is best understood as folklore-level material: a name attached to plants of plausible Haze ancestry but without documented provenance.
If you encounter seeds or flower sold under this name, assume the vendor's claims are unverified unless they can produce a clear chain of custody back to a known Haze breeder.
Chemistry
Cannabinoids. No published lab panels for a cut specifically called Haze #21 are available in scientific literature or in public regulatory testing databases. By analogy to other Haze-family chemovars characterized in chemotype surveys, you'd expect a THC-dominant Type I profile, typically 15–22% THC with CBD under 1% [1] Weak / limited. Anything more specific than that is guesswork.
Terpenes. Haze chemovars sampled in published work tend to cluster toward terpinolene-dominant or mixed terpinolene/caryophyllene/ocimene profiles [1][2] Weak / limited. Some vendors describe Haze #21 as more spicy/peppery (suggesting caryophyllene) while others describe a classic citrus-incense Haze nose. Without a verified lab report tied to a specific clone, the dominant terpene listed in any infobox — including this one — is a guess.
The popular claim that a specific terpene percentage (e.g. "myrcene above 0.5% makes a strain indica") predicts effect is folklore, not science [3] Disputed.
Reported effects
Users describing Haze #21 online report the typical Haze experience: a long, cerebral, energetic high with some racy edge, occasionally anxiety-provoking at higher doses Anecdote. There are no clinical trials on this or any other named cannabis strain for recreational or therapeutic effects. Strain-specific effect claims — whether on a dispensary menu or in a breeder's catalog — are not supported by controlled research [4] No data.
What the evidence does support: total THC dose, individual tolerance, set and setting, and route of administration are far stronger predictors of subjective experience than strain name [4][5] Strong evidence. The "indica vs sativa predicts effects" framework, often invoked to explain Haze's reputation as an "uplifting sativa," has been directly challenged by chemovar research showing the indica/sativa label does not reliably map to chemistry [2] Strong evidence.
Lineage (disputed)
The Original Haze story — a Northern California sativa cross developed in the 1960s–70s, traditionally described as involving Colombian, Mexican, Thai, and South Indian landrace genetics — is documented in cannabis literature and breeder interviews [6] Weak / limited. Within that gene pool, several individual plants were numbered or lettered by breeders who worked the line, including the cuts that traveled to the Netherlands via Sam the Skunkman in the 1980s.
Whether "Haze #21" refers to:
- A specific numbered seedling from one of those original breeding runs,
- A modern grower's internal pheno-hunt designation that escaped into wider use, or
- A marketing name with no real connection to documented Haze breeding
...is not something I can resolve from verifiable sources Disputed. Any seedbank presenting a clean pedigree for this name should be asked for documentation.
Cultivation basics
Assuming a plant is genuinely Haze-dominant, expect classic Haze cultivation challenges Anecdote:
- Long flowering time: 11–14 weeks indoors is typical for Haze-leaning phenotypes. Some pure Haze cuts push past 14 weeks.
- Stretch: Haze plants commonly double or triple in height after the flip to 12/12. Flip early or train aggressively.
- Yield: Generally lower than modern hybrids; airy, foxtailing buds are common.
- Climate: Outdoors, Haze types need a long, warm season; they struggle in temperate climates with early autumn rain.
- Susceptibility: Tall, lanky structure plus late finish makes botrytis (bud rot) a real risk in humid finishes.
Difficulty is best rated advanced — not because the plant is fragile, but because the long flower window, height, and yield economics punish growers who can't manage the canopy.
Marketing vs. reality
Several things to be skeptical of when shopping for "Haze #21":
- Pedigree claims without provenance. Anyone selling this name should be able to tell you where their cut or seed line came from. "Original Haze #21" with no breeder name attached is meaningless.
- THC percentages on the label. Cannabis flower THC labels are widely inconsistent, with documented inflation and lab-shopping problems [7] Strong evidence. A "28% Haze" claim should be treated with suspicion regardless of the number on the jar.
- "Pure sativa" framing. The sativa/indica dichotomy is not a reliable guide to chemistry or effects [2] Strong evidence. Haze plants do tend toward narrow-leaflet morphology and long flowering, but that's botany, not a guarantee of how you'll feel.
- Specific effect promises. Claims like "creative," "euphoric," "focuses ADHD" attached to a strain name are not supported by clinical evidence [4] No data.
If you want what Haze #21 is supposedly offering — a long-flowering, terpinolene-leaning, energetic sativa-type experience — pick a vendor with verified lab results and a documented breeder relationship rather than chasing the specific number.
Sources
- Peer-reviewed Hazekamp, A., Tejkalová, K., & Papadimitriou, S. (2016). Cannabis: From cultivar to chemovar II—A metabolomics approach to cannabis classification. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1(1), 202–215.
- Peer-reviewed Smith, C. J., Vergara, D., Keegan, B., & Jikomes, N. (2022). The phytochemical diversity of commercial Cannabis in the United States. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267498.
- Peer-reviewed Russo, E. B. (2011). Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects. British Journal of Pharmacology, 163(7), 1344–1364.
- Government National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- Peer-reviewed Gilman, J. M., Schmitt, W. A., Wheeler, G., et al. (2022). Variable effects of cannabinoid formulations on neurocognitive performance. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 30(4), 405–415.
- Book Clarke, R. C., & Merlin, M. D. (2013). Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of California Press.
- Reported Jikomes, N., & Zoorob, M. (2018). The Cannabinoid Content of Legal Cannabis in Washington State Varies Systematically Across Testing Facilities and Popular Consumer Products. Scientific Reports, 8, 4519.
How this page was made
Generation history
Drafting assistance and fact-check automation are used, with a human operator spot-checking on a weekly basis. See how articles are made.
Related
- Original Haze — The 1960s California sativa landrace hybrid that became the genetic backbone of modern can...
- Super Silver Haze — A long-flowering sativa-leaning hybrid that helped define 1990s Dutch cannabis and still s...