[masterlow37]

Thanx for the heads up Harry Gypsna, it can be found on page 49 & 50 of the link below, you will have to utilize you zoom options to be able to read it, nevertheless this is a gotta-read article if landrace genetics & cannabis conservation interest you !

https://www.soft-secrets.nl/_public/SSUK2007-02.pdf

[GMT]

Anychance of a copy and paste?

[Elevator Man]

Great stuff again! Nice work guys, and very much appreciated!

Nice article about Haze! K+++

[chefboy6969]

wicked article...
peace
Chefboy

Thanks for posting the link.

[elRoachoGrande]

HHF: i support you in stepping away from strain names.. (names are important to know where it came from, what it was.. but once you folks produce a batch of seeds why not 'number' it..

bc001 = colombian black..

if you were to make selections within the population to produce an indoor selection, and outdoor selection, a longer flowering, shorterflowering, more potent, or larger selection each selection from within the pool might be identified..
BC001.A BC001.B BC001.C

the year the seeds were produced can be important to some people (sometimes, due to whatever changes, it can be easier to find the phenotype you are lookingfor in some vintages than others (breeding males used, etc))..
BC001.A.2007 BC001.A.2011 BC001.B.2008

[seedcompany][seedline].[subset].[year] would be all i think i'd need..



EDIT-------------

not every company that offer's a 'colombian black' (just for example) would truly have the same (identical) gene pool that you do.. for them to all share the same name suggest no difference.., to say breeder's choice colombian black is to suggest a difference/distinction but still allows ppl to be sloppy and calll it colombian black.

ppl dont get hyped by a name like kc33 kc36 kc606.. if it's good they get hyped by the quality instead.

High Elroacho!

Nice to see you. Thanks for picking up the topic, some very interesting ideas there that I for sure agree with. Most importantly for me is this part, which is what its all about:

ppl dont get hyped by a name like kc33 kc36 kc606.. if it's good they get hyped by the quality instead.

I think moving away from names for us is going to happen soon as it just does not sit comfortably with us. Describing and using the names of plants in the make up of the lines in the description should be enough, what do you think? and this could be the departure point. In the description we state, Punto Rojo x Yarkhun purple, go on to describe the location of collection of P1s, work done since and selection procedures followed for the creation of the line, so it is documented well. Thereafter in all referrals it would be simply known as BC008, #8 or whatever. What do you think?

Thanks for bringing up the topic bro, cool to explore as we would really like to find a way round the hype and cut it out. I have always thought KC's numbering system worked, if you brought the seeds you had to have read the description and have thought about the purchase somewhat which is what we would like to encourage as much as possible.

if you were to make selections within the population to produce an indoor selection, and outdoor selection, a longer flowering, shorterflowering, more potent, or larger selection each selection from within the pool might be identified..
BC001.A BC001.B BC001.C

I think this is good. To the new 'reader' they would have to spend time deciphering the code, have to look into what is what. Also, i think this basic numbering system would work for us into the future. As we are interested in sharing breeding lines and developing this 'open source' approach to genetics, then in the future it could allow those friends and others using and breeding with the the lines to add on to the code (maybe) it would really help us in following traits in the ongoing selections and lines opened.

So if someone has inbred the BC002 Colombian Black, or has selected within the pool for a type then they can add onto that code which would allow us to follow some kind of map with them in the future. Some good ideas here bro, keep them coming.

not every company that offer's a 'colombian black' (just for example) would truly have the same (identical) gene pool that you do.. for them to all share the same name suggest no difference.., to say breeder's choice colombian black is to suggest a difference/distinction but still allows ppl to be sloppy and calll it colombian black.

Yeh for sure. What others do is no concern here bro, but for sure we want to move away from the hype as far and wide as possible. Sometimes its real difficult, as soon as you use the name Kush for example. Here it means plants from a specific geographic region, to others a plant type and then to many a generic name for anything 'dank' (whatever the fuck that is)

[seedcompany][seedline].[subset].[year] would be all i think i'd need..

Sounds a good starting point for us.
Peace, hhf

[elRoachoGrande]

Originally Posted by HothouseFlowers

High Elroacho!
Describing and using the names of plants in the make up of the lines in the description should be enough, what do you think? .... Thereafter in all referrals it would be simply known as BC008, #8 or whatever. What do you think?

perfect.

Originally Posted by HothouseFlowers

As we are interested in sharing breeding lines and developing this 'open source' approach to genetics, then in the future it could allow those friends and others using and breeding with the the lines to add on to the code (maybe) it would really help us in following traits in the ongoing selections and lines opened.

So if someone has inbred the BC002 Colombian Black, or has selected within the pool for a type then they can add onto that code which would allow us to follow some kind of map with them in the future. Some good ideas here bro, keep them coming.

I would hesitate to call my (potential) work on BC002 (or BC002.A.2007 if that were it's full name) BC002.*

while, like yourselves, i would acknowldge it's source, i would also give it a new code as it is in my hands now, and you can no longer guarantee anything about quality control.. (any mistakes i make shouldn't be blamed on Breeders Choice)
and so for me, my derivatives of BC002 would become ERG002 (providing i didn't already have a #2 strain in my lineup.. and as i haven't started numbering my seedlines my numberspace is open

so, in this vein, a # for a seedline alone isn't enough when everyone is using numbers(BC002 vs 002). and if everyone just wants to tack on a subset code for their inbreeding work on a strain there is no good centralized way to keep that all straight.. what would i do if i made selections within bc002 for shorter plants, or shorter seasons? email you guys and ask: "has anyone used the letter G yet for BC002?" that gets crazy.. dont offline breeders get to contribute? they have their own 'channels' and may have no connection to you to ask. we don't want 'collisions' in naming..

i suppose one way to avoid collisions would be as follows:
BC002.ERG-A
BC002.ERG-B, or even the longer BC002.A.2007.ERG-B
assuming no one else uses ERG in labeling..

my own seed lots may come from different years, and i'd want to keep track of that.. as well as which year my source came from.
BC002.A.2007.ERG-A.2009

starts to get ugly... but at a certain point it can cleaned up: bc002.A.2007.erg-a.2009 can become in time simply ERG002.a.2009 or ERG002A.a.2009

there are many ways to do it, and different ppl may use different codification.. as long as we don't pollute _your_ codification, we can each use our own system in cataloging our own as we see fit..

and yes.. catalogs become more important for everyone..

High El Roacho,

Great post, thanks for taking time out to think on this one and share thoughts, some very interesting ideas there for us and for sure we will be going that route in due course.

We are working hard on a PDF and Printed catalogue right now and should have this available for download in a week or so.

Peace and thanks, hhf