i couldn't disagree more, you have a very biased point of view
I am neither buyer or seller, there is no win or lose for me here. I don't have the same personal vestments as a buyer or seller. I am merely using other markets were breeding standards have been established and my experience (in this market one and others) as a benchmark for my observations, which are the basis for my objection to the way science and math are represented here
For example (and im saving more for later) in dog breeding both private and commercial breeders breed to a standard called pedigree and in this regard they both can contribute and be judged equally and in fact they do. this is how many legal established breeding markets work. It is not one sole methodology that determines pedigree but the outcome
there is no pedigree listed for the strains cannabis breeders are breeding so until then the success or failure of a breeder is not based on technique but on the delivery of his promise
if a breeder promises one thing and delivers another they are a failure
a breeder who promises one thing and delivers what they promise they are a success
beyond that all the other variables are relative
and I would gladly welcome any logic that proves otherwise
This is my argument to Tom and anyone else arguing against some imaginary pedigree that has yet to be defined
Tom emphasizes odds but there are other variables that influence phenotype expression like environment
take this scenario
two breeders starting with identical parental stock and bred them out for successive generations and one uses a larger pool outdoors and one uses a smaller pool indoors
if someone is growing indoors what will they be wiser in choosing the stock bred for successive generations outdoors or indoors?
if environment influences phenotype and you remove the influence do you need the same pool of plants to get the same relative results?
everything is not this cut and dry but more than one variable that influences phenotype expression and thus should be included in the discussion of selection technique and while technique doesn't dictate pedigree Tom asserts it as if it IS all the difference between him and all the "lazy fucks that didn't read the book"
and if that IS the case it begs the question of what value he puts on environment and breeding criteria and how come that has no bearing on his definition
the objectives of the BREEDER choosing the best of the 1-40 or even 1-100 of phenotype expressions dictating the selection criteria based are doing so based on their personal objectives not some universally accepted pedigree that has been defined for the breeding project before the breeder embarks on it regardless of the science they use to actualize their objectives
how does this not factor in on that breeder delivering in on this promise? and if they deliver how paramount is the technique they used to get there?
so if you have sound logic to explain to me why im wrong, why I shouldn't pose these questions or add a new perspective I welcome it but countering with "you must not have read the booK" or "not this same argument again" offers nothing productive it turns a "discussion" into an argument (and in my opinion reflects an impossibility to do so or a fear of the quantitative results that will be revealed but this is the only conclusion im left to come to)
Im not contesting what techniques preserve the most phenotypes, but the value being placed on it as a virtue
what is the measurable proof of performance in which people are using to calculate the tenants of these breeding techniques?
Im sure this is contestable as well
Tom might say the preservation of phenotypes
Gypsy might say its in the cash receipts
The grower who ran the beans might say its in their garden
the perspective is relative to the role played
