Basic genetics explained
- Thread starter Padre CH
- Start date
Guess you get me wrong... I don't try to solve anything here and as I only breed for fun my 'progress' is likely to be non in others eyes.
I read the posts very carefully and I don't just neglect the rest of what Tom said, I just wonder why he is so into the strawberry thing when exactly that part (even if it were the majority of the breeding) doesn't interest here in this thread
. I'm simply not saying 
to everything he tells us. That ain't no sin and doesn't mean I don't appreciate his contributions.And if you'd read carefully, you'd know that everyone 'has the numbers to keep stabilised true breeding lines'. In fact, no one does because such highly homozygous individuals are in most cases of no interest when it comes to hemp/cannabis.
On the other hand, nearly no one has the legal capacity to maintain a healthy seed variety (the term 'variety' implies a certain stability of a given set of phenotypical markers but not necessarily a high overall homogeneity) due to the heterogeneous nature of any vigorous and healthy hemp/cannabis variety.
True, 99% of this thread isn't about basic genetics... apart from the intention in the first post it never was. If you want to know something about basic genetics get yourself a book. And then there's enough threads on ICMag about the basics, like Mendel's rules and such, you just have to use the search option.I'm glad this has explained basic genetics.
What if you studied a matter very intently, as it was of close import to you. You spend years of your life absorbing, exploring, codifying, laboring to developing cognitive tools in this quest. You discover beautiful, shining truths of nature, and powerful conceptual frameworks that literally bring tears of awe, and a ecstasy of awareness that surpasses all but the finest experiences.
You want to share this world.
You try to, but almost all the people that seem interested in discussing it with you don't share your passion. They either let someone else form their opinions for them, in a deference/appeal to authority: "XXXX (insert name of favored expert here) says it is this way." (the "parrot"), or they are more interested in how the opinions they express modify the way other people see them (the "poser").
The parrot may be merely lazy, or lack the time for the proper study. More insidiously, though, they can be the victim of the most virulent of thought diseases, lack of confidence. This person can develop a true understanding of the subject at hand if given the right "push", as a genuine intellectual curiosity exists that can be nurtured.
As the poser may completely lack any actual interest in the subject itself, other than as a vehicle to hone his self-image, the prospect of any real understanding is pretty bleak.
If you wanted people to share the great feeling you are getting, how would you go about it? If you identified the single most important, key factor in inducing this state in another, what would it be?
I think that you would be heading down the right road if you included "stimulating independent thought, helping people think for themselves" in the short list of the most productive strategies. "Inflaming passions in folks by pressing some psychological hot buttons" might be high on the list of tools that were used to further this goal.
Of course, this is not the case with Tom.
He is a mean, nasty old fart, a doddering fool way past his prime. Just look at all the damage he has done to this thread with his shenanigans. He does this every time he puts down the bottle long enough to type out his deranged, senile, grotesquely shriveled concepts. Just look at how he has hindered discussion in this thread, or any others that he comments in- they just wither and die as he sucks the intellectual life-force from anyone he engages with.
What a terrible man. Definitely DO NOT BUY HIS POISONOUS SEEDS! They are so bad, they cause deleterious mutations in anything that grows within a 20m radius of them. It is the perverse thoughts that his line have been imbued with. Very perverse.
You want to share this world.
You try to, but almost all the people that seem interested in discussing it with you don't share your passion. They either let someone else form their opinions for them, in a deference/appeal to authority: "XXXX (insert name of favored expert here) says it is this way." (the "parrot"), or they are more interested in how the opinions they express modify the way other people see them (the "poser").
The parrot may be merely lazy, or lack the time for the proper study. More insidiously, though, they can be the victim of the most virulent of thought diseases, lack of confidence. This person can develop a true understanding of the subject at hand if given the right "push", as a genuine intellectual curiosity exists that can be nurtured.
As the poser may completely lack any actual interest in the subject itself, other than as a vehicle to hone his self-image, the prospect of any real understanding is pretty bleak.
If you wanted people to share the great feeling you are getting, how would you go about it? If you identified the single most important, key factor in inducing this state in another, what would it be?
I think that you would be heading down the right road if you included "stimulating independent thought, helping people think for themselves" in the short list of the most productive strategies. "Inflaming passions in folks by pressing some psychological hot buttons" might be high on the list of tools that were used to further this goal.
Of course, this is not the case with Tom.
He is a mean, nasty old fart, a doddering fool way past his prime. Just look at all the damage he has done to this thread with his shenanigans. He does this every time he puts down the bottle long enough to type out his deranged, senile, grotesquely shriveled concepts. Just look at how he has hindered discussion in this thread, or any others that he comments in- they just wither and die as he sucks the intellectual life-force from anyone he engages with.
What a terrible man. Definitely DO NOT BUY HIS POISONOUS SEEDS! They are so bad, they cause deleterious mutations in anything that grows within a 20m radius of them. It is the perverse thoughts that his line have been imbued with. Very perverse.
Mofeta, I do agree with the first dozen lines. You wrote it in a really nice style but then... I don't know Tom and can only judge from the few posts he wrote and I read. You use very hard words; there's certainly some truth to it, though saying it that way is in complete contradiction to what you 'preach' in the beginning.
Don't know what he did to you but you could still have stopped at line 12. If he cares, he'd get your point.
Please, don't send the thread down that sewer canal, it doesn't deserve that!
but then... I don't know Tom and can only judge from the few posts he wrote and I read. You use very hard words; there's certainly some truth to it, though saying it that way is in complete contradiction to what you 'preach' in the beginning.Don't know what he did to you but you could still have stopped at line 12. If he cares, he'd get your point.
Please, don't send the thread down that sewer canal, it doesn't deserve that!
Last edited:
anyway, the parrot the poser ... interesting
what about the headier than thou? what do do you call them?
or how about the dudes who already knows how to work the with plant and doesn't have to victimize someone in the process of sharing it? Reality is those who lack professionalism you will be pushed out by those who do in the new legal climate.
as far as attacking people to make a point, judgement on others does not instill enlightenment it encourages a person to remain that way.
Inherent upon the psychology of the person being judged, a common sub-conscious mechanism is to process judgement and upon understand its brevity, it encourages the person to conform to the judgement since it is real and now confirmed by others.
and on a deeper note if you can't be humane in your quest to educate the world you haven't found a universal truth you only found a personally relevant one OR you lack something in your being that keeps you from accessing humanity universally and being able to share with compassion.
In the case of the later, it always made me wonder, how does a "true professional" who has access to the world's greatest real medicine(s) neglect to see this?
what about the headier than thou? what do do you call them?
or how about the dudes who already knows how to work the with plant and doesn't have to victimize someone in the process of sharing it? Reality is those who lack professionalism you will be pushed out by those who do in the new legal climate.
as far as attacking people to make a point, judgement on others does not instill enlightenment it encourages a person to remain that way.
Inherent upon the psychology of the person being judged, a common sub-conscious mechanism is to process judgement and upon understand its brevity, it encourages the person to conform to the judgement since it is real and now confirmed by others.
and on a deeper note if you can't be humane in your quest to educate the world you haven't found a universal truth you only found a personally relevant one OR you lack something in your being that keeps you from accessing humanity universally and being able to share with compassion.
In the case of the later, it always made me wonder, how does a "true professional" who has access to the world's greatest real medicine(s) neglect to see this?
Yeah, I hate being so harsh, but the truth must be told.
The threat this man poses cannot be understated. I know that many in the top echelons of the Cannabis World Order are very concerned with the emergent danger that is Tom Hill. I heard it through the grapevine that they have assigned Chimera to head the Tom Hill Mitigation Task Force. As this is his first assignment since he achieved full membership, they have assigned Sam Skunkman to mentor him in this undertaking. I believe they are in emergency conference at the Amsterdam division, brainstorming ideas on how to combat this insidious menace.
For those who have been personally victimized by this brutal beast, there is a meeting of the Battered Breeders Support Group every day, it's online too. Victims share their experiences and encourage each other, trying to repair the seemingly permanent damage done by Mr. Hill's words. Hopefully some of them, with hard work and lots of help, can someday think about genetics and plant breeding again. Maybe.
And how can one overlook his tight relationships with Monsanto and Walmart? Or his frequent "hunting trips" with Dick Cheney?
You also know that his frequent references to "strawberries" is a code, right? And what that code signals? I hope so, or we are really screwed!
The threat this man poses cannot be understated. I know that many in the top echelons of the Cannabis World Order are very concerned with the emergent danger that is Tom Hill. I heard it through the grapevine that they have assigned Chimera to head the Tom Hill Mitigation Task Force. As this is his first assignment since he achieved full membership, they have assigned Sam Skunkman to mentor him in this undertaking. I believe they are in emergency conference at the Amsterdam division, brainstorming ideas on how to combat this insidious menace.
For those who have been personally victimized by this brutal beast, there is a meeting of the Battered Breeders Support Group every day, it's online too. Victims share their experiences and encourage each other, trying to repair the seemingly permanent damage done by Mr. Hill's words. Hopefully some of them, with hard work and lots of help, can someday think about genetics and plant breeding again. Maybe.
And how can one overlook his tight relationships with Monsanto and Walmart? Or his frequent "hunting trips" with Dick Cheney?
You also know that his frequent references to "strawberries" is a code, right? And what that code signals? I hope so, or we are really screwed!
^^^^ LOL
Danny
Danny
It's easy for a blind man to call a seeing man crazy... when the man with sight tries to describe the mosaic of color he sees in the evening sky while witnessing the sunset, because the blind man has never had any perception of the sunset much less color.
instead of strawberries he could be comparing apples, where when in the interest of having the best tasting fruit is concerned... one growing from seed would have to grow untold numbers of plants in order to find one that has sweet fruit... which is comparable, though just on a different scale, to one who cultivates cannabis for quality... they will inevitably grow from clones whether they are commercially available in their region or if it is an individual that one selects from a seed run (and that doesn't mean anyone has to completely mono crop either).
one thing, I don't know for sure that everyone that reads his posts are supposed to get what he means (more fuel for idiots to throw on the fire?
)... and I don't know if I'm reading into his posts correctly either but what it seems like it could be, to me, is something like.
in lieu of more modern, less adopted techniques, the previous and current models of breeding may be soon obsolete...
like if...
1. artificial seeds are able to spread exact genotypic replicas of clone only varieties to a much larger audience than currently have access to them.
2. genome mapping/testing and the type of breeding that would be possible with that data, tissue culture and lab analysis resources... would make most of what people do now rather obsolete or rather just slow and less effective.
3. and last but certainly not least... the price at which (and general quality of) the seeds that could be sold in a more "hospitable environment" and with the use of modern breeding would make it less worthy of most peoples time, and many will just be out competed when comparing the quality and price of their products to the overall value of growing them.
all of these would allow people to either have access to previously clone only plants and grow exactly what they want every time (like strawberries or apples) or be able to afford enough packs of one variety in order to do a proper pheno hunt and find their own clone to cultivate... and I think that is the overall goal of most breeders, providing themselves or others with excellent genes to cultivate.
if people aren't overly interested in quality and they just want outdoor field crops then there should be very affordable seed for them to broadcast seed with and or make their own seed stock every year.
I just don't think tom cares to take the time to make everything so clear that just about anyone, even if they haven't studied or been following along, can understand.
if you understand him then he is talking to you, if not... then you are left behind and he doesn't have the time or patience to hold everyones hand while they play catch up.... but those are just my thoughts and I could be way off base.
instead of strawberries he could be comparing apples, where when in the interest of having the best tasting fruit is concerned... one growing from seed would have to grow untold numbers of plants in order to find one that has sweet fruit... which is comparable, though just on a different scale, to one who cultivates cannabis for quality... they will inevitably grow from clones whether they are commercially available in their region or if it is an individual that one selects from a seed run (and that doesn't mean anyone has to completely mono crop either).
one thing, I don't know for sure that everyone that reads his posts are supposed to get what he means (more fuel for idiots to throw on the fire?
)... and I don't know if I'm reading into his posts correctly either but what it seems like it could be, to me, is something like.in lieu of more modern, less adopted techniques, the previous and current models of breeding may be soon obsolete...
like if...
1. artificial seeds are able to spread exact genotypic replicas of clone only varieties to a much larger audience than currently have access to them.
2. genome mapping/testing and the type of breeding that would be possible with that data, tissue culture and lab analysis resources... would make most of what people do now rather obsolete or rather just slow and less effective.
3. and last but certainly not least... the price at which (and general quality of) the seeds that could be sold in a more "hospitable environment" and with the use of modern breeding would make it less worthy of most peoples time, and many will just be out competed when comparing the quality and price of their products to the overall value of growing them.
all of these would allow people to either have access to previously clone only plants and grow exactly what they want every time (like strawberries or apples) or be able to afford enough packs of one variety in order to do a proper pheno hunt and find their own clone to cultivate... and I think that is the overall goal of most breeders, providing themselves or others with excellent genes to cultivate.
if people aren't overly interested in quality and they just want outdoor field crops then there should be very affordable seed for them to broadcast seed with and or make their own seed stock every year.
I just don't think tom cares to take the time to make everything so clear that just about anyone, even if they haven't studied or been following along, can understand.
if you understand him then he is talking to you, if not... then you are left behind and he doesn't have the time or patience to hold everyones hand while they play catch up.... but those are just my thoughts and I could be way off base.
Number one, if you sink down to the level of the people who's actions you condemn, your actions are pretty much the same in the end.
I suggest we try and stick the the issues of debate and not descend into name calling, and I do mean all parties.
I could point out to Tom that while clones are today used with breeding Cannabis, every clone was selected from seeds. That and in the very near future clones could/will be as old fashioned as Tom thinks of seeds today. Haploid breeding via XXX will allow people to have all the advantages of identical clones with less disadvantages like maintaining clones and their exposure to pathogens, theft or loss, or pests over years. Moving around and storing seeds is a lot easier as they can be frozen for decades or stuck in a fridge 20+ years, clones must be maintained and kept pathogen free.
I might also suggest that no breeder is breeding Cannabis like strawberries, as the strawberry breeders first make simple or complex crosses to produce the seeds they want to test/trial for the new variety and then they grow out like 100,000 seeds to find "the keeper" to asexually maintain and reproduce via runners. No Cannabis breeder does this, zero, so the use of Cannabis clones as a tool in breeding as done with strawberries is just a myth.
"Collective breeding" or collective selection from many plants of the same variety by many many growers, is not going to give as good as results as the same number of plants all in one location evaluated by a single competent breeder, or I do not think so anyway.
Anther and pollen DH breeding, reverse breeding, SSR, ISSR, AFLP, PRC, SCAR marker assisted breeding, artificial seeds, In-vitro, genome mapping, tilling, and techniques that controls/converts the process of meiosis and/or mitosis in the mutant will all make using clones as old fashioned as Tom seemingly considers seeds for breeding. Cannabis breeding is in a state of flux in the last 50 years and the over next 100 years will continue to be so relying more and more on molecular biology.
Seeds that are exact copies of any clone can and will be made, as well as homozygous varieties for any single or group of traits. Any Cannabinoid, any terpene, flavinoid, can be targeted and expressed as a single compound or fixed ratio of compounds.
Super F1 hybrids will be made from homozygous varieties. It is a new world yet I think there is room for almost any breeding technique that gives good results, seeds, clones, I can't believe there is not room for them all even if some are obviously superior in terms of how efficiently or quickly or completely they can achieve a given goal.
A good example is do the best tomatoes come from the highest tech, most advanced, most modern breeding methodologies? Why not? Mainly because heirloom varieties have the taste, smells and flavors that leave every modern variety in the dust. The modern ones are better for shippers and the industry because the all ripen at once, they are red before they are ripe, they hold up to shipping well, they have a very long shelf life, they are pest and disease resistant, they don't have split skins.
All my best tomatoes like Brandywine, an heirloom, have some split skins, in up to half of the up to 1Kg fruits in the case of Brandywine.
It is not a problem for the home grower user, just immediately use them for sauce and freeze it. The quality can not be beat.
Science
Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 876, 18 February 2011
Synthetic Clonal Reproduction Through Seeds
Mohan P. A. Marimuthu, Sylvie Jolivet, Maruthachalam Ravi, Lucie Pereira, Jayeshkumar N. Davda, Laurence Cromer, Lili Wang, Fabien Nogué, Simon W. L. Chan, Imran Siddiqi, Raphaël Mercier.
Nature. 2010 Mar 25;464(7288):615-8.
Haploid plants produced by centromere-mediated genome elimination.
Ravi M, Chan SW.
PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
vol. 109 no. 11 > Danelle K. Seymour, 4227–4232,
Rapid creation of Arabidopsis doubled haploid lines for quantitative trait locus mapping
Danelle K. Seymoura, Daniele L. Filiaulta, Isabelle M. Henrya, Jennifer Monson-Millera, Maruthachalam Ravia, Andy Panga, Luca Comaia, Simon W. L. Chana, and Julin N. Maloofa.
Nat Genet. 2012 Mar 11;44(4):467-70. doi: 10.1038/ng.2203.
Reverse breeding in Arabidopsis thaliana generates homozygous parental lines from a heterozygous plant.
Wijnker E, van Dun K, de Snoo CB, Lelivelt CL, Keurentjes JJ, Naharudin NS, Ravi M, Chan SW, de Jong H, Dirks R.
Plant Biotechnology Journal
Volume 7, Issue 9, pages 837–845, December 2009
Reverse breeding: a novel breeding approach based on engineered meiosis
1. Rob Dirks, 2. Kees Van Dun, 3. C. Bastiaan De Snoo, 4. Mark Van Den Berg, 5. Cilia L. C. Lelivelt, 6. William Voermans, 7. Leo Woudenberg, 8. Jack P. C. De Wit, 9. Kees Reinink, 10. Johan W. Schut,
11. Eveline Van Der Zeeuw, 12. Aat Vogelaar, 13. Gerald Freymark, 14. Evert W. Gutt, 15. Marina N. Keppel, 16. Paul Van Drongelen, 17. Matthieu Kieny, 18. Philippe Ellul, 19. Alisher Touraev, 20. Hong Ma,
21. Hans De Jong, 22. Erik Wijnker
I realize many of these references have been posted already by others, my goal was not to explaining the techniques as others have already done well, I was just trying to help Tom realize that nothing lasts forever, (clones) and all clones are based on seed breeding, and I predict clones will not be used for much longer. They have been around for less then 50 years for Cannabis. In the long run they will not be relevant like Cannabis seeds that have been around for tens of thousands of years or much much longer.
Corny but true.....
-SamS
I suggest we try and stick the the issues of debate and not descend into name calling, and I do mean all parties.
I could point out to Tom that while clones are today used with breeding Cannabis, every clone was selected from seeds. That and in the very near future clones could/will be as old fashioned as Tom thinks of seeds today. Haploid breeding via XXX will allow people to have all the advantages of identical clones with less disadvantages like maintaining clones and their exposure to pathogens, theft or loss, or pests over years. Moving around and storing seeds is a lot easier as they can be frozen for decades or stuck in a fridge 20+ years, clones must be maintained and kept pathogen free.
I might also suggest that no breeder is breeding Cannabis like strawberries, as the strawberry breeders first make simple or complex crosses to produce the seeds they want to test/trial for the new variety and then they grow out like 100,000 seeds to find "the keeper" to asexually maintain and reproduce via runners. No Cannabis breeder does this, zero, so the use of Cannabis clones as a tool in breeding as done with strawberries is just a myth.
"Collective breeding" or collective selection from many plants of the same variety by many many growers, is not going to give as good as results as the same number of plants all in one location evaluated by a single competent breeder, or I do not think so anyway.
Anther and pollen DH breeding, reverse breeding, SSR, ISSR, AFLP, PRC, SCAR marker assisted breeding, artificial seeds, In-vitro, genome mapping, tilling, and techniques that controls/converts the process of meiosis and/or mitosis in the mutant will all make using clones as old fashioned as Tom seemingly considers seeds for breeding. Cannabis breeding is in a state of flux in the last 50 years and the over next 100 years will continue to be so relying more and more on molecular biology.
Seeds that are exact copies of any clone can and will be made, as well as homozygous varieties for any single or group of traits. Any Cannabinoid, any terpene, flavinoid, can be targeted and expressed as a single compound or fixed ratio of compounds.
Super F1 hybrids will be made from homozygous varieties. It is a new world yet I think there is room for almost any breeding technique that gives good results, seeds, clones, I can't believe there is not room for them all even if some are obviously superior in terms of how efficiently or quickly or completely they can achieve a given goal.
A good example is do the best tomatoes come from the highest tech, most advanced, most modern breeding methodologies? Why not? Mainly because heirloom varieties have the taste, smells and flavors that leave every modern variety in the dust. The modern ones are better for shippers and the industry because the all ripen at once, they are red before they are ripe, they hold up to shipping well, they have a very long shelf life, they are pest and disease resistant, they don't have split skins.
All my best tomatoes like Brandywine, an heirloom, have some split skins, in up to half of the up to 1Kg fruits in the case of Brandywine.
It is not a problem for the home grower user, just immediately use them for sauce and freeze it. The quality can not be beat.
Science
Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 876, 18 February 2011
Synthetic Clonal Reproduction Through Seeds
Mohan P. A. Marimuthu, Sylvie Jolivet, Maruthachalam Ravi, Lucie Pereira, Jayeshkumar N. Davda, Laurence Cromer, Lili Wang, Fabien Nogué, Simon W. L. Chan, Imran Siddiqi, Raphaël Mercier.
Nature. 2010 Mar 25;464(7288):615-8.
Haploid plants produced by centromere-mediated genome elimination.
Ravi M, Chan SW.
PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
vol. 109 no. 11 > Danelle K. Seymour, 4227–4232,
Rapid creation of Arabidopsis doubled haploid lines for quantitative trait locus mapping
Danelle K. Seymoura, Daniele L. Filiaulta, Isabelle M. Henrya, Jennifer Monson-Millera, Maruthachalam Ravia, Andy Panga, Luca Comaia, Simon W. L. Chana, and Julin N. Maloofa.
Nat Genet. 2012 Mar 11;44(4):467-70. doi: 10.1038/ng.2203.
Reverse breeding in Arabidopsis thaliana generates homozygous parental lines from a heterozygous plant.
Wijnker E, van Dun K, de Snoo CB, Lelivelt CL, Keurentjes JJ, Naharudin NS, Ravi M, Chan SW, de Jong H, Dirks R.
Plant Biotechnology Journal
Volume 7, Issue 9, pages 837–845, December 2009
Reverse breeding: a novel breeding approach based on engineered meiosis
1. Rob Dirks, 2. Kees Van Dun, 3. C. Bastiaan De Snoo, 4. Mark Van Den Berg, 5. Cilia L. C. Lelivelt, 6. William Voermans, 7. Leo Woudenberg, 8. Jack P. C. De Wit, 9. Kees Reinink, 10. Johan W. Schut,
11. Eveline Van Der Zeeuw, 12. Aat Vogelaar, 13. Gerald Freymark, 14. Evert W. Gutt, 15. Marina N. Keppel, 16. Paul Van Drongelen, 17. Matthieu Kieny, 18. Philippe Ellul, 19. Alisher Touraev, 20. Hong Ma,
21. Hans De Jong, 22. Erik Wijnker
I realize many of these references have been posted already by others, my goal was not to explaining the techniques as others have already done well, I was just trying to help Tom realize that nothing lasts forever, (clones) and all clones are based on seed breeding, and I predict clones will not be used for much longer. They have been around for less then 50 years for Cannabis. In the long run they will not be relevant like Cannabis seeds that have been around for tens of thousands of years or much much longer.
Corny but true.....
-SamS
Last edited:
Hi Tom, you're basically making three points are far as I can see:
1. The potency of cannabis isn't genetically linked to physical characteristics i.e. narrow leaves, flowering time or as above hollow stems. But in the next statement you basically refute your own "scientific" understanding....
2. Cannabis breeding more closely resembles strawberries than corn, because as you say most drug cannabis cultivation begins from clones.
This doesn't require much refuting, while it's true that in environments like your own and Europe where the highly psychoactive sativas can't reach their full expression, thus necessitating clones - this is largely true, but in the other 95% of the world (including all the traditional cannabis growing regions) highly psychoactive crops are grown successfully from seeds...
3. You are better than Sam, Nevil, Shanti and DJ Shorts, and presumably everyone else...
This reminds me of a beautiful proverb...
He who says it, knows it not,
He who knows it says it not.
You dig me man?
The rigid adherence to so called "scientific facts" based on largely statistically insignificant snippets of qualitative research that contradicts even your own observations, is really akin to some kind of fervent religious state, and it's attendant traps i.e. neurosis bordering on psychosis that manifests as proselytizing ad nauseum. All the things that science is trying to avoid. But do you know how the new converts to a religion always shout the loudest, whose lack of conviction engenders an overwhelming need to convert everyone else?
That's what your rants look like from here.
The thing is you've got a respected and unique voice, you have things to teach people (like the resinous stem observation), but the fact is your infantile delivery and the need to convert is clouding the message.
You're putting words in his mouth. He's saying hollow stems on males isn't linked to potency. But the quote you use he's speaking about resin production on individual female plants in veg in one line. Haze. I think he's qualified to make the statement and he's speaking out against using imaginary linkage to make phenotypic selection for breeding purposes. Later he's telling someone how to select an individual in the population, resin production in veg is related to potency. He's not contradicting himself...
Nice strawman argument here. Why don't you stop cloning ECSD and just keep popping 50 of rezdog's sour d seeds every time if you're so sure about these highly psychoactive crops.
Drug cultivars are very much so like strawberries. Maybe if the general public could actually investigate populations of plants instead of popping a half pack of kush x sour d every time they would realize that. I don't know a single great cannabis farmer who doesn't look at "strains" as populations of individual plants. Individual plants that are almost always VERY different from each other. I'm sorry but some are better than others, but this variation is part of what makes cannabis so fun to grow.
Funny how you couldn't quite quote him on this assertion. But you SURE are good about telling us what he's saying.
"strawberries are very much like strawberries"
that's a rich one
The complexities of breeding for primary and secondary metabolites in a medicinal plant are are greater than those involved in breeding strawberries. The plant is also a poor choice as far as taxonomy.
Medicinal plant breeding is discussed at length at the American botanical council
Legal medicinal plant breeding
although it is not medicinal hops is closer in taxonomy to cannabis for cursory examination
notice the challenges even with less complex desired secondary metabolites
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/320/art%253A10.1186%252F1471-2164-14-360.pdf?auth66=1405133902_eff8723ebbb91f1d5206d0c0f844e507&ext=.pdf
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Quantitative trait loci in hop (Humulus lupulusL.) reveal complex genetic architecture underlying variation in sex, yield and cone chemistry
As far as one gene effecting more than one trait (say leaf size and potency) the phenomenon is called pleiotropy and it is a scientific reality (although I am not qualifying which different traits are associated with each other through any one particular gene)
It was observed in regards to secondary metabolite production in hops in the study above
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pleiotropy-one-gene-can-affect-multiple-traits-569
that's a rich one
The complexities of breeding for primary and secondary metabolites in a medicinal plant are are greater than those involved in breeding strawberries. The plant is also a poor choice as far as taxonomy.
Medicinal plant breeding is discussed at length at the American botanical council
Legal medicinal plant breeding
although it is not medicinal hops is closer in taxonomy to cannabis for cursory examination
notice the challenges even with less complex desired secondary metabolites
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/320/art%253A10.1186%252F1471-2164-14-360.pdf?auth66=1405133902_eff8723ebbb91f1d5206d0c0f844e507&ext=.pdf
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Quantitative trait loci in hop (Humulus lupulusL.) reveal complex genetic architecture underlying variation in sex, yield and cone chemistry
As far as one gene effecting more than one trait (say leaf size and potency) the phenomenon is called pleiotropy and it is a scientific reality (although I am not qualifying which different traits are associated with each other through any one particular gene)
It was observed in regards to secondary metabolite production in hops in the study above
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pleiotropy-one-gene-can-affect-multiple-traits-569
There's nothing in the paper that goes against Sam's predictions. In fact, the paper does a lot of what Sam spoke on except with hops instead of cannabis. The only thing the paper perhaps suggests is that it might be more difficult than thought to get chemovars with single terpenes. For instance pinene and myrcene are in the same QTL region. Not really surprising considering the relation of the compounds and the synthesis involved.
Anther and pollen DH breeding, reverse breeding, SSR, ISSR, AFLP, PRC, SCAR marker assisted breeding, artificial seeds, In-vitro, genome mapping, tilling, and techniques that controls/converts the process of meiosis and/or mitosis in the mutant will all make using clones as old fashioned as Tom seemingly considers seeds for breeding. Cannabis breeding is in a state of flux in the last 50 years and the over next 100 years will continue to be so relying more and more on molecular biology.
From Sacred Seeds to this ????
I tought Cannabis was sacred.......
I guess Money is even more sacred.
Shame....
From Sacred Seeds to this ????
I tought Cannabis was sacred.......
I guess Money is even more sacred.
Shame....
