hi, interesting discussion here, there is an other interesting thread about that, maybe some of you want to take a look, http://www.mrnice.nl/forum/showthread.php?t=2032
az
az
no more males?
- Thread starter Mr. Stinky
- Start date
Tom, I've got two of those books right here and have read them, I can get the other from a friend who runs an arboretum back east. My shelf has quite a few more as well. Not sure what I'm going to learn that I don't already know though....
As far as I can tell, the only bone of contention y'all might have with what I'm saying is on the greater variability of males within a given population of any organism that has two (or more) sexes.
Without sending us all back to the boring textbooks, I think I can explain it in common language. Males are more expendable, but they can also father a much larger percentage of the population for quick recovery after a problem, yes? Situations where most of the males in a population are wiped out are MUCH more common than situations where most of the females are wiped out, and nature prefers (bad word, I know) it this way. Just as nature so often seems to target the males more with environmental stress, so it also gives them greater variability to adapt. In any given population, there will be more male mutants and deviants of all kinds. Cannabis breeders who have years of experience will have seen many more 'rogue' males than females (lets not forget that there's a fine line between a Manson and a Beethoven!) Surely you've noticed this Tom? If you think about it, varying the males to a greater degree than females is one of the best reasons to have two sexes. It allows greater flexibility and variation to be maintained within smaller populations.
The whole issue of greater variability of males in various species is getting to be a fairly popular subject in other circles too. Though it's not very PC because it hits too close to home, my reference to Mansons and Beethovens and bell curves is not one I made up, ya know. From a Newsweek article; "Another factor affecting perception may be distribution of IQ ... Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men. That is a pattern that we see in the university setting, with men either being at the very top of the class or at the bottom."
I admit there ain't no gospel truth here, and only meant to throw out an interesting point about using males that wasn't mentioned elsewhere, so I'm a bit surprised by suggestions that I return to my (well worn) textbooks. As I've said before, I don't have much patience for arguments, but as long as this thread remains polite, I'm game for more. Maybe someone can convince me that nature doesn't actually 'throw the dice' more with males than females as I believe, but I think we may need to reference more than just cannabis to settle that one.
As far as I can tell, the only bone of contention y'all might have with what I'm saying is on the greater variability of males within a given population of any organism that has two (or more) sexes.
Without sending us all back to the boring textbooks, I think I can explain it in common language. Males are more expendable, but they can also father a much larger percentage of the population for quick recovery after a problem, yes? Situations where most of the males in a population are wiped out are MUCH more common than situations where most of the females are wiped out, and nature prefers (bad word, I know) it this way. Just as nature so often seems to target the males more with environmental stress, so it also gives them greater variability to adapt. In any given population, there will be more male mutants and deviants of all kinds. Cannabis breeders who have years of experience will have seen many more 'rogue' males than females (lets not forget that there's a fine line between a Manson and a Beethoven!) Surely you've noticed this Tom? If you think about it, varying the males to a greater degree than females is one of the best reasons to have two sexes. It allows greater flexibility and variation to be maintained within smaller populations.
The whole issue of greater variability of males in various species is getting to be a fairly popular subject in other circles too. Though it's not very PC because it hits too close to home, my reference to Mansons and Beethovens and bell curves is not one I made up, ya know. From a Newsweek article; "Another factor affecting perception may be distribution of IQ ... Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men. That is a pattern that we see in the university setting, with men either being at the very top of the class or at the bottom."
I admit there ain't no gospel truth here, and only meant to throw out an interesting point about using males that wasn't mentioned elsewhere, so I'm a bit surprised by suggestions that I return to my (well worn) textbooks. As I've said before, I don't have much patience for arguments, but as long as this thread remains polite, I'm game for more. Maybe someone can convince me that nature doesn't actually 'throw the dice' more with males than females as I believe, but I think we may need to reference more than just cannabis to settle that one.
K
kopite
I think i have read that it is especially something observed within subdioecious species which I class cannabis as...
Mr. Stinky
Member
i still see no need for the males. there is huge variation in female populations of the same strain. even if the males are far more variable, they are still that many plants growing in the room that are worthless. they are taking the spot of another female. i would rather have 100 different females to breed, than 50/50 with wild and crazy males. im not convinced your right greengene, but hypothetically speaking, id still rather have the 100 females. im looking forward to removing the unknown quantity from my rooms 
I just don't get it. How is it possible, how is this happening. If you've read all those books mentioned then quote something from one where it mentions it. Or even just explain how this works with the genes. Is all this extra phenotypic variation on the Y chromosome?
What? Say there's a field of cannabis, how are all the males more likely to be killed than the females? They're all mixed in there, you think rot or pests are just going to attack the males and leave the females alone? I just don't understand how you came to this conclusion at all. Furthermore if they have more variability then wouldn't the females be more likely to be wiped out by a single environmental stress (pest, disease, or other). Explain some of these imaginary situations where something is wiping out the males but leaving the females alone.
How does this happen? Where do you get these ideas. The males in a natural field of cannabis are in the same exact environment as the females and have to deal with the exact same stresses.
I haven't noticed this at all...but I'm not running the numbers of people like Tom or Sam. Certainly not qualified to make a judgment on personal experience. I do find it telling that i've never heard word one of this from any other cannabis breeder tho.
Anyway, it's certainly something interesting to think about. But fundamentally I'm just not following. If the males are more variable and you want to use them because those special traits and super great outlier individuals are useful to pass to the progeny (specifically the female progeny), then how come with every generation the variability isn't being passed to the females? How do you imagine the super variable males passing on their outlier traits to the females if in your view this extra variability is sex linked? Do you understand what I'm not following?
UPDATE: There has been ZERO EVIDENCE presented here that shows that feminized breeding has any inherent deficiencies.
We cannot accept the OPINIONS of those who either have never done it, or those who have blindly adopted unrelated principles.
My suggestion is to try it yourself, BEFORE you say its not right. See for yourself what kind of inheritance occurs during a femmed mating. THEN, your opinion will have some merit. Until then keep your yap shut because youre confusing people.
There arent any people who have DONE IT PROPERLY(with good parent plants), and dont continue to advocate it. But there are ALL KINDS of people who have NEVER done it, and just talk shit about how bad it is.
We cannot accept the OPINIONS of those who either have never done it, or those who have blindly adopted unrelated principles.
My suggestion is to try it yourself, BEFORE you say its not right. See for yourself what kind of inheritance occurs during a femmed mating. THEN, your opinion will have some merit. Until then keep your yap shut because youre confusing people.
There arent any people who have DONE IT PROPERLY(with good parent plants), and dont continue to advocate it. But there are ALL KINDS of people who have NEVER done it, and just talk shit about how bad it is.
If a male and a female are used to make seed and one or both of the parents have inter-sexual genes the the progeny will most likely have them, think about it.
The same with feminized seed, if either the female seed parent or the female transformed pollen source have inter-sexual genes then most likely the feminized all female seed will have inter-sexual genes. The best thing you can do is to stress test any prospective parents and see if you can get them to express the inter-sexual traits, if not then maybe they don't have any inter-sexual genes and these should breed free of inter-sexed plants. If they do then at least one of the parents had recessive inter-sexual genes that were not expressed by the parents when tested.
So the bottom line is good seed can be made by either method, but feminizing seems to be an easy way for small amateur breeders to make lots of female seed of any clone or seed they can get their hands on, so many are really just seed makers not breeders in any sense of the word, I mean if they can't keep males around because of the plant numbers maybe they should figure out another way to make fast money. Besides so called breeding.
I am not aiming this at anyone in particular, but if you just copy another mans work and make it Feminized, and even keep the original brand name, what can I say? It ain't right.
-SamS
Still using males!
The same with feminized seed, if either the female seed parent or the female transformed pollen source have inter-sexual genes then most likely the feminized all female seed will have inter-sexual genes. The best thing you can do is to stress test any prospective parents and see if you can get them to express the inter-sexual traits, if not then maybe they don't have any inter-sexual genes and these should breed free of inter-sexed plants. If they do then at least one of the parents had recessive inter-sexual genes that were not expressed by the parents when tested.
So the bottom line is good seed can be made by either method, but feminizing seems to be an easy way for small amateur breeders to make lots of female seed of any clone or seed they can get their hands on, so many are really just seed makers not breeders in any sense of the word, I mean if they can't keep males around because of the plant numbers maybe they should figure out another way to make fast money. Besides so called breeding.
I am not aiming this at anyone in particular, but if you just copy another mans work and make it Feminized, and even keep the original brand name, what can I say? It ain't right.
-SamS
Still using males!
Last edited:
real breeding takes lots of work. not only do you need to use real males, you also need to grow out thousands of plants. You cant just make a cross and call it a strain, that is just a cross. A strain is stable with usually no more than 3 phenos.
motaloca
Member
Mr. Stinky
Member
just more BS. wanna tell me who does any of that in this industry? none of the above. almost everything you buy is a cross. all the genetics are already available. only part of the industry doing any real work at all is the guys workin the good out of a landrace. they grow lots of plants lookin for the good ones, and work on those traits. none of which is "lots of work". none of which requires "real males" either. their job would be done much faster if they got rid of all the males and used their space to grow all girls and used the best to further the process just as they would with males. when they stabilized the desired traits in their line of land race, they would still have the ability to make their crosses. this would be a much more efficient way to do it even if you wanted males in your final strain. you would have a stabilized female half, then u would know for sure whether or not the male was really good by growing out his seeds. you would only have to do this one time instead of throughout the whole process over and over.
take a look on the boutique or any other seedbank, and count how many strains have been tirelessly worked as you say. then count how many are just crosses made of a guys good stock then hyped up. back in the day guys like sam were workin out strains, but today everyone just follows footsteps. you cant re-invent the wheel.
3 phenos? is that so? care to site a source for anything you said? you posted it as tho it were fact, but it is only your personal opinion that you have formed by reading others personal opinions on here.
Great point only people who have been there and actualy have tried it should comment the rest is just THEORY...
So i take back my first post in this thread as i and 95% of people on this thread dont have a clue what they are talking about dont take offence but SAM the SKUNKMAN and a small number of other true breeders actualy have tried what we are talking bout...
Yes, but it is clear that Sam's conclusions differ from 95% of the nay-sayers, even if he still does use males in his work.
He qualifies any of his speculation as such. Others throw out wild assertions that fell from their asses.
He qualifies any of his speculation as such. Others throw out wild assertions that fell from their asses.
This is a ridiculous idea. You think the only way to move forward is to go back to landraces for some reason? Why? Where does this idea come from? Gathering all the landrace germplasm you can and starting all over again would be a big step backwards. Breeders work with the advancements their predecessors accomplished. You want to go find some thai populations, work them down to something approaching a nice indoor potent stabilized hybrid like skunk#1 and you don't think that's lots of work? You need to get a clue. Furthermore, most if not all landraces are a thing of the past. These populations have been contaminated by modern cultivars. If you want to go reinvent the wheel for some reason more power to you, but why not spend your time and effort cleaning up the shit storm we call the gene pool instead of living in fantasy land thinking nothings changed since 1970.
Mr. Stinky
Member
No we don't.
