hi all
many replies in 1 weekend, that's nice !! the few last posts are a bit less nice but anyway, I'm not really into the fighting.
First of all I would like to appoligize for the very poor post I dit, not very comprehensive when I reread it, some sentences were not even finished..purple haze was on my brain..

sorry about that.
then I would like to give some precisions on my thoughts.
I understand very well that some people (hempy) are very cross and disillusioned with what's going on, fem seeds are very poor quality because no work is done on them. It pisses me of to.
But the technique used to produce feminized seeds is not responsible for that (lethality, hermaphrodism and less vigour is due to inbreeding depression et genetic base)
and to explain that was the point of my previous post (but i'm not sure it was clear).
Reversion techniques are used since a long time as is sterility used in other crops. it must be a breeding tool, harvest of seeds that happens to have a 100% ratio of female should just be a consequence of the use of this tool and not the goal. the goal should be to make it possible to do self pollination.
it is very sad that it isn't currently the case. for that I totally agree with hempy.
Jessy you've spoted all the weird sentences and bad explainations and have given good arguments, thanks
to answers to some of your remarks
breeding must not be opposed to loss of diversity, on the contrary, breeders should before anything else be able to maintain their diversity of their germplasme in parallel of using it for breeding purposes, this can be done in various ways, the best one being a dynamic conservation were you cultivate you traditionnal populations isolated from one an other but with open pollination inside the population, this must be done the most individuals as possible to have the best representativness.
breeding is to use the diversity to create new varieties and improved ones. what endangers diversity is the method of cultivation based on mono crops with 1 elite hybrids cultivated on thousands of hectars.
When people talk about feminized seeds, they immidiatly think of a good hybrid, that was taken for sex reversion to be then sleft polinated to produce feminized seeds and sold as femized seeds of this hybride.
what I mean is that it shouldn't be done that way, unfortunatly it is, and this is bad, very bad. I do agree with you
If you agree more studies are needed on the mechanisms of sex expression in cannabis, how can you be here defending the feminized process? A process which has gained in popularity over the last few years in the cannabis industry, yet one, as you admit, has yet to undergo any kind of extensive and rigorous testing?
I do promote this technique and I do promote the need to have more research on it I don't understand why you (Jessy) want to oppose these two ideas, it can go together.
But when I see the evolution of thought that is rising especially in California, I am really starting to think that I will see legalisation and "buisnessisation" (US way) of cannbis in a short period of time.
in that case breeding will become much simpler : as soon as a nice plant is found out, clones will be done and sent everywhere in the world
just like appletrees or vigne (grown from transplants).
and all these questions will be useless!
i see light at the end of the tunnel, the global genepool is far from doomed
I totally agree, but qualified people need to sample it, and use it.
In the end as Jessy said (if I not mistaken) it will be the consummer that suffers from that;
therefore there is a urgent need for regulation and certification of the seeds, regulation will straighten everything and you will be sure of what you'll get.
I really need to get back to my onions...
cheers everybody and please stop arguing, we all love the same thing
and debating is so interessting and rewarding.
Peace love and unity
Bonbolos