Everybody a breeder ?

[Tom Hill]

GMT re C. "c) why would I want a population that if I want to breed it without polluting the work I've done ie reintroducing genes I may not want, I have to go against a or b?"

There was not enough info there, pollute in what way exactly? All I am contending is that it is better to drive hard in many directions, knowing that we'll fail on many of those paths (slaughter as much ego as possible if you will), than to drive in one direction, with some "art in selection" leading the way (good lord). If I am going to fail at something, I guess I'd rather get it over with than drag it out, same goes for success? Again, this is exactly why modern day selection methods were developed, to scew maths in our favor, were they not?

 

[indicadom]

Good Lord, where to start...

Tom I say its your ego getting in the way because the only form of breeding you recognize is stabilizing gene lines bred within the guidelines of your scientific method, within the specific number dictated.

your objective has become a paradigm for the whole meaning of the word breeder and I absolutely disagree in this regard

There are universal definitions of words for a reason. Conversation would be difficult if everyone chose how they wanted to individually interpret words. It should be very clear that someone who crosses two plants and sells their seed, isn't a breeder.

notice i am not disagreeing with your math or your methods for creating superior gene stability but your narrow definition of breeder

it is that simple

Yes, you directly disagreed with his definition of breeding in favor of a more lax definition so that pollen chuckers can call themselves informed breeders.

but for your edification my other point was we can make it all math game. we can take all those "intangible" variables, give them relative values (metrics) and put them in a mathematical equation and come up with a logical discourse of relative value between all the various breeders forms of breeding objectives of breeding and subsequent methodology

However there are plenty of logical and anecdotal evidences that paint a complete enough picture regardless of how you analysis them, mathematically or otherwise

Anecdotal evidence isn't logical. Anecdotal evidence never paints "enough" of a picture, why do you think empirical evidence is required by scientists to make claims on hypotheses?

while you want to define breeding based on the homogeneity of ones offerings I would simply ask you what would the genetic landscape look like if breeders with big plant numbers breeding homogenous strains were the only ones contributing genetics?

This statement immediately shows your lack of understanding of genetics. Real breeders are actually aware of the degradation of genetic lines of cannabis. This is why REAL breeders seek out strains from around the world to reinvigorate the genetics. What people are doing now is actually what you're talking about, taking the same strains and making crosses over, and over. That isn't progressive for cannabis, those people don't understand plant biology or genetics.

how many genes wouldn't be here if we were limited to the offerings of those stabilizing their own selections in big numbers?

does stability trump availability? does homogeneity trump diversity? or do they all have relative values?

now if we leave the math behind tell me what makes your receptors, the cumulation of your senses and nervous system and your interaction and reaction to the plants your selecting better at knowing what satisfies me than my own?

Again, you don't understand how genetics operate. Stabilized strains are better for breeding. This is because more traits have been locked down making it easier to isolate the traits of the plant you're crossing with your stabilized strain. Of course stability trumps availability, was that a joke? You don't understand the idea of diversity in a gene pool. Leave the math behind? Great...should I break the bible out too? Then you just go completely off topic, nobody is talking about individual people's biochemistry. We're talking about being able to select plant traits over large populations.

this is where the argument for breeding your own comes in, one that I discussed before and yet NO ONE commented on

that there are those of us that have discovered something greater and you can call it hippy but I call it personalized medicine through selective breeding and within the constraints of relativity it works out in the end (as will the math if your willing to put it to the test)

Nobody is arguing that you can grow some crosses at your house and find some nice highs. However, calling yourself a breeder would be laughable to any serious botanist. Stop saying the word math, you don't know any mathematics.

farmers have been selective breeding their own livestock and crops for millennium Tom, does the fact that they were serving themselves make it not breeding?

Again, do some research into plant genetics. Trying to put the word "breeder" into the context of a thousand years ago makes absolutely no sense. We are in the year 2013, our understanding of plant biology isn't even comparable to a thousand years ago.

the individual experience has a weight and value as well, one that you dismiss but it is as relative as breeding in the environment you will be growing in

the person selecting matters, and the best person to determine what you like is you

so in summary Tom I think it is your ego that makes this argument and I think its also a bit of fear

I think you just can't accept the fact that making crosses at your house and finding some nice highs doesn't make you a breeder. If anything that means YOUR ego is invested in this argument.

and that all has to do with the little imbecile comment at the end of your rant

if your methods were so far superior and the difference in results so drastic you wouldn't be resentful of those imbeciles with ten plants because they would be the necessary contrast you need to sell the difference of your wares

This makes absolutely no sense, HIS methods? Yes, because HE designed all the standards of current horticulturists, botanists, and plant biologists around the world.

the fact is barring gene splicing we can only add so much value through selective breeding and the genetics THEMSELVES provide the rest

so in the end if the imbecile with ten plants has the genetics I am seeking that is more important to me than the stability of offerings I am not interested in.

Because of this I find the diversity that the variety of breeders bring to the market more relative than the stability a few big breeders bring to gene lines

You have absolutely no understanding of genetics, at all, on any level. Please go Google plant biology, genetics, and gene mapping. What you also aren't mentioning is how everyone has been using those BIG BREEDERS gene lines to make all their crosses. Northern Lights anyone? Haze anyone?

and in the end a shit ton of genetics that change peoples life for the better were made avaiable by some schmuck with a closet so call them what you like you can't change the underlying reality

and the saddest part is the value you add is real, its the value you are trying to take away from others in the process that I oppose

in the game of business if you need to bash someone else to elevate yourself its a huge fucking tell of the state of your ego and how you perceive your competition

I think you need to meet reality, and understand you haven't been to school in a long time. You lack a fundamental grasp of the argument being presented to you because you don't know enough about the topic to make an argument.

 

[indicadom]

Word.

But all those books don't define traits of interest in drug cannabis in a scientific way.

You have to grow plants and consume them to decide what the traits of interest are.

Don't tell me you can quantify cannabinoids, that's just the beginning.

Maybe when we have gene markers for cleanup on Aisle 9, breeding will be art only to the lazy. Meantime, we can differ on this point.

Wow, who the hell argued that you don't have to hand select plants for breeding? I mean seriously...heard of gene mapping? God forbid, QUANTIFICATION! I mean who would want to be able to take the cross they found to a lab, figure out all the genes that are flipped on, trace back the plants lineage, and understand a complete profile of all 30+ cannabinoids percentage by volume in the plant? I mean yeah, who the hell would want to know all that? We're just here to get high right? Let's just get stoned and make a bunch of grammar and spelling errors right? Knowledge about cannabis doesn't matter right? I mean seriously, the level of resistance to information on cannabis boards is astounding.

While I understand that sentiment, I think its just as wrong.

To me breeding is as much art as science.

In fact, IMO the art is displayed when someone practically applies the science, wether they understand it or not.

Any person can read a book on breeding but how many can go apply the book knowlege in the real world, while there are plenty of people across the world practically applying breeding techniques wether or not they know what a Punnett square is.



The guy at the beginning said it best, a "Breeder" has set goals.

It is both, but it is not one over the other. A large portion of people on this board couldn't pass a high school biology class. Then they want to argue about plant genetics? I mean seriously, pick a book up like the guy said. The people on this board have too much Art, I would say 99% and 1% science. Do you even know what a Punnett square is used for? Plenty of people around the world? Name me all the top breeders for cannabis. I am sure I could name more top brain surgeons. A trade that could be argued is far more difficult than breeding cannabis. The world of marijuana has yet to be infiltrated by a real standard. We all know why this is, but give it another 20 years.

Not taking any ones side but .....

Tom did say on a few occasions 100,000 (imbeciles,clowns) for lack of a better word breeding 10 plants in a closet is better than 10 breeders ..breeding 1000 plants in a warehouse ..so that should ur last part of your post @ weird

This thread has went over the waters and tru the valleys lol ..it started as my opinion on the industry and has turned into a session on breeding ..I'm not mad at it but alot of this information has been posted on IC and re-hashed many times over ..I must admit at some point the reading had started to go over my head ..not like I don't understand what's being said ..it's the intrest factor after reading the same things that's been posted before all over it gets boring (I still read anyway ) ..I did learn one or two things I had no prior knowledge on so that's good ..and alot of people make great points for closet breeders but my opinion is still strong in the fact alot of them are not needed ..

You can just read nowadays (beauty of the Internet) how really amatuer these people are ..it's a little sad ..seriously ..people with sub forums for there "genetics" which for 1.isnt there's 2.doesnt exist ...I just read about 10 minutes ago someone taking requests for strains (for lack of a better word) suggestions that's cool but here's we're it got sad ..the person listed 10 males ..then said it maybe 10 ..the rest are still sexing ..there not sure yet ..smh

Ok this lets me kno a lot of things off hand .1the males are gonna be untested ..2.the male selection process was very small ..3.the male selection was randomly pulled out of __x amount of beans ....how can u plan or take suggestions on what to cross when u haven't even sexed ur plants yet ???? ..how did u get a sub-forum with no strains ?

I realized it's just the way of the world ..it doesn't really matter about gentics at some point and becomes who u kno and how much people are willing to endorse u ..of course having a nice fan (hype) base makes everything come together ..I've read how cuts are being passed around and hit with random or "proven" (for lack of a better word) males all day ..and all one person has to say is "yea that's breeder _____<-insert hype here cut " crossed to my male ..now give me 70-120$ a pack ..and it's done repeatedly all day ..everyday ..i kno these people are saying this is two easy !...I've seen crosses to strains tht only been on the market 3-4 months tops ..how can u make a cross of a cross just made ?

I'm ranting so ima finish up till next time ..but all Someone has to do nowadays is get the hype machines going and then can make a shitload $ ..I've seen this on too many boards "omg there's only 5 packs left !! Somebody better buy those " why ????? Bc u just made that announcement ?? ..then those who wanna be cool say yea just purchased 3 packs !! (Now bow down go me I'm one of the cool people) :/ :/

So on the money!

Regardless of all the discussion it is cool that our lovely plant is spreading across the world due to everyones efforts. I disagree on the statement that they are not needed. Not needed for what? Everyone together will overgrow the world.

Plenty of bad ass stuff came from unknowns, bag seed, etc. Where would we be without chemd for example.

Anytime someone is calling amateurs sad maybe they should remember how they themselves started. I guarantee no one starts out a pro...

The problem is misinformed old people just starting to smoke weed spending their money on bullshit. The same scam that has existed forever, take advantage of someone's ignorance. The people that think they are the upper echelon of breeding when they are selecting from a population of 10 need a wake up call. Chemdog is a bad example.

well i for one am really enjoying this thread.

looking forward to more contributions from all.

i think i see what tom is saying about 100,000 hacks growing 10 plants or whatever. 95% of these people and their plants might be crap, but you know there is going to be at least one or two guys that find a killer pheno, just cause of the odds.

one guy mentioned having to grow out over 1000 plants to have a 99% chance of getting a specific combo. id like to point out that even if you only grow out 500 plants you still have 50%+ chance of getting what you want. so these huge plant numbers dont always have to be taken as gospel as what you must grow in order to get a certain result. you might even get lucky and find what you want in the first hundred.

i thought tom's passing comment about blue dream is interesting. i have not grown the original BD cut but i had some S1 seeds of that plant which i believe to be legit, and i got one good pheno which i'm happy with. the final end product smoke is not the best and strongest i have ever had, but the plant itself has a lot of good traits. i noticed it grows hardy and strong under pretty much all conditions and it's just an all around nice plant to grow. i did a topcross with lashkar gah and have been very impressed with how it's turned out so far. i feel this could be a good foundation for crossing other strains in to build what i want. my idea of a perfect strain starts with the grower, and i really want to make his/her life as easy as possible.

Oh my God, you're comparing 50% to 99%? Lord...take a statistics course please.

 

[GMT]

GMT re C. "c) why would I want a population that if I want to breed it without polluting the work I've done ie reintroducing genes I may not want, I have to go against a or b?"

There was not enough info there, pollute in what way exactly? All I am contending is that it is better to drive hard in many directions, knowing that we'll fail on many of those paths (slaughter as much ego as possible if you will), than to drive in one direction, with some "art in selection" leading the way (good lord). If I am going to fail at something, I guess I'd rather get it over with than drag it out, same goes for success? Again, this is exactly why modern day selection methods were developed, to scew maths in our favor, were they not?

Thanks.
well when I say pollute, I mean, if I've gone to the trouble to increase the ratio of plants that I want, within a population, why would I want to go back to a previous generation, to find a male, which may still posses genes that are undesirable? When you work with the Y in a line, together with the double X's, you avoid the need to go back to earlier work. The Y population is just as worked as the x's are. So you are constantly moving everything forward. Sometimes in the wrong direction, but that's the time I double back; rather than every time I want to return the population to a regular male female situation.

I do see your point, but you have to realise that we are both in very different situations. You produce seed for the masses to smoke. If I share any, its for a very small group of growers, and very infrequently. For me, the end is not even a goal that I think about. The goal is to enjoy the journey. I mean, what the hell would I do if I ever finished the project? You develop something to the point you are happy with it, then preserve that for many. It's a totally different game we play.

 

[frito bandito]

well you did a great job telling us we're all idiots. yet you havent done jack shit to make an actual argument. tell us WHY we're all wrong, or shut the fuck up. "pick up a book" is not a valid argument, dumb ass.

 

[TheArchitect]

It is both, but it is not one over the other. A large portion of people on this board couldn't pass a high school biology class. Then they want to argue about plant genetics? I mean seriously, pick a book up like the guy said. The people on this board have too much Art, I would say 99% and 1% science. Do you even know what a Punnett square is used for? Plenty of people around the world? Name me all the top breeders for cannabis. I am sure I could name more top brain surgeons. A trade that could be argued is far more difficult than breeding cannabis. The world of marijuana has yet to be infiltrated by a real standard. We all know why this is, but give it another 20 years.


.

I'm not saying one or the other, my statement was that properly applying breeding practices could be considered an art.

I absolutely agree that most, especially on this board, are full of hippy science.

A Punnett square, yes, but why would you ask me that on the Internet, when I could wiki the answer? To attack me when I give an incomplete answer?

Breeding isnt new, so while there is a limited pool of cannabis breeders operating in the open, I'm sure there are many more who operate in the shadows. I can't wait for it to become more mainstream though, so we can begin applying the highest tech breeding techs to cannabis on a large scale.

Take care now...



Btw, FTR I don't claim to be a plant biologist, or a breeder.....

 

[Tom Hill]

GMT my point is this, what's done is done, I have bred many lines over many gens using a modified half-sib selection where I would use a male pollen mix to pollinate the top %5 of females each cycle. Oh to press rewind and to go back and just save clones, and run those through a pedigree method selfing cycle.. I have zero doubts about the maths anymore, I have zero reservations on the more advantageous course of action. It was my fucking EGO, and IGNORANCE, that led me to be where I am today, instead of where I could and should fucking be. And I have hopes that we can all review these scenarios and try to get on the same page rather than desperately cling/defend the way we've done things thus far. That's just lame and it has squat to do with who your doing it for,,, it's done for cannabis itself.

 

[GMT]

I can't help seeing you as a guy running a big restaurant sending the health inspectors round to a guys house whose throwing a dinner party to check his fire exits, then taking the piss saying yours is better. Repeated selfing isn't something I'm set up for. Now if you want to send small vials of CS into seedbay at the right concentrations and for a low price, I might buy some and have a look at the results, but then how do I reintroduce the males back into the population without undoing that good work?

 

[indicadom]

well you did a great job telling us we're all idiots. yet you havent done jack shit to make an actual argument. tell us WHY we're all wrong, or shut the fuck up. "pick up a book" is not a valid argument, dumb ass.

Nobody is interested in holding your hand, and reading to you.

I'm not saying one or the other, my statement was that properly applying breeding practices could be considered an art.

I absolutely agree that most, especially on this board, are full of hippy science.

A Punnett square, yes, but why would you ask me that on the Internet, when I could wiki the answer? To attack me when I give an incomplete answer?

Breeding isnt new, so while there is a limited pool of cannabis breeders operating in the open, I'm sure there are many more who operate in the shadows. I can't wait for it to become more mainstream though, so we can begin applying the highest tech breeding techs to cannabis on a large scale.

Take care now...



Btw, FTR I don't claim to be a plant biologist, or a breeder.....

Give me a break, "everything is art!". We're talking about methodology for breeding cannabis plants. I asked you if you knew what a Punnett square was because obviously you don't, and need to read the Wikipedia article again. Breeders around the world are now in the shadows? Right...the Einstein of breeding is operating for the Mexican cartels. Cannabis doesn't need to be more mainstream for people to stop spreading misinformation about breeding.

 

[Tom Hill]

GMT picture me as anything you want haha

Self 5 outstanding individuals, rank them according to their progeny, the one that has the most consistant progeny will go through a quick backcrossing method (use as a recurrent parent) without running into the problems that Chimera outlined in myths about backcrossing. Boom, you have your precious Y, and you have completed in 4 cycles a far superior product than what anyone would lay odds on you could do in 9, using any other method.-Tom

 

[GMT]

ok, in this post I'm genuinely not trying to pick at you, I just want to understand what you're saying. Doesn't that go against everything you believe in re open pollination and preserving as many different genes as possible? If we're going down that route, how are you knocking my 1:1 matings as a methodology? What's your prescribed method of selfing ie CS or other? Shouldn't we also be testing the males in someway? Aren't the numbers and timescales (given we have to grow out and self then test progeny, then make selections, take cuts to reverse etc and repeat) going to work out pretty much equal when the numbers and space is limited to indoor home breeding undercover work?

oh and I dont doubt you are right in what you say, but look at the circumstances too not just one thing.

 

[SooperSmurph]

well you did a great job telling us we're all idiots. yet you havent done jack shit to make an actual argument. tell us WHY we're all wrong, or shut the fuck up. "pick up a book" is not a valid argument, dumb ass.

In relation to scientific fields such as plant genetics, aka breeding, "read" does become a valid argument.

 

[Tom Hill]

Because both should be done by anyone claiming to be a stuart of the plant especially someone with the understanding that you have GMT. We should open pollinate, to preserve, and we should go for the throat, to narrow in. Many are wallowing around in some kind of middle ground doing both poorly and it makes no sense to me.

I like STS, and no, this is much quicker, we are doing nothing more than genotyping individuals by way of selfing and not letting another parent scew our evaluations.

 

[Tom Hill]

I can feel it, you are coming around, just like Kopite had to

 

[TheArchitect]

Give me a break, "everything is art!". We're talking about methodology for breeding cannabis plants. I asked you if you knew what a Punnett square was because obviously you don't, and need to read the Wikipedia article again. Breeders around the world are now in the shadows? Right...the Einstein of breeding is operating for the Mexican cartels. Cannabis doesn't need to be more mainstream for people to stop spreading misinformation about breeding.

I didn't say everything is art, good job putting words in my mouth though.

What I did say is, practically applying proper breeding techniques is, or could be considered an art. The art lies in the selection. But whatever, feel free to continue to be a douche.

Good job attacking me about a punnet square even after I predicted you would, though now you attack me because I didn't give you the answer, even though it was an off handed comment initially.

And no, I'm not saying the Einstein of breeders is in hiding, I'm saying there exists a large group of people knowledgeable in breeding who don't post online, or sell seeds, not to mention the breeding masters who haven't even fucked with cannabis because of its legality.

Have a nice day douche

 

[frito bandito]

In relation to scientific fields such as plant genetics, aka breeding, "read" does become a valid argument.

spoken like somebody who's never cracked the first book.

like i said. anyone smart enough to prove me wrong is welcome to do so. "read a book" isnt an argument. thats like if we were arguing about atheism vs religion and someone says "read the bible" like thsts the end of the discussion. all youre doing is marking yourself as an idiot by using such "arguments."

odds are ive read more books than everyone else in this thread combined. i guess thats why i understand their limitations, and that just because its in a book doesnt make it true. dont mind me though. go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, it it makes you feel smart.

 

[GMT]

I'll be honest, it's something I've been whispering about in corners for a while. Playing with selfing, but I'm not a chemist by any stretch. Chemicals and plants are just instinctively a "do not combine" type of thing. I wouldn't know where to start with all that. I know where I am with "my way", and have had a degree of success with it, albeit far slower than it should have been. You are right, I know you are, but you're telling a man with 1 leg 2 are better.

 

[Tom Hill]

I love you too bro

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SILVER-THIO...?pt=Kitchen_Tools_Gadgets&hash=item4171d194f7

You can get this stuff anywhere, it's not as difficult as you may be imagining.

 

[DemonPigeon]

Ah I see it now...

 

[Tom Hill]

You'll eventually buy the chems enmass, but do that once maybe, poke around, learn all you can about your breeding candidates, yeah mon.