What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Everybody a breeder ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
Nota, this is why doing away with the male (or reintroducing him later) makes a shitload of sense. But even if folk have an issue with that, and don't want to go there, determining the best female to breed to is a HUGE leap forward, maths wise. IE let's say you can grow 10 plants, you're now testing 9 males against your best (again, extremely likely) female instead of 5 males and 5 females you know nothing about, dig? There are maths we could put to it, but let's just say it's VASTLY advantagous to go about it in the former way.
 

TheArchitect

Member
Veteran
You clowns. Lol

I don't breed. And, to refer to people who produce fine genetics with basic breeding practice, irregardless of their scientific understanding of them, as clowns, further shows your arrogance.
 

GMT

The Tri Guy
Veteran
I hate that word arrogance. It implies that the confidence gained through a lifetime of success is unjustified.
 

TheArchitect

Member
Veteran
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

FTR
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
brilliant addition to the thread, I am sure it will be great value to folks here, jesus fucking christ..
 

TheArchitect

Member
Veteran
I hate that word arrogance. It implies that the confidence gained through a lifetime of success is unjustified.

I don't mean it like that, and it's clear tom has an immense understanding of the scientific side.

His methods may speed things up, and make certain outcomes more likely, but they aren't they only way, and to refer to people as clowns just shows a general contempt of them.

Maybe arrogance was the wrong choice, a bit hyperbolic.
 

Weird

3rd-Eye Jedi
Veteran
make your money while you can cause once they can sell people seeds game is changing again

they also hold patents on cannabinoid composition so what you breed they might own anyway


Breeding programme

GW's team includes experts in Cannabis breeding. In the genetic model used, the cannabinoid content of each chemical phenotype (chemotype) is controlled by four independent loci. By manipulating the genes at these four positions, our scientists can precisely control the cannabinoid composition of a plant.

This is explained in the diagram below:

http://www.gwpharm.com/cultivation.aspx
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
let's say you're deep into that half-sib family selection I proposed to Matt earlier, or my favorite (because it is most efficient) the pedigree method. You will be faced with at times the decision to can a family due to it's failure to be homogeneous.. When all of the sudden, the one plant you breed to in the family delivers the lottery. So yes, even though plant number 2 is not the most homozygous in the group it doesn't necessarily mean it's time to give up on that family. These are the decisions a breeder is faced with, possibly according to the numbers he can handle. But none of that translates to giving up on or arguing against the science altogether by any stretch of the imagination.
 

NotaProfessor

Active member
Nota, this is why doing away with the male (or reintroducing him later) makes a shitload of sense. But even if folk have an issue with that, and don't want to go there, determining the best female to breed to is a HUGE leap forward, maths wise. IE let's say you can grow 10 plants, you're now testing 9 males against your best (again, extremely likely) female instead of 5 males and 5 females you know nothing about, dig? There are maths we could put to it, but let's just say it's VASTLY advantagous to go about it in the former way.
Got it. Thanks!
 

xmobotx

ecks moe baw teeks
ICMag Donor
Veteran
i m guessing here but; the progeny of a male could be selfed to quantify that male
 

TheArchitect

Member
Veteran
I was unaware selfing for stability in future progeny of traditional xy breeding was a complex, mysterious concept.
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
you were entirely unaware of everything, next you'll be saying,,, "just like I said before" lol
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
No frank, you can call it art if you want, but mathmen call it by guess and by golly, because that's exactly what it is.
 

TheArchitect

Member
Veteran
Forever lost in a state of confusion in regards to your post, outside of the occasional moment of clear articulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top