Everybody a breeder ?

[Tom Hill]

...a little musical interlude to make sure those guys don't forget where they're from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q4foLKDlcE

 

[Aardwolf]

Don't you just hate it when somebody likes the sound of their own voice too much and they get all carried away and emotional.

Breeding depends on the breed firstly, then the desired outcomes.

 

[Tom Hill]

What a deep thought,

But after you are finished wiping the tear from Rob's eye, ask him, no screw that, ask yourself, if his genotype required California dirt, or was it bound to thrive in multiple environments?

and then get back to me about firstly and then whatever else your feeble understanding can muster.

 

[Tom Hill]

"Efficient," when applied to people (EVERYTHING!!!), implies the skillful use of energy or industry to accomplish desired results with little waste of effort"

Name for us TWO(legitimate) selection methods, in order of efficiency, or concede that you wandered into the wrong fucking sand box. And be really damn careful if you choose to proceed in that manner, because we are holding no punches here, not today.

and otherwise, take your puppy pit bull and backpack and continue hitch-hiking your ass down the road, I am sure Weird will pick you up.

 

[Aardwolf]

Selection methods: Selecting for what in particular Tom Hill<

1: Selecting for superior Phenotypes whithin a Genotype Via self'd breeding methods, looking into the homozygosity potential for dioecious selection not being lucky.

2: Half sib selection combining 2 lines NL x Skunk & NL x Haze which can double up on genes.

There are many Tom Hill, it all starts with a breed or a plant from a breed. I said above b[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]reeding depends on the breed firstly, then the desired outcomes.

From looking at this statement and understanding his seed type a breeder [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]can deduce [/FONT]the best route to get to his goal and even if it is possible.
[/FONT]

 

[Tom Hill]

Selection methods: Selecting for what in particular Tom Hill<

Irrelevant!

1: Selecting for superior Phenotypes whithin a Genotype Via self'd breeding methods, looking into the homozygosity potential for dioecious selection not being lucky.

No, we are seeking superior phenotypes that prove to be superior genotypes as well. Dioeciousness is of zero concern.

2: Half sib selection combining 2 lines NL x Skunk & NL x Haze which can double up on genes.

There are many Tom Hill

Fail, we covered it earlier, all you had to do was copy/paste or even plagiarize and pretend it was your own.

 

[barnyard]

Col. Kurtz: "the terroir, the terroir" (lol)

 

[Aardwolf]

Irrelevant!



No, we are seeking superior phenotypes that prove to be superior genotypes as well. Dioeciousness is of zero concern.



Fail, we covered it earlier, all you had to do was copy/paste or even plagiarize and pretend it was your own you lazy bastard.

Why is it irreverent? You should really be more specific, if your looking for a definitive answer, ask a better question, put more time into its structure thinking it through. With a little more effort from you Tom people could understand clearly from the dribble what your asking them.

Who is the we are in we are seeking? And what was the Goal?

What fail? How's this fail? Most strains are this make-up.

Can you explain so we can understand your thinkings Tom.

I can do [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]original[/FONT], I don't need to [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] plagiarize and pretend.[/FONT]

 

[Tom Hill]

what you are breeding for, is completely irrelevant, in all cases. Efficiency of selection methods does not change according to what you are "breeding" for. Therefore, the question is irrelevant.

We are all breeding cannabis, this is what we have in common.

You fail.

I do my best to explain, if you are concerned with understanding and I hope that you are, it's on you to ask the correct questions and set aside this trying to sound knowing with dioecious this and dioecious that.

 

[Tom Hill]

An ignorant person who comes forth in an honest manner, is to be revered. The Matt Dave type who knows jack shit and rambles on about nothing, will be absolutely shut down if I have anything to do with it. Those types are responsible for spreading more misinformation than any other, and are cancerous to us as a community..

 

[Aardwolf]

what you are breeding for, is completely irrelevant, in all cases.Efficiency of selection methods does not change according to what you are "breeding" for. Therefore, the question is irrelevant.

We are all breeding cannabis, this is what we have in common.

You fail.

I do my best to explain, if you are concerned with understanding and I hope that you are, it's on you to ask the correct questions and set aside this trying to sound knowing with dioecious this and dioecious that.

You are wrong Tom Hill this is the fundamentals its ok knowing all this fancy stuff and talking about it on forums but you must grasp the basics first!

let me explain to you,

Efficiency of selection methods will change according to what you are "breeding" for. Therefore, the question is relevant.

Selecting monoeciously will be different to selecting dioeciously in many ways. Therefore it bares total relevance, you wouldn't breed two females to get males, you will usually find some in the progeny but you wouldn't breed early plants to make a late finishing line in general. This is my point do you understand! The efficency of the breeding method to obtain early finishing plants differs from that of the later finishing line, the breeding technique remains the same and the selection process but the efficiency of the method is thus reduced using the wrong phenotype!

In this typical scenario by selecting the early finishing plants to breed, we loose the desired Genotype/phenotype because the later males need to combine with the later females to get the desirable genotype in the progeny.
Therefore efficiency of selection methods will change depending on the breed like I said above, it is all relevant Tom Hill.

You just don't like it.

I like you insults Tom, there better than your knowledge sometimes.

 

[Tom Hill]

Weird, and yes, all of you others, in proffering this resistance without being able to close the fucking deal, all fall into this category. You are arguing nothing but against all known scientific knowledge on the matter, playing fools. I do it sometimes too, but not with cannabis, that subject is much too important to me, to us, whether you have come to terms with that or not.

 

[Tom Hill]

Good lord, I have a bluegill on my treble-hook, one sec.

 

[OneStonedPony]

To the guy that started this thread, I see your point, example in point.​

I ran into this tool over a THC Charmer, Matthew Riot, a couple of years back. He was trying to learn to take cuts, kept having a high failure rate, same with germinating seeds. It was obvious his skill set was low.​

Last week I pick up a copy of Skunk Magazine, and there he is. A breeder showing off a strain, Double Purple Dojo, I know was made by a breeder named Outlaw Grower, cause I bought the seeds when he first started selling them over at the Bay.​

Outlaw Grower worked the strain for a few years, lot's of threads, pics, the full monty. So there is no guess work involved, he bred it.​

I think to myself WTF, isn't this a load of BS. I google Mattew Riot, and bam. He's got his own website, selling something like 5 dozens different strains. Lot's of big names of hard to get stuff ?​

How the fuck do you go from not being able to germinate a fucking seed or root a cut, to being the breeder of dozens of strains in a couple of years. In-fuck-n-possible.​

Then I read on another site I visit today, about him laying some con on Heath Robinson, getting cuts of his Black Rose, supposedly to help sick people. Then Riot feminized it and started selling seeds from it, as his own.​

** WTF ** is Skunk Magazine doing interviewing this scam artist, without first verifying he knew something and had done something on his own ?​

They are guilty of making him look legit, when he if far from it.​

Not cool, but since I'm not spending advertising dollars in their rag, I guess I will never get interviewed as a grower on the street.​

 

[Tom Hill]

Aardwolf, what is selecting monoeciously? You will never find males in gynoecious selections. early late, this has no bearing on methods, only criteria. You have no point, just like Weird, you are in over your head and do not understand this is the case ala hempy stylie. Selection method = selection method, not criteria, you need to wrap your head around that. Nothing you are saying is relevant at all, you're lost little girl, but you have one thing right, I don't like it. And I like less not knowing if it's your laziness that holds you back from understanding, or your capacity to learn itself, for I do not relish picking on you if it happens to be the latter, but I do indeed suspect the former.

 

[Aardwolf]

Tom; a method being a technique like inbreeding or back-cross, and criteria being Height, Flowertime and phyllotaxy, basically the reason for the selection.

Are they not all interlinked?

 

[Tom Hill]

No, they are not, and so of course selection criteria does not effect the efficiency of selection method.

 

[Lemon Larry]

Laymen excuse

Laymen excuse

"too many talented breeders operate(d) there and ply their art" name one just so I can giggle in silence lol ....As I promise to keep dear professional courtesy but for a very few.
Otherwise, I am with all of your other sentiments.

96 i think i picked up 1pk NL5haze,1pk shivaskunk
from sensi in the dam, out of those 2 packs, i had amazeing
once in a life time phenos from each pack
in a long list of breeders that i would do bussiness with the
dutch are at the top of my list !
1) Nevelle's MM crosses
2)Shanti< MR NICE Mango Haze,AngleBreath,
3)Simon<SeriousSeeds,AK47
my Q for you Tom, is how packs of "Toms Haze" must i buy
to find the "ACID" clean up isle 9 it seems most people
think 3to4 packs will do,to think its always been my fault
for not buying those extra packs

 

[Tom Hill]

Hense why Weird's earlier misunderstanding about "using quantitative genetics" was so very laughable - because the methods I am outlining here outside of marker assisted technology, are the most efficient including taking into account quantitative genetics, while it is really he, who wanders around in Mendelianville...

 

[Tom Hill]

Larry, not sure quite how to answer (you tryna fuck w/me?) so I will give you both. I find 1 of 20 female individuals from the Haze I maintain to be exceptional. I could lie about it, replace it with a ringer, or just flat out steal something else, and probably make you happier I bet, and even fill you with a bunch of ridiculous notions while I was at it,,, but it's just not my style man.