Breeding Ethics

[oceangrownkush]

So.. This subject seems to come up a lot, less so here on ICm in particular, but a lot none the less.. My question for you breeders and pollen chucks is this; at what point does a line stop being someone else's work and start being your own material that you may do with what you wish without consent of the breeders before you?

There are some obvious ones.. Like making F2's of a breeder pack, slapping a new label on it and trying to sell it. That one is the clear black and white example of poor ethics in breeding. But what about making an F1 with another breeders work? Does a single outcrossing make that line 100% your own creation that you may trade with as you wish?

There are some breeders doing the absolute best they can with what they are given and others are more obvious examples of opportunists chucking pollen for dollars, jacking others genes and misrepresenting lines..

How does an ethical breeder behave? What are the obligations of a breeder to his predecessors?

Some questions I'd love to see answered, and trying to answer them myself only makes them seem more and more grey area and less cut and dry... Obviously a touchy subject for a lot of breeders out there!

Would love to see some discord on this to better understand the answers myself.

 

[DemonPigeon]

Personally my main purpose is gene preservation and making pretty pot plants
I share my seeds with the friends who know I grow and would otherwise have to order expensive seeds online, every so often I get a few £ or a bag of weed as thanks, I'd want to produce true breeding and distinct strains before I started charging any money for what I'm doing, especially with unusual traits if I have spare it's important as (Robert Clarke tells us) to keep genes around and accesible to all.
I try not to buy F1's unless they have a particular and easily measurable gene for my own breeding, I'd buy F1 webbed trait carriers but for new breeding stock you want consitency of genetics when you pick a strain, otherwise you'd use bagseed or buy mixed packs

There's nothing wrong with selling F1 of other peoples work but for $5 a seed seems a little extortionate and always attribute their origin

 

[BrownThumb]

Interesting train of thought. If I like the cross I am making between WOS Afghan and HSSC Bhutanese and then work it through F8, who should get the credit for that? Real world example. I may never sell a single seed, but I sure as hell will take credit for them if I ever give them away or sell them, assuming the cross doesn't suck in the first place. Does that make me a unethical and a scumbag? I did pay for the seeds and would always credit them for the original genetics...

 

[Space Case]

I'd say F1 hybrids using another breeder's stock isn't even breeding, and would qualify in my book as unethical. Making F2s or F3s and then searching for a proper male and then outcrossing it would be more ethical, but takes more work. Most F1 hybrids shouldn't be considered real breeding anyway, because more work should be put into them. One-offs can be fun, but no one puts work into it like that. I say, going through another breeder's work via multiple generations constitutes that you are reworking something for yourself.

 

[MrSterling]

The garden world is dominated by F1s. They're standard in a lot of ornamentals. People burn through the old and the catalogs have to offer something new. I understand your post and have to agree that there's something just wrong about selling a pack only a couple gens away from where you bought it. But then again genes are genes and nobody owns them and we name too many crossings anyway. People will give a name to every F1 failure of two elites crushed together.

 

[mexcurandero420]

More often almost 50 names for just one variety and in the mean while the heirloom varieties are disappearing in the countries of origin.
Polyhybrids are the standards today.

Keep on growing

 

[huarmiquilla]

howdy oceangrownkush

how you do?

am keen to think human are not to own to the nature in any form....rather to preserve for future the generations

at where a breeder ethics involve are at where they put into with love and energy

the cost of seed with respect to the yield capability of cannabis show very few with positive ethic

at when am to think to own a piece of nature, is essential of the moment to lose from self

positive vibrations

 

[sprinkl]

To me it's ethical if the price they ask is in accordance to the time and work they put in it.
No one owns genetics. To me it's ok to buy $100 packs, select 2 decent plants, make F2's and sell those for $10 a pack. eg beanhoarder
If you buy a $100 pack strain like SSH, or jack and take it to F4+ with big selections you probably put as much or more work in it than the original makers and I don't see any problem asking upto as much as the original, if the results are as good/better.

What is not OK to be sold expensively is if you make a simple hybrid by crossing two strains. Same with elite clones being crossed or feminized and the resulting seed sold for $10 a seed. Those breeders are the worst imo. I'm pretty sure most of them don't even test the results. Why would they, they have elite genetics? Minimum amount of work done, maximum profit -> not breeders, lazy seedmakers, profiting on hype and dumb stoners that buy their seeds. One day karma will fuck these rippers over I'm sure.

 

[idiit]

riping off ( pot pimp) another breeder's strain and selling it is obviously unethical.

taking any genetics and working 'em any way you damn please is your right.

giving out a clone and then not letting the breeder sell the hybrids is not a gift; it's handcuffs that keep on 'cuffin'.

strain hoarding of scarce hard to source landraces and ibls as if they are yours is also wrong per my view, however the breeder/seed reseelers need to make a living so a balance must somehow be reached. gets into lots of grey areas here.

 

[ClearBarbedFunk]

not all of us can travel the world to accumalate seed, so we have to start somewhere, ends up we buy seed from vendors.

i truely believe its up to the buyer to make his own decision on seed offered by breeders and seedmakers alike.

while workin a season with Tomhill i had asked him " dont you get upset when you gift seed to others and they immediately turn around and repro your lines for sale." he responded " no i dont, its a level playin field, lets see what they got" or somethin like that, cant remember his exact words.

basically he was sayin, he fears no other, and believes in his work.

so like i said its the buyer who must do his research, the seed you are lookin to purchase, are they done right or just a quick cross to make cash on the name.

most guys today purchasein seed are just goin on name, there not really interested in how the seed was done, and what was actually done to produce the seed lot.

CBF

 

[ClearBarbedFunk]

theres no ethics in the seed game, never has been.

even the top dogs in the seed world have been caught talkin smack, lyin where there stock came from. everyone one of um wants to be a pot star, and chow down as much cheddar in as possible.

 

[Phillthy]

this is an age old discussion. mostly among animal breeders. everyone gets their original stock from some place. be it found in nature or purchased from another breeder. it really doesnt matter in that sense. what matters is what the "breeder" does with it once acquired.

unfortunately it is a buyer beware situation. those that want a certain thing will purchase it from whoever is offering it. if they want a one off cross, selectively worked line, diligently selected parental stock, or a pollen chuck, there will always be someone filling that desire.

 

[smilley]

theres no ethics in the seed game, never has been.

even the top dogs in the seed world have been caught talkin smack, lyin where there stock came from. everyone one of um wants to be a pot star, and chow down as much cheddar in as possible.

IMO no marijuana seed is worth $20. I've paid that, but I prefer to buy from the knock-off breeders like Beanhoarder and Dynafem . I don't buy into this unethical argument. Mother Nature didn't intend for genetics to be controlled by a few. Monsanto is a prime example of genetics and the law going too far.

 

[kush kings]

My philosophy, Is if i purchase your strain I have the right to do whatever I want with it. you should always give credit to the breeder though. but if i purchase a strain and want to breed with it I'm not going to ask a breeder for permission...it's my strain just as much as it is theirs. lol just thinking about it..most strains were made with stolen or "secret" genetics anyway

 

[audioaddict]

The way I see it is, how many top breeders actually travel out and collect seeds from source?

Not many I can tell you, therefore pretty much all the breeders whose work you are worrying about not disrespecting are doing pretty much the same thing you wish to avoid anyway.

A truly ethical breeder/hacker will always give credit to the lines that they use.

If you do a 1x1 hack of Sensi seeds stuff, and are honest about it, then you are cool in my book.
Misrepresentation is the only real unethical thing to do, other than that nobody owns the plant.

 

[wildgrow]

Even if you take something through to F4 or F100, I think its important to state where it all started. I know, for me, I like to know where a strain got its start, what traits where selected, etc.
Example: I have a super lemon haze and some midnight madness growing. A member suggested I cross them. If I do, and crazily decide to to select and bring the cross to say F4 (which is probably far enough along to give it its own name), in good faith, Id HAVE to make it plainly known that it originally came from a crossing of the parents. Id also try really hard to use the parents monikers in the new name. ie - Lemon Madness (if i selected to keep the lemon flavor) or an extrapolation like House of the Midnight Sun (a nod to both House of Love and Greenhouse Seeds - as well as lemon=yellow=sun.

Edit: Amusing myself here but... House of the midnight sun could be shortened to HMS. Someone blowing out a grow of it could title their thread - The HMS Bounty! Hahahhaaaha! Er, well, anyways...

 

[oceangrownkush]

Hells yeah, lots of good input in here. Hella heads weighing in. That's crazy, CBF got to work a season with Tom Hill! Thank you all for the insight.

 

[Stoxx]

So.. This subject seems to come up a lot, less so here on ICm in particular, but a lot none the less.. My question for you breeders and pollen chucks is this; at what point does a line stop being someone else's work and start being your own material that you may do with what you wish without consent of the breeders before you?

There are some obvious ones.. Like making F2's of a breeder pack, slapping a new label on it and trying to sell it. That one is the clear black and white example of poor ethics in breeding. But what about making an F1 with another breeders work? Does a single outcrossing make that line 100% your own creation that you may trade with as you wish?

There are some breeders doing the absolute best they can with what they are given and others are more obvious examples of opportunists chucking pollen for dollars, jacking others genes and misrepresenting lines..

How does an ethical breeder behave? What are the obligations of a breeder to his predecessors?

Some questions I'd love to see answered, and trying to answer them myself only makes them seem more and more grey area and less cut and dry... Obviously a touchy subject for a lot of breeders out there!

Would love to see some discord on this to better understand the answers myself.

In my book, God owns it all. Thus a name is just a name. The controversy surrounding giving proper credit has to do with greed, so no one is quite right if you ask me. Many a friendships were destroyed in the cannabis business due to greed. Who initiated what, who 'invented' what, who first made what strain. Nonsense. It is all about $$$. I think the more relevant issue in giving credit is being transparent so others can build on your work.

By the way, I clicked on your forum thread thinking it was about gene preservation. My line of questioning is, "What is the right balance of helping to maintain genetic diversity versus in-breeding desirable traits?"

Putting aside hybrid vigor for a second, these goals seem in opposition, at least for the lazy breeder. People on average will tend to gravitate towards the strongest, most compact, highest yielding strains. Seems like Amsterdam did exactly that by mashing everything to Afghani or Skunk #1 at some point.

A concrete example from the viewpoint of a small-time breeder might be if one were introducing a lesser known 'strain' into a breeding program. The varietal may not have the best set of desirable characteristics and so there may be a sacrifice in terms of desired traits. However, presumably there would be increased diversity, barring the possibility that we are already too far inbred that even the 'different' varietal is pretty darn similar, which may or may not be the case.

I'm curious to know what the professional plant biologists and geneticists think about where the 'correct' tradeoff or what the correct philosophy is. I mean I could be introducing the Grinspoon strain or Kazakh or Chinese landrace or hemp into my breeding program, but then I have a lot of work to do afterwards in stabilizing, then selecting out undesirable phenotypes. And in the end, after the 'selecting out', would the final product be distinct enough to the pre-diversification strain to merit such work. Inherently 'stabilization' seems to run counter to genetic diversity no matter how you cut it, but I'm no geneticist.

One of these days, I do intend to pick out some 'quality' strains but utilizing different screens for each strain. Then doing a good ol' Arcata-style trainwreck of open pollination. Post-open pollination, I would then let the progeny shine for what they are, select on 2-3 different parallel bases, in-breed them for those traits, only then start trying for hybrids. I'm not sure what such a long-term project would produced but it does pique my curiosity.

In the end though, most cannabis growers and breeders alike don't really care about all of that, and I'm not being cynical, just realistic. Money rules this grey market.

I say if you have unique needs and unique ideas, and have some understanding of selection and breeding, then you're doing ok. My philosophy is, if someone 'steals' my work, God owns it all. And if my genetics is 'taken' and someone more prolific helps to spread the healing and love then so be it. More people having their lives improved by cannabis the better.

The unethical ones are the ones making money off the sick, trying to trademark simple combination phrases as a lame and useless 'second-best' attempts to patenting. And the worst are those that will eventually attempt to patent genes, attempt to control farmers via biotechnology, etc.

Don't worry it's not you, but there are 'would-bes' on ICM for sure. Be ready to be stomped on if you're in the minority thinking about cannabis breeding ethics.

Stoxx out
CA215/SB420 compliant. Not legal, medical, or grow advice.

 

[Stoxx]

Even if you take something through to F4 or F100, I think its important to state where it all started. I know, for me, I like to know where a strain got its start, what traits where selected, etc.
Example: I have a super lemon haze and some midnight madness growing. A member suggested I cross them. If I do, and crazily decide to to select and bring the cross to say F4 (which is probably far enough along to give it its own name), in good faith, Id HAVE to make it plainly known that it originally came from a crossing of the parents. Id also try really hard to use the parents monikers in the new name. ie - Lemon Madness (if i selected to keep the lemon flavor) or an extrapolation like House of the Midnight Sun (a nod to both House of Love and Greenhouse Seeds - as well as lemon=yellow=sun.

Edit: Amusing myself here but... House of the midnight sun could be shortened to HMS. Someone blowing out a grow of it could title their thread - The HMS Bounty! Hahahhaaaha! Er, well, anyways...

Agreed except on the trying to maintain some semblance to the initial parental varietals. Reminds me of super long Thai names that are add ons after add ons. Super Sour Silver Haze Blueberry BOGlegum Thaitanic Chitral Kush would be quite cumbersome. I know I'm being extreme but if everyone followed your rule from far back enough, we would have a mish-mash of geographic names with various different ways to say weed in different languages.

Yes, I agree that for transparency informing others about the lineage is important. But if openly masked, subsequent breeders have a choice of accepting that or not working with you, and so I am not so much against openly masked as I am deceptively masked.

Those that change names in an obvious attempt to mask origin are no less unethical than everyone else in the business of cannabis for profit. Those that admit they are in it for profit are just more honest than those that say they follow some stringent ethical code but yet are still all about the dollar (but not admitting to it). It is the ones that say a strain came from Korea when in fact it came from South America that waste the time of future breeders and are a bit more unethical. (Or passing off one strain as another for marketability or to join the trend of the year).

Finally, from a practical standpoint, mentioning parental lineage may be limited by the corruption of the information leading up to you. The breeder you picked up genetics from may have kept good records but then he may have been duped as to what he has on one of his crosses. I'm not sure as to a quantitative figure on the rate of corruption of cannabis lineage information, but I suspect it is very high. Doesn't mean we should all give up, but it does mean we're severely limited in what we can do. From the standpoint of friendly small time breeder to small time breeder, I would hope that others are as honest as they can be to me, as I am to them. But now if we are to be serious breeders we must also consider the judgement of the breeders before us in tracing back lineage if maintaining that history is important to us or breeders downstream from us. A lot to ask for.

Stoxx

 

[Stoxx]

theres no ethics in the seed game, never has been.

even the top dogs in the seed world have been caught talkin smack, lyin where there stock came from. everyone one of um wants to be a pot star, and chow down as much cheddar in as possible.

Very well put.

Stoxx