What are you smoking Bwoy????
Because if you would let your post blank, would be exactly the same.......
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Basic genetics explained
- Thread starter Padre CH
- Start date
What are you smoking Bwoy????
Because if you would let your post blank, would be exactly the same.......
What makes me the King of Cardboard is the great use I give to carboard boxes ( you can check my thread)....
What I know? What I don´t know?
Well, I guess if everything was in the books our great breeders would be able to pull varietys that will let us on shame.
But the fucking true is that you can check this same fórum and see crosses made by hobby breeders and they don´t look worst tan the ones made by the "pros"....So WTF
¿Why should I give credit to people who talk a lot, but shows no proof at all to back their words?
One day Chuang-Tzu and a friend were walking along a riverbank.
" How delightfully the fishes are enjoying themselves in the wáter!" Chuang-Tzu exclaimed.
"You are not a fish," his friend said."How do you know whether or not the fishes are enjoying themselves?"
" You are not me," Chuang-Tzu said. " How do you know that I do not know that the fishes are enjoying themselves?"
¿How do you know,that I don´t know? May be because I posted "Just I know that I know nothing"
Think about that LOL, ( if you are able to think by yourself)
Terpenes don´t contribute to the effect IMO.
Well harry, what does that matter? Do opinions count? Then you are King!!! The good thing about terpenes are they take away the taste of cardboard you leave in the mouth. Lean about terpenes before you post about them.
-SamS
The idea of breeding towards just THC forgetting the rest of cannabinoids is nosense IMO.
The only cannabinoid that gets you high is THC, what other cannabinoids should we breed for?
You are going nowhere IMO....
Nothing personal
OK,
-SamS
harry74 said:
Our "great breeders" don't read books. They don't follow methodologies that statistically lead to genetic improvement. The fact that hobby breeders are batting the same average as your "great breeders" furthers my point. Maybe they should just keep backcrossing to their favorite mom?
Now feel free to get back to boxing up your males and following your proven systems for selection and improvement. I think we'll all find you're batting exactly the same as the other closet pollen chucking know nothings.
Maybe that cardboard will let you know when you find some CBD rich chemovars? Maybe it told you that the terpenes don't influence the high? Since they don't it's pretty strange that you're going to such means to capture them in the male expression. Maybe you should read Sam's thread about reversing males? It's a much better methodology than boxing them up and smelling them.
And don't worry, we all know that you know nothing.
You shouldn´t understimate Cardboard.
Cardboard has helped many people.....ask any homeless about the qualities of cardboard and you can recycle it.
And like Miguel de Unamuno said to the fascist:
You´ll win, but you won´t convince
And besides that:
I begg to differ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEZjSe6Rdjc
Enjoy yourself gentleman
Cardboard has helped many people.....ask any homeless about the qualities of cardboard and you can recycle it.
And like Miguel de Unamuno said to the fascist:
You´ll win, but you won´t convince
And besides that:
I begg to differ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEZjSe6Rdjc
Enjoy yourself gentleman
Hi Sam
I have bolded the part of your quote above that is of interest to me. Although I make medicinal use of pot for several health problems, I also use it recreationally. But, most important to me is using it to enhance my intellect and my spirit. I have found that some types of weed makes me feel bad, stupid, uncomfortable. Some types make have a pleasant feeling, but impair my coordination or thinking. Some make me feel good without impairment. A very, very, few make me feel good, and do the opposite of impairment. These are my favorites, I like cannabis that helps me be smarter, more creative, and a better person in my service to my fellow human beings.
Seeing as I have only managed to discover a scant few individual plants that do this to me in almost 40 years of smoking, they seem to be quite rare an occurrence. I want more, and better, of them.
My efforts have led me to believe that it is not easy to breed for this type of herb.
Thanks to the work of you and your colleagues around the world, I know that the effect pot has on my mood and cognition is the result of the combined actions of numerous compounds. It seems like relatively small differences in the types and ratios of these active things can result in big differences in their net effects. A situation like this must be controlled by a commensurate number of genes (lots), it seems to me.
I can't come up with a more complicated trait than mental effect. I think of a continuum with the simplest single gene Mendelian traits on one end, and at the other end is the most complicated trait controlled by the largest number of genes. As you left the Mendelian end and headed towards the complicated side, you would find things like height and habit, going farther would bring you to more complicated stuff like vigor, resistance to stress etc. What trait would be at the complicated end, the trait controlled by the most genes?
I think that the various "move the curve over" quantitative breeding strategies, used for field crops like hemp or hashish, ranging from simple open-pollinated mass selections of native farmers, to the more complicated schemes used in US agriculture are no good for getting the plants I want.
The heirloom lines that are the closest to what I like are the from the various NLD populations out there. I may be wrong, but I always thought that the guys that developed those varieties did not do mass selections like the hashish farmers. I think they grew on a smaller scale generally, and selected individuals that they thought were best. You would think that the less plants thing would be a big deal, but it is more than made up for by the attention they could pay to how good each individual plant was. I think in this environment the intersex trait probably helped these guys- what would seed collected from a transgressively psychoactive individual that had selfed itself produce?
There is another mechanism at work in "folk breeding" whether it is by some farmers in Vietnam or a guys in their closets in the US. Lots of people making seeds independently, that are able to communicate to each other and exchange propagules, unintentionally form a huge breeding collective effort. The guy with a closet pollen chuck who knows absolutely nothing about textbook plant breeding methods can still very competently determine if one of his plants is special. He then hands it around, and the speed with which it spreads through the community is a reflection of how special it really is. Anything really good will become ubiquitous pretty quickly, and becomes the parent of new generations. All the other guys and their closets start to fill up with elite clones that they use to make new crosses, even if they don't intend to (All the "accidental hermie crosses" like Cookies and Glue and so forth) that are once again evaluated and selected or rejected by the group as a whole without conscious coordination- market forces like the ones that work on products or stocks. I think of it as "distributed breeding". Distributed as in distributed network like the internet. There is no central planning, and the decisions are determined through consensus even if the individual people involved are not conscious of helping make that decision. The more people in the network, the faster and more impressive the results. Heck, if there are enough people doing it, the natural mutation rate would have a significant impact of the size of the pool of alleles available. That is why I encourage everyone who grows to make seeds and share progagules, even if they have zero book learning on plant breeding. The result of this unplanned coordinated breeding effort is the same as if you had one super breeder that knew everything about the art and had the ability to grow almost unlimited numbers (how many plants are there in the closets of the US alone?). Obviously, this works on any plant, and I believe it is the mechanism by which all our food crops were originally developed from wild plants, and guys a lot smarter than me think a natural version of it is very important in evolutionary processes that lead to speciation. The power of this process is considerable, dwarfing that of modern scientific plant breeding (so far anyway).
I think about the varying degrees of "transgression" there could be.
Tom says that about 1 in 20 individuals in his Haze line are what he considers excellent. I have heard something similar about Haze lines in general, I think even from you. You could call that 1/20 transgressive, but I like the idea of transgressive that the apple breeders have.
Tom likes to mention strawberry breeding a lot, but I like to watch the apple breeders. As apple trees are about as heterozygous as a plant can be (like other fruit trees), and have long generation times (years) they rely on transgressive segregation in huge populations. I think the famous and popular Honeycrisp apple was selected from tens of thousands of its siblings.
The Honeycrisp also illustrates another important point about extreme transgression in regards to breeding for very complex traits in a plant. The special crispness of a Honeycrisp (if you have never had a Honeycrisp apple, you should) did not exist before this plant was discovered. It is not a result of adding new genes through introgression or mutation. It is the result of a unlikely combination (actually a permutation, but I think that would confuse people) of genes already present. This is the beauty of this type of breeding, you can create new qualities that you didn't plan for or anticipate. . As the combinations that unlock these new traits are long, it take a lot of tries (individual plants) to find them. If you just randomly try combinations on a padlock, if there are just two numbers in the combination, it won't take many tries to hit the right one, as there are only 100 to check. If there are three numbers you have to check 1000. Eight measly numbers and you better have a looong time - 100,000,000 to check.
In the 20 years since its introduction, it spread like wildfire, unlike any apple previously. Now there are all sorts of new Honeycrisp crosses coming to market, all transgressives selected from thousands of sibs.
This extreme transgression that the apple guys go for has one big stumbling block when it comes to weed: you can walk through a apple orchard doing evaluations simply by biting and chewing a bite of an apple. Someone properly trained can accurately select or reject a plant in less than a minute. If you spit out the apple, you can do this all day. Good luck finding the extreme transgressives in psychoactivity in a pot field of any size this way. I think this is why the "headless breeding collective of chuckers" has been able to produce the elites it has, because of the inherent ability to check lots of individuals. To do this process consciously though, in a more centralized fashion, we need really good machine testing, way better than what we have now. I want the Honeycrisp of weed.
So, I think that the methods for breeding good hemp, or hash, or even gross chemotype medical (various ratios of the main cannabinoids), are not the ones that will produce the next generation of super-weed, that will be good in ways that we aren't even aware of yet, just like no one could have anticipated the insane crispness of a good Honeycrisp.
While that is true in general, I don't think it is of significant importance with regards to the mental effects traits I am concerned with. They are discernible no matter what the cultural conditions were.
I am pretty sure I made a fairly detailed post about mining for SNPs with TILLING here on these boards a couple years ago, it is a very interesting and potentially very powerful technique.
The only reason why I'll still don't have the genetics is because I had made seed as I could not continue at the time, for reason I don't really need to explain. I stashed three different containers which were safe I thought. Well we had a mouse plague where I was and it wouldn't have mattered much what i stashed them in as those little fuckers seemed too zero in on any seed any where. Anyway if I could extract Stinky from the mice dna I would have.
mofeta-
There is an interesting and likely unique phenomenon going on around cannabis that you've touched on. And it is easy to forget exactly how far we've come as a community from the herb enjoyed by most just 20 or 30 years ago.
I feel like your interest in the more subtle qualities of the psychoactive effect are akin to DJ Short's. One of the few breeders I admire but more so for his selection ability and his focus on keeping his line pure than anything else. Lets face it, blueberry and her seedlings make pretty great hybrids. But she also has many negative traits that could have been prevented with a more sound breeding methodology.
I think there are many flaws in the way you perceive this community's "distributed breeding" especially in reference to your preferences to a unique high. The way a skunk makes you feel might not be the way it makes other people feel. It's really keyed to your own unique biochemistry. What you favor and what the guy down the block favor are likely to be very different. And you could be working in very different directions. Now if you keep this in mind and just accept every "elite" the community passes to you and treat it like a regular seedling you popped you are more likely to have success because the plants have already been evaluated by so many people for many of the other traits that we find valuable as farmers.
I think of this process as very useful but really it's up to you the end user to determine what is valuable and with so many opinions on the matter I don't see this as progress towards your goals as you do. Half these people could be saving WLD hybrids with dirty highs that don't leave you feeling clean or more intelligent at all. You said yourself there's only a few plants you've found in 40 years that make the grade. Think how many "elite" cuts are passed around. In your mind that's a lot of losers.
Sam also mad the point of favoring a large selection pool at one time in one place by one man or a group of like minded individuals. I also think this is a much more important issue than you do. When you haven't had so many of the "elite" cuts in your possession how do you know which one is best? I think this problem is very obvious in large medical scenes where cuts are openly passed around but you still have such crap getting saved. If everyone had every OG Kush SO many more of them would have been eliminated. I can't tell you how many ass ugly SFV Kush plants have been given to me that I toss when you have them growing right next to real Triangle Kush or CCK or Fire OG or whatever. I think similar problems happened with Sour D. Once it was a hyped up name and so few people could get it in the mid-west and other non medical markets the seed makers stepped up to fill the void. (A similar thing is happening now with GSC) What happened was the rezdogization of Sour D and it wasn't good. There's so many watered down bullshit Sour D plants passed around it makes my head spin. People who haven't had real deal ECSD think they have a good plant and pass it to their friends as sour d. Some of those guys breed with it and next thing you know there's more progeny from b grade sour d plants than from the originals. It's crazy but I've seen more fake ass loser plants called Chems, OGs, and Sour Ds out in Colorado than I've seen winning quality individuals. It's sad.
But what do you expect when the "distributed breeding" gardens are so segregated. How do you evaluate at that point? In my opinion it rarely happens and what you get is subpar selections because it was the best that HE found or it was the best that SHE found. It's not really the best of what the community found. And even if it is it's doubtful it meets your criteria for the herb you want to spark your mind.
Don't get me wrong, progress has been made as a group. But I think it was for simpler qualities. We were really successful as a community at getting rid of CBD rich cultivars. Which is a bit ironic now that people want it so much for its medicinal value. I don't see the value as much as you do in the "wining the lottery effect" that has been the progress of the communities breeding. Yes, we still find that one in a million plant and chances are that some one recognizes it and passes it on. But isn't it valuable to learn what sort of methodologies increase our odd of "winning the lottery" to begin with? Shouldn't we be concerned with everyone crossing their favorite kush into their friends favorite kush to make the next "elite" plant? How do we outcross when everything is related? That's what makes Dj's blueberry so valuable as parent stock. Beyond the lovely effects, she makes great vigorous hybrids. GSC, not so much.
We need to work to educate seed makers on sound breeding methodologies to help their selections. We need to preserve variation for future selections while still being able to meet the goal of the breeding program. And selling GSC seeds for top dollar isn't a breeding goal. Anyone can do that, lets see who can improve the GSC line so the community doesn't have to win the lottery and find that one in a million plant.
There is an interesting and likely unique phenomenon going on around cannabis that you've touched on. And it is easy to forget exactly how far we've come as a community from the herb enjoyed by most just 20 or 30 years ago.
I feel like your interest in the more subtle qualities of the psychoactive effect are akin to DJ Short's. One of the few breeders I admire but more so for his selection ability and his focus on keeping his line pure than anything else. Lets face it, blueberry and her seedlings make pretty great hybrids. But she also has many negative traits that could have been prevented with a more sound breeding methodology.
I think there are many flaws in the way you perceive this community's "distributed breeding" especially in reference to your preferences to a unique high. The way a skunk makes you feel might not be the way it makes other people feel. It's really keyed to your own unique biochemistry. What you favor and what the guy down the block favor are likely to be very different. And you could be working in very different directions. Now if you keep this in mind and just accept every "elite" the community passes to you and treat it like a regular seedling you popped you are more likely to have success because the plants have already been evaluated by so many people for many of the other traits that we find valuable as farmers.
I think of this process as very useful but really it's up to you the end user to determine what is valuable and with so many opinions on the matter I don't see this as progress towards your goals as you do. Half these people could be saving WLD hybrids with dirty highs that don't leave you feeling clean or more intelligent at all. You said yourself there's only a few plants you've found in 40 years that make the grade. Think how many "elite" cuts are passed around. In your mind that's a lot of losers.
Sam also mad the point of favoring a large selection pool at one time in one place by one man or a group of like minded individuals. I also think this is a much more important issue than you do. When you haven't had so many of the "elite" cuts in your possession how do you know which one is best? I think this problem is very obvious in large medical scenes where cuts are openly passed around but you still have such crap getting saved. If everyone had every OG Kush SO many more of them would have been eliminated. I can't tell you how many ass ugly SFV Kush plants have been given to me that I toss when you have them growing right next to real Triangle Kush or CCK or Fire OG or whatever. I think similar problems happened with Sour D. Once it was a hyped up name and so few people could get it in the mid-west and other non medical markets the seed makers stepped up to fill the void. (A similar thing is happening now with GSC) What happened was the rezdogization of Sour D and it wasn't good. There's so many watered down bullshit Sour D plants passed around it makes my head spin. People who haven't had real deal ECSD think they have a good plant and pass it to their friends as sour d. Some of those guys breed with it and next thing you know there's more progeny from b grade sour d plants than from the originals. It's crazy but I've seen more fake ass loser plants called Chems, OGs, and Sour Ds out in Colorado than I've seen winning quality individuals. It's sad.
But what do you expect when the "distributed breeding" gardens are so segregated. How do you evaluate at that point? In my opinion it rarely happens and what you get is subpar selections because it was the best that HE found or it was the best that SHE found. It's not really the best of what the community found. And even if it is it's doubtful it meets your criteria for the herb you want to spark your mind.
Don't get me wrong, progress has been made as a group. But I think it was for simpler qualities. We were really successful as a community at getting rid of CBD rich cultivars. Which is a bit ironic now that people want it so much for its medicinal value. I don't see the value as much as you do in the "wining the lottery effect" that has been the progress of the communities breeding. Yes, we still find that one in a million plant and chances are that some one recognizes it and passes it on. But isn't it valuable to learn what sort of methodologies increase our odd of "winning the lottery" to begin with? Shouldn't we be concerned with everyone crossing their favorite kush into their friends favorite kush to make the next "elite" plant? How do we outcross when everything is related? That's what makes Dj's blueberry so valuable as parent stock. Beyond the lovely effects, she makes great vigorous hybrids. GSC, not so much.
We need to work to educate seed makers on sound breeding methodologies to help their selections. We need to preserve variation for future selections while still being able to meet the goal of the breeding program. And selling GSC seeds for top dollar isn't a breeding goal. Anyone can do that, lets see who can improve the GSC line so the community doesn't have to win the lottery and find that one in a million plant.
Y
Yard dog
I bet that Rezdogization Sour d sold more seed for seed bou than others though? probably like you say the same thing with OG's and GSC now, hype will always sell, growers see the pretty plants esp new people and they want some (they also don't like to wait for work to be done, if they can't get the cut, anything will do!)... mostly those that are quite homozygous are an easy target to breed with, or those that pass certain qualities any way.
DJ touched on the "transgressive segregation" of his lines in his posts , I think he touched on finding most of those that were true transgressive seemed to be recessive in nature and mostly sterile thus mostly "hopeless" as without recombination all you will have is that one plant, until we can exploit it. I think the current thinking around transgressive segregation and breeding goes toward admixed populations, I'm hoping the new mofeta thread will touch on how this will/can be done with regard to cannabis. but it will certainly change how most go about breeding I'd of thought if it is indeed applicable.
Hello Sam & RCC howzit. I only mean that the efforts you have taken thus far so as to not have your thoughts (written) become obsolete before their time has not gone unnoticed.. I am enamored by it all.. it's solid,, it will last..
And u both know this,, Sam u know that without very intensive breeding recent efforts (the limeys) would not likely be so enamoured with clones... and we both know u sold them F18's without the laser guidance systems 
We both u and i have seen the perfect F1,, but not often enough to treat drug cannabis like corn..
We both u and i have seen the perfect F1,, but not often enough to treat drug cannabis like corn..I could not agree with you more. And as a side note, I fully accept that the terpenes are full accessories to the cannabinoids when it comes to high. I had suspected it long ago (the "wow all my best gear smells and tastes real strong" thing), and have done my best to reproduce your experiments (I don't have pharm grade THC, but I can make real clear shatter w/almost no terps, don't have pure terps, but can steam distill good mixes from culinary herbs and fruit) and have personally confirmed the THC+terps>THC alone. I hold your opinions in high regard, as I know the great care with which you form them. That said, I am not convinced that there is not some other yet unelucidated player in the chemical symphony responsible for the mind-expansion my favorite types provide. I have a feeling that if there is something else that is involved, it may be a very active compound, maybe in the microgram range, like salvanorin A, and may be of a totally different class of compounds than the traditional cannabinoids. The state of mind I am after feels a lot like a 5HT receptor agonist of some type, so if I had to guess, I would expect the unknown compound to exhibit activity in this area.
Hmm, I guess I'm not with you on this one. If my desired effect depended on a tight range of ratios of say 5 different terps and 2 major cannabbinoids......
Yeah that is what I think also.
Definitely. If a weed breeder doesn't take advantage of this fortunate characteristic of our favorite plant he is really shooting himself in the foot.
Wow that is the kind of info I love. Do any of yours or Rob's books have info like this on these traditional breeding techniques?
I agree completely. A consciously designed, centralized operation is inherently more efficient and speedy than the self-organizing, organic, unintentional collective effort I described. I think there is value in observing natural processes though, identifying the key elements and employing them in your program, emulating and amplifying them.
Making 100,000,000 seeds=pretty easy (comparatively, anyway)
Growing 100,000,000 plants=wow that would be a big undertaking, but obviously doable
Accurately assessing ALL the 100,000,000=currently impossible
That's right. Just like with weed I am looking for improved head. If I find a plant that has as different and better of a head as Honeycrisp had a different and better crispness, then I will be a very happy man.
Yeah, I agree. Once we have that, we can correlate with whole genome studies and make it so you could test the seedlings (maybe eventually even the unsprouted seeds) and get accurate results.
Well, thanks for the thoughtful comments, it is a pleasure talking with you.
Hi GitT
That was a fine contribution, thanks.
*Nodding head* Yes, this is so.
We are of one mind on this. This widely varied responses individuals have to a specific plant are of supreme importance. I think it is manageable though, from my non-scientific survey of all the tokers I have known it seems that they all fall into 4 or 5 broad categories of, I don't know what to call it- neurotypes, metabotypes, (it is a reflection of the primitive state of our inquiries that there isn't a good term for this, or maybe there is and I don't know it?) whatever you want to call the person's particular reaction to the compounds in question. And yeah, I would like a world where there were lots of people diligently breeding their asses off in completely different directions. Of course, If everyone wants to work on what I like, I won't stop them.
Hmm, I agree, but I can think of some notably excellent traits I have snagged from these "elite pools" generated by the "Invisible Breeder" (I am shamelessly copping this from Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", that's what he calls the distributed cognition that makes up the "market"). Especially yummy tastes. Head though, sadly, no.
I can tell I wasn't lucid in expressing my interest in the Invisible Breeder. See my response to Sam for some clarity on this.
If I thought anything I said would discourage this type of study I would be bummed. What I would like to do is to encourage people to be conscious of the process in order to enhance the odds. I think the people in our community versed in the art could come to a consensus on a set of simple guidelines, and maybe a semi-centralized seed distribution network with specific pre-determined goals in mind, that a hobby closet grower could participate in. Kinda like the "crowdsourced" distributed computational efforts like SETI@home or Folding@home.
Another cool concept in relation to the "winning the lottery" analogy, is "zero marginal cost". I think someone wins the Powerball about once a month. The odds of winning are, as you know, astronomical. In this case there is one payout. He could share it, but the amount doesn't increase. The cannabis lottery (as long as the winner shares) gives out multiple full payments, at zero marginal costs. Everybody wins!
ARRGH! This is one of my pet peeves. I have to tread carefully with my words here, and make sure that I am clear that what I say is understood to apply only to the idea, and not you or anybody else as a person and thinker.
That said, I think the notion that people could somehow "damage" the overall pool by making seeds, no matter how haphazardly, is absurd. For one thing, the ubiquitous "everybody" doesn't exist. There is no way that literally everybody will do the same thing. Just doing speculative back-of-the-envelope estimation from my personal experience with other herb people, I think there are lots of knowledgeable, conscientious, dedicated people around the world preserving the fruits of humanity's collective breeding of Cannabis and adding to our community "library" of traits. I think that the number of these folks is rapidly expanding too. Due in large part to the teaching efforts of people like you. Thanks!
For another thing, what other people do has absolutely no impact on what I do, aside from giving me more raw material to pick and choose from. Imagine if we all of a sudden we colonized and populated the Moon, and there were 100,000,000 people there, and they all were big pot heads that grew, and just went wild letting all their plants have an orgy of unregulated mating. Would this damage your breeding efforts?
From what I have seen of you, you are doing a good job of practicing what you preach here, well done.
That was a fine contribution, thanks.
*Nodding head* Yes, this is so.
We are of one mind on this. This widely varied responses individuals have to a specific plant are of supreme importance. I think it is manageable though, from my non-scientific survey of all the tokers I have known it seems that they all fall into 4 or 5 broad categories of, I don't know what to call it- neurotypes, metabotypes, (it is a reflection of the primitive state of our inquiries that there isn't a good term for this, or maybe there is and I don't know it?) whatever you want to call the person's particular reaction to the compounds in question. And yeah, I would like a world where there were lots of people diligently breeding their asses off in completely different directions. Of course, If everyone wants to work on what I like, I won't stop them.
Hmm, I agree, but I can think of some notably excellent traits I have snagged from these "elite pools" generated by the "Invisible Breeder" (I am shamelessly copping this from Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", that's what he calls the distributed cognition that makes up the "market"). Especially yummy tastes. Head though, sadly, no.
I can tell I wasn't lucid in expressing my interest in the Invisible Breeder. See my response to Sam for some clarity on this.
If I thought anything I said would discourage this type of study I would be bummed. What I would like to do is to encourage people to be conscious of the process in order to enhance the odds. I think the people in our community versed in the art could come to a consensus on a set of simple guidelines, and maybe a semi-centralized seed distribution network with specific pre-determined goals in mind, that a hobby closet grower could participate in. Kinda like the "crowdsourced" distributed computational efforts like SETI@home or Folding@home.
Another cool concept in relation to the "winning the lottery" analogy, is "zero marginal cost". I think someone wins the Powerball about once a month. The odds of winning are, as you know, astronomical. In this case there is one payout. He could share it, but the amount doesn't increase. The cannabis lottery (as long as the winner shares) gives out multiple full payments, at zero marginal costs. Everybody wins!
ARRGH! This is one of my pet peeves. I have to tread carefully with my words here, and make sure that I am clear that what I say is understood to apply only to the idea, and not you or anybody else as a person and thinker.
That said, I think the notion that people could somehow "damage" the overall pool by making seeds, no matter how haphazardly, is absurd. For one thing, the ubiquitous "everybody" doesn't exist. There is no way that literally everybody will do the same thing. Just doing speculative back-of-the-envelope estimation from my personal experience with other herb people, I think there are lots of knowledgeable, conscientious, dedicated people around the world preserving the fruits of humanity's collective breeding of Cannabis and adding to our community "library" of traits. I think that the number of these folks is rapidly expanding too. Due in large part to the teaching efforts of people like you. Thanks!
For another thing, what other people do has absolutely no impact on what I do, aside from giving me more raw material to pick and choose from. Imagine if we all of a sudden we colonized and populated the Moon, and there were 100,000,000 people there, and they all were big pot heads that grew, and just went wild letting all their plants have an orgy of unregulated mating. Would this damage your breeding efforts?
From what I have seen of you, you are doing a good job of practicing what you preach here, well done.
Hi Tonygreen
You seem to be interested in the cutting edge and what the future holds in tech. Me too.
You are opening a big can of worms there, and I have a lot of thoughts on the matter. I believe that we are on the cusp of a huge expansion/paradigm shift in plant breeding, and the broader feild of the life sciences/medicine etc (well, physics and math too, and computation, I guess almost everything, really) and it is one of my favorite hobbies to study the situation and try to make projections of what this future will look like. It looks awesome!
I will make a post sharing some of what I think on this matter, but it might be a while. I have already eaten into my discretionary time enough to reduce my jamming time to an unacceptable level, and I can't reduce my work to make up for it, so my ICMAG life will have to kinda take a break here pretty soon. I wanted you to know that I have been seeing your posts, and taking note of you interest in the future techs with the intention to engage you on the subject.
Thanks
Hmmm, I don't think I really agree with you. In your metaphor we would have to keep checking out the book from the library to keep it around. What happens when everyone keeps checking out the abridged version of Shakespeare? What happens when people can only use the abridged version to make the next book? What happens when most people have the abridged version?
This is what's happening where I'm at where the lamest and fakest of OGs and Diesels get passed on as the real thing by people who didn't get to experience it? I basically disagree and think the rezdogization of sour d hurt the sour d pool. It would have been better if everyone had just passed the real ECSD cut around.
There's only so much the community can maintain and the more the goods get watered down by foolish breeders for an even more foolish public that's willing to buy it all up the more damaged the pool gets.
I suppose you're right, what they're doing doesn't affect me. But, when I lose something to a move, a fire, my own stupidity, it can be harder and harder to get.
Maybe if I just closed my eyes and ignored what they're doing I'd be happier.
Back to the Honey Crisp example: It seems to me you're someone who would find great traits in MN 1014, MN 1403, MN 1505, MN 1606, MN 1622, MN 1661, MN 1691 and MN 1728. You're happy the community has created and passed them all. To me, the real winner is and always was MN 1711 and I want the next Honey Crisp not the other offerings that didn't quite make it to commercial market. I want to encourage people to work to make the next amazing cultivar. But I also just want more people growing more apples. What someone makes in the closet doesn't end up offending me as much as haphazard commercial breeders selling their wares. I've seen more amazing individual plants in Tierra Rojo's populations but he doesn't sell seeds. He gives that shit away.
The answer is probably somewhere between our two viewpoints. I'm still fairly young and maybe I'll mellow out with age? Or maybe I'll be a cranky old man like Tom Hill
I think every thing is getting crossed .like some one comes out with a great strain.the next thing you know it's being crossed with everything under the sun. I think people keep saying that bud now is stronger then bud when they where young.i have to disagree .when I lived in ky in the early 80s there was bud that I could not smoke it was just too strong. I believe the pool is getting muddy .and we need to go back to basics .i guess that's why I love sativa and landrace strains.
