Everybody a breeder ?

[Mate Dave]

Nice Weird. Good Post K+.

I don't like it when people take offence because they have no proof themselves of a relevant argument.

I will not lower the tone trying to remove from the present digressing with earlier attendments, you missed the point obviously,, what strategy did I outline I didn't, since you ask others to go back through your drool to cite a method or quote I shall do the same, if it makes a point to prove do it!

Your shallow Tom Hill.

 

[GMT]

there are lots out there, google is a better friend than I am though. The males from S1 thread has some studies posted, and some hard science to back them up. I thought the old X to autosome thing died out years ago though. I think the guys in 2011 were just quoting what they thought at the time was the accepted view rather than having looked at it themselves.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

GMT you said "If we don't use the Y, how do we know the health of the response to the Y?"

What do you mean by that?

 

[Tom Hill]

what strategy did I outline I didn't, since you ask others to go back through your drool to cite a method or quote I shall do the same, if it makes a point to prove do it!

Your shallow Tom Hill.

Oh you remember, the one where "The bottleneck will select towards the male phyllotaxy which I closely observed making the F1 years ago" and all that other bs??? https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5664945&postcount=8

 

[Weird]

there are lots out there, google is a better friend than I am though. The males from S1 thread has some studies posted, and some hard science to back them up. I thought the old X to autosome thing died out years ago though. I think the guys in 2011 were just quoting what they thought at the time was the accepted view rather than having looked at it themselves.

fair enough, I was referencing it because it contained both aspects of both aspects of conversations Tom and I had

im not contesting x to autosome

I posted the to gnomes prove a point that science is reverse engineering what has already been accomplished by traditional methods

I won't go further than that, I simply think that people need to understand the baseline that traditional methods have created

I, PERSONALLY (and yes this is were it is personally relative some people breed commercially some people breed for head), find that the most important litmus test for any breeding project is how the selected samples smoke

and science is a far way from being able to take a blood sample and create a strain tailor made to compliment my biophysical composition

until then all science can do is reverse engineer what I know I like, that is tell me the cannabinoid composition that most pleases me, something I had to discover by smoking, not due to any scientific criteria

yes, as we understand what certain cannabanoids medically we can breed strains to that offer specific medical benefits, but science hasn't invented the medicinal properties of cannabis

they simply actualized what we knew already from anecdotal observations and I don't see science replacing those facilities for some time to come '

I see it complimenting them but not replacing them since they are the basis for the criteria in the first place

that is how it makes us feel

 

[izzywozzywizzy]

Indacum ,orrible person.who needs to spell ,ive.been around-the- world.many times ,left school at 15 and have never worked ,im now sixty retired at 15 beat that you orrible bunt.

 

[Mate Dave]

What are you on about Tom? Hurt me like you want to. Explain yourself perhaps you would like to elaborate...


Here is a start,.
1 .

2.

3.

4.

However, before you engage in digression can you list 10 things you have observed like I asked. Then I will be happy to elaborate.

This thread has now deviated from the tracks of reality, into survival of the fittest, dumb telling the dumb to kill there possible chances of future hybridization.

 

[Tom Hill]

Nobody is arguing what you like Weird, they are arguing how to best get there utilizing proven scientific methods.

 

[Tom Hill]

No Matt, as I tried to explain to Weird I don't jump through hoops just because you see fit to place them in front of me. You fill out your lame-ass 1-10. As far as I am concerned I lose nothing from gynoecious selection methods that I can get back with a flick of the wrist.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Dave people aren't observing problems solely related with the creation of gynoecious lines. Why are you asking us to report problems we aren't seeing? Why don't you just tell us what the problems are and what you've seen and why ditching the Y is such a bad idea. Why are you making us come up with your own side of the argument?

 

[GMT]

GitT, ok I'll prob get shot at for this but here goes.
If you see a plant that shows both pistils and pollen sacks, how do you know whether it is a female showing male or a male showing female? Given that we will kill it either way, does it matter? Well to me, that is a sign that it contains examples of genes that we don't want in the population. But which genes? Is it a fault passed on from the mother, the father, or the mother of the father? How far do we need to double back?
If no males show any sign of pistils, even under extreme stress testing, then we can be sure that the Y is doing its job of silencing the female genes. There is a healthy Y and the response to that Y is healthy. If it does show pistils however, we know we have a problem in there somewhere. Whether the problem is in the female genes, or in the Y itself is almost irrelevant, we instantly know that we can't take the line any further and it must be scrapped.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I guess I don't understand why you think these potential issues are Y linked? How do you know the plant doesn't have pistillate inducing or blocking actions on the autosomes?

 

[Weird]

Nobody is arguing what you like Weird, they are arguing how to best get there utilizing proven scientific methods.

Nobody is arguing using proven scientific methods, I am arguing that those scientific methods don't trump the part of the selection process that matters most

how it smokes

and the capacity to judge what's best in that regard has not yet been made a science

it is individually relevant

and I argue, here and now, as I did before, that this is as important as the scientific method employed if not more so but it is a matter of personal relevance so it is hard to argue

I am curious, and maybe this should be made a poll, and I could very well be proven wrong, but what are the most important characteristics when choosing breeder seed stock

what criteria matter most to the people actually buy the work the breeders create

and for the record

I think your capacity to smoke and know whats good is what makes you a better breeder, more so than any other capacity you posses, not that the others dont matter and that your efforts to improve them haven't improved you

but be honest

isnt that what got you started in the first place?

once again ill apologize in advance if im wrong

 

[Tom Hill]

They're not, the role of the almighty sex chromosome being ever powerful (as long as it's not "faulty') to silence all sex-related autosomal influence is his personal theory - it doesn't pan out and he knows it.

 

[Mate Dave]

Do you assume it has a blocker Gitt, I'm interested. Elaborate, If the inter-sex 'Morphology' shows it is therefore dominant in the phenotype and genotype of the individual?? Males are not inter-sexed, that is to say 'staminate individuals' with a proper functioning 'Y' are true sexed always and they always contribute to a true dioecious population, the same can not be said for gynoecious selection methods.

My theory, isn't a theory, it is just evolving from a cross or two that happened with some evaluation of the progeny, until the pistillate plants turn monoecious, I think it will hold up Tom. (If it does I claim It! Here now as of this post)

I suspect this is where an out-cross will come into play, it happened back all those thousands of years ago and is still happening.
When the females of my current dioecious line become crap and turn tricks I will use a reoccurring parent again if viability is available.

This method proves effective, I am yet to test this lines viability to the extent of other failed attempts but the out-cross is the best option I have found. it is also in those books Tom.

I found the males to be easier to pull and get the flower room growing simsemilla than pulling half a grow of monoecious population at an expense.

 

[Tom Hill]

Weird everybody has the "art" that you speak of, are you really thinking this deserves a pat on the back for anybody, because they have a certain taste? Trust me, many people have similar tastes, that costs nothing, but learning how to get to where you want to go, using proven methods, really, you'll belittle that latter? I sincerely can only imagine about one reason why, and yes, it's ego related brother.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I am curious, and maybe this should be made a poll, and I could very well be proven wrong, but what are the most important characteristics when choosing breeder seed stock

This is 100% dependent on the goal of the breeding program. What if you wanted to make Sour D autoflowering? That goal would have a very different set of important characteristics than if you wanted to make a great F1 hybrid between your favorite blueberry and bubblegum lines.

You act like there's some sort of perfect list of traits breeders look for all the time when selecting. It really isn't that way.

What pollen chuckers do is hack their favorite OG Kush smoke to the "best" Chem male and charge us all an arm and a leg for the untested cross.

 

[Tom Hill]

Once you learn what's going on you'll better understand where to go for breeding stock or as a customer, no matter who made the fucking seeds. eg you may like to smoke gsc, but because you understand that it segregates, you'll avoid the price tag as a customer as too much risk, and run from it like the plague as a breeder, etc, etc.

 

[Weird]

This is 100% dependent on the goal of the breeding program. What if you wanted to make Sour D autoflowering? That goal would have a very different set of important characteristics than if you wanted to make a great F1 hybrid between your favorite blueberry and bubblegum lines.

You act like there's some sort of perfect list of traits breeders look for all the time when selecting. It really isn't that way.

i wont ask you to bother re reading the thread but in a nutshell i am arguing that the relative value of breeders and it turned into a shit storm when i called someone out

never got any sound logic in argument to the logic i presented just personal attacks but its all good, I have teenagers im used to it

What pollen chuckers do is hack their favorite OG Kush smoke to the "best" Chem male and charge us all an arm and a leg for the untested cross.

first if you get charged an arm and a leg for genetics my condolences

second no one forces you to buy seed your choices as a consumer are your own

having had to breed my own shit from bag seed because I started pre internet i can tell you people are making a naturally occurring process seem far more complex and difficult that it is

i have never paid for genes, never will, and the reason i have had so many genes given to me, is because I was NEVER in want and had come to the table with my own value before hand

let me be honest with you and i dont say this because i dont want to sound pompous but its true

if you haven't done your own seed runs you haven't come full circle as a grower AND your missing out on the best part of it

alot of this process was a necessary part of growing your own worthwhile smoke

not saying im anything special,in fact im saying if i can do it this easily its not a fluke, im no weed jesus

every body is looking for a shortcut and its that I WANT IT NOW variable that is costing you so much

but to answer your question the poll is important because the market isnt dictated by supply alone

demand is an important element too

and if people can come in and hack strains and sucker so many people so easily than that is a HUGE indication of lack of supply

i gotta tell you i think to many of you guys focus on these little details so much that you lose sight of the bigger picture in which they are connected with

not trying to be critical to you directly but in a broader sense

 

[Tom Hill]

Weird, I do understand what you're saying, but yes I wholeheartedly disagree and so does every plant breeder who knows how it goes. Who cares what you like if you can't recreate it? 99% will fail in doing so using ignorant techniques that may first look good on paper, or to the historian, but the back-story not being told is all the failed attempts on the boards of these pollen chuckers. No, method is paramount, everybody knows what they want, big deal, how you gunna get there, by art, wanting it really bad? haha, no man.