Please breeders we still want regular seeds too...
- Thread starter funkpew
- Start date
No sso. I've maintained no less than 5 inbred lines for decades now, the old fashion way, via open pollination, modified mass selection, and etc. At the same time I'm not going to sit here and say crap like oh this is real breeding, and all those chumps using reversals are hacks - as I know better. In time, so will other breeders if they continue with their education, one by one they will come around most assuredly - as feelings and hunches are no match for observed facts. When they do come around, all their customers who've been regurgitating their heroes' poddy-mouthing of these techniques will be left all alone out there, with their feelings and rubber arrows void of any scientific sting lol.
KiefSweat there is quite a bit of that type of info in the book I linked. I've not had it in front of me for a year or so as I passed my last copy to Rezdog along with a grip of STS haha. Indeed, Cravenmore's wish was well underway prior to his hiatus.
In my opinion the F2 designation is more important than the S1 as it denotes it as a recombination generation. Perhaps F2 by way of selfing is most correct. Charles Xavier was involved in a good thread on the subject but I can't seem to find it. -Tom
KiefSweat there is quite a bit of that type of info in the book I linked. I've not had it in front of me for a year or so as I passed my last copy to Rezdog along with a grip of STS haha. Indeed, Cravenmore's wish was well underway prior to his hiatus.
In my opinion the F2 designation is more important than the S1 as it denotes it as a recombination generation. Perhaps F2 by way of selfing is most correct. Charles Xavier was involved in a good thread on the subject but I can't seem to find it. -Tom
Learning.......
Tom, that book is expensive my wife said no. asked santa, ive been good so might work. Thanks again.
Tom, that book is expensive my wife said no. asked santa, ive been good so might work. Thanks again.TH, oh this just reminds me of business practice with big companies (f.e selling sterile seeds, though thankfully we are not at that point yet.)
unless the world changes alot (and it might)
we will see that point. (buds that cant make seeds, only calyxes and thc)
unless the world changes drastically, in the next 10-20 years, strains will probably be bought up and this done to them.
unless the world changes alot (and it might)
we will see that point. (buds that cant make seeds, only calyxes and thc)
unless the world changes drastically, in the next 10-20 years, strains will probably be bought up and this done to them.
Hey Tom 
I wonder if this is the thread you´re looking for
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=130718&page=3
@ C. X.
I wonder if this is the thread you´re looking for
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=130718&page=3
@ C. X.
KF how are "male sterile "feminized" seeds" a "great thing for the consumer"
?
time saving? need less plants?
but the drugwar is coming to an end. why would i care about having less plants or the time involved in the coming less insane world?
might take some time, possibly 10 years, maybe more, but it will come, no doubt.
so, considering that, what benefits are there?
TH .
well, this limits seriously what the buyers can do with the seeds.
and what about phenotypes? doesnt this limit the number of phenotypes people can play with?
i kinda doubt there are any plants out there that satisfy just about everyone.
?
time saving? need less plants?
but the drugwar is coming to an end. why would i care about having less plants or the time involved in the coming less insane world?
might take some time, possibly 10 years, maybe more, but it will come, no doubt.
so, considering that, what benefits are there?
TH .
well, this limits seriously what the buyers can do with the seeds.
and what about phenotypes? doesnt this limit the number of phenotypes people can play with?
i kinda doubt there are any plants out there that satisfy just about everyone.
Hi again Sso,
It does not limit what the buyer can do with the seeds. Okay, maybe it does. It will limit this bullshit nonsensical phenotypic male selection the vast majority of folks are using now. All this oh I selected this big leafed male or this one with the hollow stem etc, etc, etc, all of it is a sad criteria for something we smoke. Folk will instead make selection that actually make sense. This would be cause for rejoice imo. Outside of that, any selection method we could use with male/female seedlots we can still use with gynoecious lots (open pollination thus mass selection or half-sib selection etc etc). It places no limits while at the same time providing some serious advantages and options that were previously off the table.
It does not limit phenotypic variation either that was misconception #4. That is a product of numbers, not technique. IE, there is no mathematical difference between 1:1 male/female matings and 1:1 female/female matings, they both narrow variation within a given population at the exact same rate. -T
It does not limit what the buyer can do with the seeds. Okay, maybe it does. It will limit this bullshit nonsensical phenotypic male selection the vast majority of folks are using now. All this oh I selected this big leafed male or this one with the hollow stem etc, etc, etc, all of it is a sad criteria for something we smoke. Folk will instead make selection that actually make sense. This would be cause for rejoice imo. Outside of that, any selection method we could use with male/female seedlots we can still use with gynoecious lots (open pollination thus mass selection or half-sib selection etc etc). It places no limits while at the same time providing some serious advantages and options that were previously off the table.
It does not limit phenotypic variation either that was misconception #4. That is a product of numbers, not technique. IE, there is no mathematical difference between 1:1 male/female matings and 1:1 female/female matings, they both narrow variation within a given population at the exact same rate. -T
I hope you are correct about this because this is my main 'fear' with where the lab coats are taking us in our industry ;\ I see a world where corporatism has the the big seed companies payin legislatures to regulate everyone else out and keeping only the PHd's makin $$$. Trademarking and copyrighting of nature, genes, cannabinoids just like they did to the 27 different chemicals in opium they just regulate everyone into a criminal but themselves, create synthetic versions of the chemicals which are more addictive but hold in courts when copyrighted, and self production is maintained illegal protecting their market share.
I really hope the canna industry does not become a completely stale, boring, and near impossible market to enter like pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and alcohol have become.
Know that is a little off topic, but it just worries me when companies get rid of males to protect market share on nature. I think it would be wise to imagine a market where this sort of practice of eliminating males was observed by everyone from inception. What a barren stale list of seeds gypsy and all other seed vendors would have to offer... How many amazing genes and hybrids would not be here today and would never be found? Is that what people really want the market to be?
I hope it never goes there and I think there will always be those that will offer M/F and Fem versions of their stock simply because of market demands, but I hope the all fem trend dies and quickly. I think everything has it's utility and all should be sold whether it is AF's, FEMS, m/f, or some new discovery everything has its place in the market, but I hope none are the ONLY thing offered or we will reap a depressed and boring market for sure.
I've been on the fence as far as Fem's are concerned for a long time. I see the majority as lower vigor so I do not buy much personally, but I also do not wish to see others not be able to buy or offer them. I hope there are no ramifications that are genetically detrimental to the species and hope people speak with their wallets if the all fem trend continues. I know I have.
With that said I am slowly putting one foot over the ledge of the fence concerning breeding fem's. The more intelligent and scientific posts like you write that I read I tend to be less fearful of the negative impact of the fem process. I just hope that we don't end up at the bottom of a slippery slope into gene termination practice becoming the norm as well before we realize were even there ;\
Thanks for posting.
eh, feminized seeds are basically clones of one plant , yeah? the result of that plant, Mating With Itself.
so how wont you lose phenotypes?
bullshit criteria of selecting males?
do you know that there are Prize Males?
owned by breeders.
im starting to seriously wonder about your motivations in this
One thing that makes me curious is if the idea that males and females do not offer different gene's is true then why do males have different traits like quicker flowering, more robust growth, quicker growth, and stronger branching? Do these common traits not get passed on and do they not also influence the gene pool of the other sex? Much tot he tune of "Wow, John sure looks like his dad", "betsy sure looks like her mom", "Wow, John has the face and hair of his mom!", and "Wow, Betsy unfortunately got her dads feet."....
I know that's a crude example, but I still can't convince my self that eliminating a certain sex doesn't also eliminate a ton of genes that can effect everything within the organism.
If males are such a problem for people to test for progeny then why isn't reversing the male to check for traits enough rather than eliminating him entirely?
I know that's a crude example, but I still can't convince my self that eliminating a certain sex doesn't also eliminate a ton of genes that can effect everything within the organism.
If males are such a problem for people to test for progeny then why isn't reversing the male to check for traits enough rather than eliminating him entirely?
Duplicate
Member
^ Interesting thoughts.
I'm pretty sure what Tom is saying is that reversing Female #1 and hitting female #2 with #1's pollen would, for most intents and purposes, be genetically similar as if you had Male #1 and you hit female #2 with #1's pollen. It would seem then that one of the big differences between M/F and F/F parings, besides getting more fem seeds, is that you would be able to make more meaningful selections because you're seeing only the female expression of both parents.
No sso feminized seeds are not basically clones of one plant that is misconception #2. Recombination still occurrs with this technique. Selfing is more intensive than 1:1 by approximately X3 but reversal techniques are not limited to selfing. As mentioned, you can open pollinate 20 female individuals if you wanted, and 1:1 male/female selection would be a double digit fold more intensive than that. So absolutely not, the technique is in noway shape or form bound to intensive inbreeding, that's about numbers, plain and simple.
My true motivation here is to teach 3rd grade math in 106 different languages I guess, lol
My true motivation here is to teach 3rd grade math in 106 different languages I guess, lol
D
dramamine
eh, feminized seeds are basically clones of one plant , yeah? the result of that plant, Mating With Itself.
so how wont you lose phenotypes?
bullshit criteria of selecting males?
do you know that there are Prize Males?
owned by breeders.
im starting to seriously wonder about your motivations in this
You're talking about S1 seeds, selfed seeds. Crossing a female to another female isn't a female "mating with itself". It's a 1:1 cross, combining all the genetic variation contained in TWO plants. It's an F1. This limits the gene pool exactly and only as much as a male:female cross would.
hmm,forgot about that but how about increased hermyism?
did you know that in pure sativas hermying usually only occurs if the plant is not grown to maturity before flowering?
still feel also that losing the males is still a limitation.
after all, its bound to create more variation,having males.
but how about increased hermyism?did you know that in pure sativas hermying usually only occurs if the plant is not grown to maturity before flowering?
still feel also that losing the males is still a limitation.
after all, its bound to create more variation,having males.
swahili+cockney rhyming slang next please Tom..
Yeah increased intersex expression misconception #5 boy you are running right down the line aren't you. Just as narrowing populations and limiting variation is a product of numbers, not technique, the tendency towards intersex individuals within any progeny is a product of the parent/s used to create that progeny, not technique.
You can feel anyway you want or think this or that is bound to happen, all I'm saying is that there is zero science supporting it. -T
You can feel anyway you want or think this or that is bound to happen, all I'm saying is that there is zero science supporting it. -T
....My true motivation here is to teach 3rd grade math in 106 different languages I guess, lol
What is the safest means of turning a female into a male?
Thanks for the dialog, your patients is to be commended
hmm,forgot about that
did you know that in pure sativas hermying usually only occurs if the plant is not grown to maturity before flowering?
still feel also that losing the males is still a limitation.
after all, its bound to create more variation,having males.
No surprise. Thats the usual outcome when people debate based on their "feelings" about a scientific topic.
