Strain Hunters - Greenhouse Seeds Co.
- Thread starter darwinsbulldog
- Start date
E
elmanito
Theory & practice often doesn't mix together.There was a thread on icmag about why landraces never have inbreed problems.
I read tourists brought seeds from other area's to the Himalaya's but if it is from dry area's they will never succeed.Himalaya area is a big place.
Namaste
I read tourists brought seeds from other area's to the Himalaya's but if it is from dry area's they will never succeed.Himalaya area is a big place.
Namaste
H&L
Active member
Nice imperialist theology shown in this thread. It is pitiful that some still think we can improve an indigenous people by giving them "improved" varieties. It has failed time and time again with genetically altered and commercially bred vegetable seed. Sure, they work great when the people are provided with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but once the people are left to fend for themselves, the crops fail and they have long since discarded or watered down the gene pool of the native plants.
Malawi Gold as an example does very well in poor soil, as do most sativas. Try growing skunk #1 in African red soil with little or no fertilizer. Native plants are perfectly adapted to their environment, something that can not be improved upon by man.
Malawi Gold as an example does very well in poor soil, as do most sativas. Try growing skunk #1 in African red soil with little or no fertilizer. Native plants are perfectly adapted to their environment, something that can not be improved upon by man.
Theory & practice often doesn't mix together.There was a thread on icmag about why landraces never have inbreed problems.
I read tourists brought seeds from other area's to the Himalaya's but if it is from dry area's they will never succeed.Himalaya area is a big place.
Namaste
sorry for jumping in here,,but;
population genetic theory.. states that; Landrace dont show signes of "inbreeding depreshion" because the meer act of inbreeding is not the problem in itself,,,,"accumulation of deleterious alleles" due selection and possibly inapropreate "effective population numbers" while inbreeding is the problem,,not inbreeding itself
E
elmanito
Imperialist theology? That's funny.
Look, hemp is not vegetables.
And the improvement of vegetables has been successful time and time and time again.
And who is talking about putting a fertilizer regimen in place and then pulling out? I spoke only of maybe helping the locals with land management and technique.
Also, why do you people keep bringing up Skunk#1 to the discussion? Where did the SK1 come into play? Who said anything about SK1?
Besides, the lineage of sk1 is aGold x afffy x cGold 3/4ths long flowering sativa.
I'm sorry, but that is bollocks. What if your indigenous plant is a low yielding plant with very low resin content?
You know, there is hemp that grows in the US that is now indigenous to the area. It grows wild and is not easily eradicated. For years outdoor growers have allowed pollen to fly and some of the wild hemp that grows actually will get you high. Surely a result of the strain taking on other genes and evolving.
There was a time back say 30 years ago that you could just about count on NO wild hemp getting you high. -at all.
Not the same today with the same wild hemp.
Now imagine actually trying to increase the potency and other attributes of that strain...can't be done?
lastemperor
Member
No, actually impovement of vegetables hasnt been succesful.
Have a look at this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37396355/
So, you think that report backs up that there have been no successes in horticultural improvements? To really even be sure that the points being made in the report are really what the report showed, one would need to actually study the reports cited. Only then could one draw some valid conclusions. The remainder of the report gives us clues as to what to actually look for in the studies done, things like; what sort of fruit was chosen for the analysis, big fat juicy plump specimens with pale skin, or smallish ones with bright colored skin? No, you simply can't use that brief report to make the case, IMO.
which improvement of vegetables? successful for who exactly? be specific... or are you just basing this on assumptions?
Hybrid ("F1") seed is the result of a cross between two different , but heavily inbred parents. Seed you save from these plants will either be sterile or a give a whole mix of shapes and types, usually producing a poor crop.
Only the seed company knows what the parents are, thus only they can produce that particular variety. If you want to grow it, you have no other source - good for the seed companies but not for you! Small growers should be able to keep their own seeds, selecting each year the best plants most suitable for their own land and conditions.
Yes, there are a few exceptions, but in general, the hybrid seed business has been a public relations victory over the small grower. For example, you will soon see more and more hybrid leek seed offered to you. This is because the supermarkets have set incredibly rigid limits on leek size, and the only way to achieve this is through hybridising two inbred varieties, so all leek seed production is switching to hybrids.
You will be told that these new leeks are 'more uniform', 'straighter' and so on. But what about flavour and adaptability? People seem to forget that we want to eat & enjoy these things - food is not just a commodity!
Despite common urban myths, there is no magic about hybrids. So-called "hybrid vigour" is the simple fact that good hybrid seed is better than bad real seed, and that sadly much of the real seed you get now has been badly maintained. But good real seed - which admittedly requires time, care and patience to produce and maintain - must, by virtue of the genetics of these things, be just as good, and in fact much more adaptable to different soils.
The key here is that it takes less manpower to make the hybrid seed, so the wholesale seed growers are much happier to let the old varieties fade away.
And as for the cost of hybrid seed, this is another mystery. Hybrids are not made by hand. Yes, they were in the past, but not for many years now. Most hybrid pollination nowadays is done by chemical sprays, not hand pollination, so hybrid seed shouldn't be any more expensive than other seed. There may be a slight extra cost associated with the spraying, but it certainly doesn't justify the high prices and tiny packets some companies are offering.
Basically, seeds are now bred for large industrial farms (which is where the money is) and you, the home grower, just get fobbed off with a few of the same thing. Modern advert copywriting sometimes tries to disguise this. So when you're offered something that's 'good for freezing', what they mean is that it was bred to ripen all at once for machine harvesting & you'll get a glut.
Here are a few examples from 2004 catalogues that we found: How about 'really uniform fruit' - which often means 'inbred for the supermarket, narrow genetic base, may not adapt to your soil'. Or 'straight long shanks' usually means 'bred to fit the packing machine.' Or the best one yet - 'Leafless peas - easy to find the pods' translates as 'much smaller yield (the plants have no leaves !) - but at least now we've got rid of the leaves we can harvest them with a combine.' What a sad situation this is, with marketing people rather than gardeners writing the descriptions in modern seed catalogues.
In summary, hybrid seed can indeed have advantages for the industrial-chemical farmer who wants to harvest all at once. But for the small home grower who wants a good yield over a long period, real seeds are usually more productive.
This has been shown time and time again, and we think that once you have tried the real open-pollinated varieties we have found, you will agree.
and what if it's a low yielding plant with very high resin content? or a high yielding plant with high resin content?
the point is that there are heirloom plants out there which are worth saving... before the drug cannabis genepool becomes totally homogenized, and before they are all lost...
why can't you get your head around this?
why resort to hemp as an example? why not chose an example from the drug cannabis world? this selection suggests that you are conducting your argument dishonestly
more to the point: the old Kentucky hemp varieties were bred using - among other heirloom vars. - Chinese hemp - i.e. Cannabis indica var. chinensis... for this reason you will find plants which have enough THC to get you high in escaped Kentucky hemp
you have just assumed that this hemp was "evolving" (your misuse of the term, not mine) because it has been pollinated by modern drug breeds
furthermore, if the wild Kentcucky hemp does get pollinated by modern drug breeds it will then become very difficult indeed to use the germplasm present to recreate the old Kentucky hemp breeds from the wild populations
so please, just get informed instead of basing your arguments on assumptions and spurious facts...
only if nature allows us?
so should we stop the Amazon rainforest being destroyed by oil and logging interests "only if nature allows us"?
honestly mate, what are you on about?
Last edited:
lastemperor
Member
@Baba Ku: It's a 10 year study not a brief report.
You only read mention of the study, you did not post it up. Have you read it?
I see no end to such an ignorant debate. It seems many think I can't get my brain around the thing, but I happen to think I have my brain around much more of it than you do. You are only considering your side of the debate. I have already stated that I do not think collecting and attempting to preserve a line is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I think what you are attempting to do is place me in the cult. I either start genuflecting and waxing eloquently about how sacred the old lines are, and other such cultish rhetoric, or I am simply missing the point it seems.
I suggest it is YOU that is missing my points.
But, I think it is time for me to bow out of this. I refuse to be called dishonest.
Basically, I had a good post ready, but I think I will decline to debate anymore in this thread. Look, you folks bring vegetables and other crops to the table, crops that are nothing like cannabis, yet you call me dishonest in my argument.
I see no end to such an ignorant debate. It seems many think I can't get my brain around the thing, but I happen to think I have my brain around much more of it than you do. You are only considering your side of the debate. I have already stated that I do not think collecting and attempting to preserve a line is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I think what you are attempting to do is place me in the cult. I either start genuflecting and waxing eloquently about how sacred the old lines are, and other such cultish rhetoric, or I am simply missing the point it seems.
I suggest it is YOU that is missing my points.
But, I think it is time for me to bow out of this. I refuse to be called dishonest.
What do you mean cult?
Why complicate things, the way I see it you are in favour of introducing hybrids into landrace populations because you think they will perform better and benefit the farmer.
I and others are against it because we dont want to lose unique genepools that have distinct qualities.
I also think the indiginous strain will grow best in its own environment.
@Baba Ku
has anybody here said anything against improving heirloom breeds?
I don't see anybody saying "because it is an heirloom line, therefore it is perfect"
sure, by definition, as a landrace a variety like Malawi Gold is better adapted to its local environment, and will therefore perform better in Malawi than an introduced foreign breed
but if we want to improve that Malawi Gold then the question at issue is: what is the best way to do that?
you support introducing modern hybrids and IBLs into heirloom regions
we've attempted to explain to you the consequences of that action
so the point is this: if you want to improve a Malawi Gold for growing in Malawi, then you do so by working with Malawi Gold germplasm only
there is nothing cultish about that - it's just good practise, supported by sound ecological principles
for the record the only cultish statement I've seen on this subject was written by you:
how are we to know if "nature allows us"? should we wait for a revelation?
or how about just reading up on ecology?
for the record the 6th Great Extinction is not a cult phrase. It's standard in mainstream ecology and based on the fact that the planet is losing species at 100 times the normal rate
has anybody here said anything against improving heirloom breeds?
I don't see anybody saying "because it is an heirloom line, therefore it is perfect"
sure, by definition, as a landrace a variety like Malawi Gold is better adapted to its local environment, and will therefore perform better in Malawi than an introduced foreign breed
but if we want to improve that Malawi Gold then the question at issue is: what is the best way to do that?
you support introducing modern hybrids and IBLs into heirloom regions
we've attempted to explain to you the consequences of that action
so the point is this: if you want to improve a Malawi Gold for growing in Malawi, then you do so by working with Malawi Gold germplasm only
there is nothing cultish about that - it's just good practise, supported by sound ecological principles
for the record the only cultish statement I've seen on this subject was written by you:
how are we to know if "nature allows us"? should we wait for a revelation?
or how about just reading up on ecology?
for the record the 6th Great Extinction is not a cult phrase. It's standard in mainstream ecology and based on the fact that the planet is losing species at 100 times the normal rate
Last edited:
I have not said I was in favor of introducing hybrids to a landrace population, per-se. My stance is that I am not against the use of other than native genes if there is a clear working towards the betterment of that crop. The benefit of that crop should be in the eyes of the farmer, not heirloom genetic collectors.
Again, it is the farmer who really needs to be consulted here. You are wanting to save the genes for reasons that have little to do with the farmer.
Of course they will. And the reason for this fact is the very nature of cannabis itself. What you have collected may well be an untainted landrace variety. But grow it once somewhere else, just about anywhere else for that matter, and what you now have are no longer what you did have.
Like I stated before, all you have is a snapshot it time.
Now, once you propagate and breed these genetics in another environment the genetic map of that line starts to change. It on a path to acclimation, and is no longer the "pure landrace" you did have.
OK, maybe you say you will save the seeds forever, well how much good did that do you or anyone else besides maybe your grandkids?
Or, perhaps you plant to actually buy a plot in Malawi and decide to grow the landrace crop exclusively, and you are damn glad you saved the heirloom seeds from years ago. So you buy your plot in Malawi and start planting. Funny thing though, it seems you plants are not near like the ones from the field down the way that you got the original seeds from. Big differences in the two fields are showing.
How can that be? You had collected pure landrace Malawi Gold seeds, yes?
Perhaps the reason lies in what I have been saying, which is that the plant is always in a changing mode. While you were slaving away collecting funds to purchase your Malawi hideaway, the plant was undergoing generation after generation of adaptation and genetic change.
For what it's worth, I am old enough to remember when there was nothing available in the US to smoke but native plants. Mexican, S American, Thai...it was all landrace pot being brought to the US.
All seeded heavily. Sensemilla wasn't even a term that was known to English speaking Americans at that time.
I have also grown out lots of landrace populations, and I can tell you that they are the most undesirable plants a grower can grow. Diversity and intersex runs rampant in a landrace population.
My stance is that farmers can always do better. And I am not against farmers taking on new ideas, techniques, and yes even genes. -If it means improving his crop. I side with the farmer in most all instances here.
And this is not worth much, but I think many don't really understand the importance of the skunk variety. In my opinion SK has done more to help the cannabis community than any other single strain.
The true breeding aspects of it have shown the light to many, and that aspect of the plant is what has brought some of the most beloved cultigens we have today.
The downing of anything SK1 is also a cult of sorts. Just like the constant downing of GHS, or the sale of feminized seeds, or the hatred of autos (although I also think there are problems that could arise from this auto mania).
"watering down" Hmmm, perhaps you can show us an example of a watered down landrace? So, you think anything with SK1 in it's line is watered down from what it started from? I find that a fascinating take, wrong in my opinion, but fascinating.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The beautiful people at the Green House Seed Company have released the new film
The beautiful people at the Green House Seed Company have released the new film
I think you need to think deeper than what you already consider deep, look at the big picture. You say you don't want strains eradicated, but what you fail to understand about adding a new gene from somewhere else(especially if it is a dominant gene or invasive such as GMO) it has the potential to take over the area by cross pollination and if this happened to all of africa's herb and there was a trait that made the introduced gene weak to a certain bug that lives native there then you risk losing all of the Herb in africa because you failed to preserve the heirloom genes that were resistant to local bugs because it has evolved that way. It's happened before to many examples of life. Ever heard of the irish potato famine? that's what happens when you only have one type of potato and it's genetic traits make it not resistant to bugs/mold. the farmer you speak of who needs to get more yield is now starving and dieing and there is no herb/potato for him and his family.
Amazing how those 2 guys are running through 95F and 90%RH and none of them are sweating their balls off - no sweaty arm pits nothing.
Seems to me the takes were all about>>>jump out of the air-conditioned vehicle>>>film scene>>>back in vehicle 'till the next take.
Seems to me the takes were all about>>>jump out of the air-conditioned vehicle>>>film scene>>>back in vehicle 'till the next take.
Latest posts
-
Prima coltivazione (set up per iniziare)
- Latest: Fromzerotogrower
-
-
-
Latest posts
-
Prima coltivazione (set up per iniziare)
- Latest: Fromzerotogrower
-
-
-
