I’ve been thinking about this subject a lot again lately. Especially since this years outside grow. I had an unusual 6 week period during flower of super high humidity from tropical storms in Mexico. I did a mostly old skool strain grow. None of the fancy new polyhybrids held up. Out of 8 large ground plants my 1969 skunk aka ufs 18 was the only plant that was unscathed by mold. It seems to me that the hardiest strains don’t stray too far from the landrace. The less crossed it seems the better as far as vigor. Not sure if it’s coincide or not, but I have noticed that the simpler strains I enjoy smoking more as well. I’m not really sure that mold and disease resistance is as important to breeders these days with the prevalence of indo grows.
I may need to start listening to different breeders podcasts and really figure out who is dedicating their time to excellent growing outdoor strains as nature intended. Supposedly they are out there, but I have a tough time deciding what will actually thrive outside these days in what most would consider an ideal climate, cuz they just don’t hold up these days.
I think without a soil test it’s pretty hard to say if its genetics or a deficiency
Not very many AFAIK & sorry I can’t list any. Would love to see that info included in breeder descriptions too, but remember: 60 years of prohibition led to indoor cultivation & that’s what we’re all up against(still).
I’d say lab analysis of the plants & flowers is necessary to have a better explanation but @Meesh noted it was a freak year as far as weather, so… 
That part seems the most identifiable factor whereas these were a mix & not a year-to-year repeat of plant types.
It’s hard to run science experiments & homegrow & keep plant #s more innocent. 
Micro-growing is a way to get through hordes of plants but you’re sacrificing realistic environment to achieve that.
It’s an old complaint actually, going back to the '90s when Holland exported indoor-grown seed. 
Even if there IS in fact a nutritional deficiency, I’m looking for the plants that aren’t affected by it. Cultivars that have a higher adaptability are clearly preferable of course, as long as the end result is of equal quality.
Let’s face it, no landraces in their natural terroir ever had optimized nutrients. Rather, the best plants thrived on what was present, and passed that adaptability on to the progeny. That is genetic superiority. Growers can optimize their environments, and that’s great, and for best results I have too. However breeders aren’t producing their potential best stock without putting some pressure on those plants, and then selecting from the most adaptable cultivars IMO.
Think of it like this, do you want a hunting dog that won a bunch of fufu dog shows, based on what a panel of judges who never hunted THINK a hunting dog should look like? Or do you want a hunting dog from the guy who has a kennel full of accomplished stock that have been hard tested in the field or the woods? That’s kind of the concept I initially was trying to share here.
@LimeGreen I think you would like this line that I have been eyeing from a breeder in Maine, the outdoor selections for New England really tempt me and I’ve seen some great outdoor strains from other Maine breeders like Copa Genetics:
Yes, given the challenges of Maine’s climate and latitude, the genetics need to be adapatable, and well suited to the outdoors in said environment. Opposite of where I live near the Equator, early and quick flowering is a must there, or they’ll get frozen before they finish. Too eager to flower in a place like here, and you have 6" plants that yield a few grams.
You simply cannot take “warehouse genetics” and expect them to perform outdoors in a myriad of climates, and locations. They’ve had too many generations of pampering, and the hardiness, and adaptability have been bred out of the vast majority of such varietals.