Fem seeds and there impact on the future of the species known as cannabis.

[JessE]

Many people have said that the main problem for the use of sex revers techniques was loss of diversity in the cannabis germplasme, but I realize that nobody has precisly explained how this would happen.
So please, explain to me how could sex reversion technics affect genetic diversity especially if fem seeds are grow in one cycle for cola production without any pollination.

I believe I've explained in a simple way my point of view so now it's the other side to do it.

Hi bonbolos,
Nice to see someone attempting to stay on topic, willing to discuss the subject at hand without throwing ad hominem attacks into the mix, and crying foul afterwards lol, all of which serve little purpose other than to take the thread off topic. From your questions, it once again occurs to me that you’re more of an idealist than a realist based off the specific frameworks of your words. It seems that you’re well aware of the dangers of inbreeding depression which ultimately can arise from genetic bottle necking based off the way you’ve chosen to phrase your questions. For the sake of those reading who are not quite familiar with each term, let me briefly elaborate on what it is that we’re talking about. Inbreeding depression as defined by Northwestern University is very simply put, “A depression of vigor and yield due to inbreeding.” Inbreeding, according to Colorado.edu, “leads to a reduction in genetic diversity.” Genetic bottlenecking, which is defined by sciencedictionary.com as, “a change in gene frequencies and decline in total genetic variation where there is a sharp decrease in population numbers.” A sharp decrease in population numbers is exactly what has occurred when these so called “elite” clones are ‘selfed’, and as I believe Nevil had previously mentioned, most of these “elite” clones are in fact hybrids, which opens the door for a great deal of hidden factors, undesirable recessive traits, to easily manifest themselves in the ‘S1’ population, which as has been previously demonstrated and defined, leads to not only a loss of vigor, but yield as well.

Now getting back to the idealistic point of view, in which you’ve carefully framed your question and overall notions, let’s be realistic here. How many people do you feel are not only aware of the specific way in which you’re framing your argument, but will actually follow these rather strict, unrealistic (in my opinion) guidelines? Of the thousands of people who buy these feminized seeds yearly, and have for some time now, how many have not pollinated these plants, or taken clones down to their local dispensaries, (think about that one for a minute!), or even given both clone and seed from such lines to friends? Who do Shiva only knows what with them, and further perpetuate what I fear may be a quite unfortunate process. It seems quite apparent that not only has this occurred, it’s still occurring, and as I’ve touched on with the ability of these seed banks to ship all over the world, the spreading of these genes which are essentially working against what so many of the true breeders have selected for, and against, for many years prior too, to use the phrase Shanti previously used, the re-opening of Pandora’s box! So I’m not convinced the way you’ve framed your argument has any bearing on the true reality of what is occurring, has occurred, and will continue to occur into the future.

I also have to wonder how many strains simply fade into oblivion, which are not professionally bred, due to the increasing desirability of many recreational, commercial growers etc. who are looking to make a quick buck, reputation, (insert reason) with lines which are touted as elite? One of the main reasons I sought the forums out to begin with was the desire to acquire truly professional bred lines, which belies the ultimate truth of the dissatisfaction with lines which more or less are inferior to the Skunk #1s, Northern Lights of the world which have seen extensive work in the grow rooms, laboratories etc. of the world’s most elite breeders. By attempting to bypass this potential untapped genetic pool, in search of the Cannabis Cup winners of the world, how can one not see how true genetic diversity is lost (all over the world) in order to acquire the same narrow genetic base you’ve complained about previously? I think the implications beyond these points could really be elaborated on further as well, especially when one considers the above points in relation to introducing said redundant, poorly bred lines into the remaining untapped genetic pools.

Now hopefully by responding to your question, Im not accused of looking to start fights lol. As it seems a lot of people are willing to chime in with their negative, often times off topic remarks, but which refuse to accept rebuttals based off their initial unappreciated comments. For those looking to take the discussion into another direction, even if somewhat remotely related, they can certainly start their own threads and are quite welcomed to do so. However I think both the thread starter and my self would prefer this particular thread stay close to the topic which the thread was originally intended to address. Otherwise, I will definitely cease to participate any longer, as some seem to want to take the gloves off, however by leveling the playing field and taking my own gloves off, we would be straying off topic, which I do not want to do, and that would ultimately reflect negatively upon the website, which is without question the finest any cannabis board has to offer.

 

[bonbolos]

hi all

dear Jessy

I must say, but you 're not the first one to tell me that, that I'm very optimistic and idealist person, I totally agree on that, being still quite young (24) I have not yet been spoiled by this world

I do stick very much to scientific facts and on the theory of how things work but I admit that it might be to the detriment of the reality of what's happening

in these facts, Sex reversion technics are usefull genetic tools as is selfing done following a specific aim. As you said, selfing is a genetic bottleneck, which can be very usefull in the case of homogeneisation for line selection but this has to be done with a diversity conservation program in parallel to keep all the alleles of the genes that may be swept away by selection.

Anyway I admit that even this is very theoretical and is only possible for professional breeders (and not illigal crops )

You are absolutly right to replace it into the context of seed buisness especially in cannabis and you do give a broad presentation of this buisness and the odds of it. but this is also true with "normal" breeding not using any sex reverse techniques. Conservation of germplasme is a very actual problem whatever crop you're talking about (look at the "fridge" they've built in Sweden into the permafrost to put loads of seeds from various crops for conservation purpuses).

what is complex with sex reverse techniques is that you can inbred and therefor take away traits very easely (as explained in a previous post of mine on lethal alleles) and introduce undesired traits that would normaly have kept recessive into populations, therefor the work for conversation is even more important; especially when this is done by lambda growers as you have very well explained and that I didn't take into account.


to counter this, regulations, therefore legalisation should be done but more in a europeen way than in a US way (proposition 19 seems a lot about big money.. ). The breeders rights should be applied to cannabis, and companies should hire career breeders instead of good cultivator pot heads.
this would hopefully help to put in place conservation programs and aslo beter breeding.

to come back to the images of Hempy that started this post : what you show is very much inbreeding depression.

In conclusion I think these biotech technics are very usefull (dihaploids is by far my favourite compared to all this crap if you have time and minimum scientific skills go and check that on the internet) but must be controlled and well used. Diversity needs to be conserved by any means and available to everyone and regulation should be put in place.
Jessy (and others) were very right to put this in the actual context of total diregulation and globallisation, in this actual context feminized seeds is not yet a good product

unfortunatly I'm very very busy for the moment
(even if i've just past my entire working day looking on researches on cannabis...my report is not going on very fast...the boss won't be happy....fuck off!!)

but as soon as possible I will write a simple article on the biological mechanisms behind feminisation and on occurence of hermaphrodism in dioecious hemp.


Thanks for the debat (sometimes a bit harsh )
at least my position has evolved and is more pragmatic (science is not all)

Cheers

Bonbolos

 

[Donald Mallard]

On jesses post ,, you certainly can write , but theres not much content in your posts , some nice articulation , that s all ,
come on man ,, its not a contest on who can write best ,, put some value in your posts ... and your saying its nice that others are keeping on topic ,, sheez .

 

[kopite]

Hi bonbolos,
Nice to see someone attempting to stay on topic, willing to discuss the subject at hand without throwing ad hominem attacks into the mix, and crying foul afterwards lol, all of which serve little purpose other than to take the thread off topic. From your questions, it once again occurs to me that you’re more of an idealist than a realist based off the specific frameworks of your words. It seems that you’re well aware of the dangers of inbreeding depression which ultimately can arise from genetic bottle necking based off the way you’ve chosen to phrase your questions. For the sake of those reading who are not quite familiar with each term, let me briefly elaborate on what it is that we’re talking about. Inbreeding depression as defined by Northwestern University is very simply put, “A depression of vigor and yield due to inbreeding.” Inbreeding, according to Colorado.edu, “leads to a reduction in genetic diversity.” Genetic bottlenecking, which is defined by sciencedictionary.com as, “a change in gene frequencies and decline in total genetic variation where there is a sharp decrease in population numbers.” A sharp decrease in population numbers is exactly what has occurred when these so called “elite” clones are ‘selfed’, and as I believe Nevil had previously mentioned, most of these “elite” clones are in fact hybrids, which opens the door for a great deal of hidden factors, undesirable recessive traits, to easily manifest themselves in the ‘S1’ population, which as has been previously demonstrated and defined, leads to not only a loss of vigor, but yield as well.

Now getting back to the idealistic point of view, in which you’ve carefully framed your question and overall notions, let’s be realistic here. How many people do you feel are not only aware of the specific way in which you’re framing your argument, but will actually follow these rather strict, unrealistic (in my opinion) guidelines? Of the thousands of people who buy these feminized seeds yearly, and have for some time now, how many have not pollinated these plants, or taken clones down to their local dispensaries, (think about that one for a minute!), or even given both clone and seed from such lines to friends? Who do Shiva only knows what with them, and further perpetuate what I fear may be a quite unfortunate process. It seems quite apparent that not only has this occurred, it’s still occurring, and as I’ve touched on with the ability of these seed banks to ship all over the world, the spreading of these genes which are essentially working against what so many of the true breeders have selected for, and against, for many years prior too, to use the phrase Shanti previously used, the re-opening of Pandora’s box! So I’m not convinced the way you’ve framed your argument has any bearing on the true reality of what is occurring, has occurred, and will continue to occur into the future.

I also have to wonder how many strains simply fade into oblivion, which are not professionally bred, due to the increasing desirability of many recreational, commercial growers etc. who are looking to make a quick buck, reputation, (insert reason) with lines which are touted as elite? One of the main reasons I sought the forums out to begin with was the desire to acquire truly professional bred lines, which belies the ultimate truth of the dissatisfaction with lines which more or less are inferior to the Skunk #1s, Northern Lights of the world which have seen extensive work in the grow rooms, laboratories etc. of the world’s most elite breeders. By attempting to bypass this potential untapped genetic pool, in search of the Cannabis Cup winners of the world, how can one not see how true genetic diversity is lost (all over the world) in order to acquire the same narrow genetic base you’ve complained about previously? I think the implications beyond these points could really be elaborated on further as well, especially when one considers the above points in relation to introducing said redundant, poorly bred lines into the remaining untapped genetic pools.

Now hopefully by responding to your question, Im not accused of looking to start fights lol. As it seems a lot of people are willing to chime in with their negative, often times off topic remarks, but which refuse to accept rebuttals based off their initial unappreciated comments. For those looking to take the discussion into another direction, even if somewhat remotely related, they can certainly start their own threads and are quite welcomed to do so. However I think both the thread starter and my self would prefer this particular thread stay close to the topic which the thread was originally intended to address. Otherwise, I will definitely cease to participate any longer, as some seem to want to take the gloves off, however by leveling the playing field and taking my own gloves off, we would be straying off topic, which I do not want to do, and that would ultimately reflect negatively upon the website, which is without question the finest any cannabis board has to offer.

If you sling shit you eventually will be covered yourself in it!!,

Re Diversity. If the Ne is not sufficient, and you can work out the req'd Ne quite easily,, then diversity and fitness decrease this is in regards to any plant breeding proceedure, like you elude too, many people do not thru enough numbers of plants to find those that "breed true" or are homozygous. Say you think you have a "Elite" selfing the plant is the quickest way to find if it is homozygous, thats a fact. Loss of vigor regardless of it being achieved via selfing occurs when inbreeding.. what would you say is worse Cubing or selfing? If you want to avoid drift there are ways you can...

simple question how many people breed with an equal number of males to females? how many make sure they are def using males or females ?

what damage is being done via those breeding with the one male? ie somas hazey one etc etc.

I believe Nevil had previously mentioned, most of these “elite” clones are in fact hybrids

thats a moot point they should be hybrids (Especially if we/you want vigor and yield)... polyhybrids now thats different but if the chosen plant is Homozygous why does it matter?

The problems are there due to demand plain and simple, people buy these seeds otherwise they would not be produced! what needs to be done is educated now and for the future so things are done right!

You seem to have idealistic views of your own..

I do agree theres far too many seed companies out there that spring from nothing to get ca$h, clearly they don't care for the better of the plant.. nor are they releasing a "True" line much like many seedbanks that sell seeds produced via allogamy...

| just find it rich that Selfing is seen as the devil incarnate while other less than desirable practices are not pulled up... if we are to do things right it should be across the board should it not ?

Kopite

 

[kopite]

Just a few thoughts on feminised seed.

I've used fruiting hormones on HzC male to get it to produce female flowers. HzC squared. We still have some of these old seeds. They produced real males and real females.

I've used Gibberelic acid on NL5 to try to get it to produce male flowers. It did, about 5 flowers in a whole room full. The Anthers did NOT contain pollen. NL5 was a true female. A true female will not produce pollen. The ability to produce pollen is a hermaphroditic trait, which may be suppressed, but must be present to produce pollen.

There is a use for feminised seed in breeding, you get to see what the "males" phenotype is before crossing. 50% of the offspring will be true females, the only way to tell is to try and get pollen from the selected female. If it won't produce pollen it's a true female.

There is a better way to do things and that is to feminise the male to check the phenotype. I did this with my Red and Blue lines of Sk1 and got great results.
N.

If it won't produce pollen it's a true female.

I don't believe that is correct at all, it still reversed it was just sterile...

50% of the offspring will be true females

Please explain that ? if the chosen plant was homozygous to start with why would only 50% be classed as "true" if a homozygous female is selfed the progeny is all female theres only XX genes there.

Kopite

 

[bloyd]

F1 clone mum plant.

F2 seed plant made using F1 mum above x to a selected brother.

S1 seed made from the F1 mum.

Pictures dont lie i see a massive difference in s1 to the f1 and f2 i know what i would rather grow and even spend my money on or time.

Hempy, I would love to see how your f2's with the brother donor would compare to using feminised pollen from "queeny" on other select mango haze females or in outcrosses? I bet you wouldn't lose the vigor in the next generation as you experienced in the selfed version and would see fantastic plants.

 

[Nevil]

Let me explain my thoughts a little further Kopite, re feminised seeds.
The best fem seeds would not be selfed! If I wanted to produce fems, I'd start with a true "lady" Say NL5. This would be represented by XX. The latent hermaphrodite I would choose would be one that doesn't show signs of masculinity under normal circumstances, but can be induced to produce some pollen when treated with hormones. Nevertheless, this parent would be represented by XX'. The X' represent the sex chromosome that carrying the latent hermaphrodite gene.
Therefore XX x XX' will give you 50% XX' and 50% XX(true females).
A female plant carrying a latent hermaphrodite gene when selfed is represented by the following. XX' x XX'. This will give you 50% XX', 25% XX (true female) and
25% X'X' ( strongly hermaphroditic)..
I know that this is an over simplification because of the various types and degrees of hermaphroditism, but in broad lines it will hold true to what ever degree the hermaphroditism is displayed.

NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.

 

[krk]

I cant help myself lol, to many of the right heads are starting to gather and the info is starting to flow, good to see things back on track.

Neville also makes a great and interesting point in that a female that will reverse is an XX', that one of the X sex chromosome could be carrying the latent hermaphrodite gene. this latent gene could also be variable in effects of intersexual expression, with different triggers of its varibale nature. One could almost view this as either a defence mechanism against extinction of its genes( the obvious one, no males to pollenate, female pollenates itself rather than not reproduce at all) or it could be a way for the population to encourage a bigger expression of the genetics with in its pool, and the expressions that come of the selfing would be the most dynamicly different within the population, either for good( if good the dynmaicly different expression adapt well and out perform the less dynamicly different expression and take over as the main genetic influence within the population) or bad( the less dynamicly different expressions out perform the more dynamicly different ones and be more successful in influencing the future of the genetic pool of the population moreso). or a combination of both dynamicaly different and more traditional expressions of the line. It almost pays to see the population as a an ever adapting being in itself. And that intersexual traits can in turn achieve selfing which in turn can maybe throw out a very successful sport to the goal of the population( be it a human influenced goal or a natural one) .Almost as if the latent herm on the X is a catalyst for change or quick adaptation or a spurt of evolution. I will be very interested to see the disscussions on the latent herm issue.

I have been reading that there is two genes of herm, the late "nanner" herm being completly different gene. Thats why through stress testing, it is possiple to try to eliminate the possibility of breeding with a female who is not XX. All of your above thoughts all point ot the fact that breeding fems is not for kiddy pollen chuckin breeders. There has to be a large amount of hard work put into fems. Most of these conversations would be easier if everyone went through the riggers of testing. Buying a fem made by a late "nanner" herm is as wrong as it could possiply be.

My take on the whole genetic bottleknecking issue is simlar to that of kopite and a few others is that it can happen not just from selfing, but also constant 1 x 1 matings, the thing is though, is that a bottleknecked line of the traits that make it desirable, is what the public mostly wants, and is what i like to refer to as a growers line, and is usefull in that form. A breeding line how ever needs to have its ne/ genetic diversity maintained, also fitness and a good starting pool of positive traits, the only real selction that should happen on a breeding line is the slow and cautious remove of absolutely undisirable traits, and not if at the expence of a positive trait. Once one has their breeding lines, they can stimulate said lines using selfing amongst many other techs, looking for sports and special expressions to make 1x1 bred growers lines with, males for the 1x1 growers lines would be selected by either reversal(keeping in mind the possiblity of a latent herm on the Y maybe?) or full progeny testing, all the growers lines p1s could then be clone libraried for future seed runs. moonunit

Bottlenecking? I dont see that ever as a problem, nor the fact that some keep pointing to of genetic diversity. In many strain...no most strains today there is way to much diversity. Taking a S1 and femming it again would result in a homozygous sate in the S2.

Here is some info on inbreeding...

Defn: Inbreeding is the crossing of related individuals. The most severe form of inbreeding is selfing and then it graduates from there with less and less degrees of inbreeding as the crossed pairs become less related.

Inbreeding results in an increase in homozygous individuals but also an increase in variability between related inbred populations. I'll explain with an example. Say you only crossed siblings from generation to generation. Like take a mongrel mix of seeds and cross two keepers. From these offspring, pick 4 pairs and make 4 seedbatches. Then from each seedbatch, pick two keepers and cross them to make four more seed batches. Repeat this process for a couple of more generations and you would end up with 4 highly homozygous inbred populations that are related but probably very different from each other.

Here's another way of looking at it, let's say you start with seeds with the genotype AaBbCcDdEe, by the time you are done several generations of sibling inbreeding, you could have four seedlines; aaBBCCddee, aabbccDDee, AAbbCCddEE, AABBccddEE, or any one of the other possible homozygous combinations. The more related the parents are and the smaller the population size, the faster each line will approach homozygosity, selfing being the fastest.

Inbreeding's Effect on Vigour
With each inbreeding's path to homozygosity, it should be noted that the faster homozygosity is achieved, the more likely the genotype will be determined by random chance and not selective pressures, whether it be natural or human directed. This is because homozygosity is achieved before the forces of selection can take place or before recombination can rework the genetic combinations to come up with the best combos with respect to fitness. In other words, as a breeding population size decreases and the relatedness of the population increases, the less effective a breeder's selective efforts will be. The results will be determined more by random chance than anything. Regardless of the breeder's intentions.

But How's this Relate to Vigour?
Well, it matters more to outcrossers and less worked seedlines than to heavily worked selfing populations. This is because of what geneticists call "genetic load". Genetic load is all the recessive and deleterious genes that are contained in a plant's genotype that can hurt vigour. When heterozygous, they have no effect, but when homozygous, they can reduce a plant's fitness. The greater a plant's genetic load, the greater the chance is that an inbred line from that plant will be recessive for some of the hidden negative recessives that will reduce the seedline's vigour. When there is an accumulation of these homozygous negative recessives, we call this "inbreeding depression". Therefore, as breeding population sizes shrink, or the relatedness of parents increases, the effect of inbreeding depression increases.

Why Don't all Inbred Lines Suffer this Inbreeding Depression?
Agriculture is full of examples of crops and varieties that are severly inbred, homozygous, and still very vigorous. These are from genepools that were the result of hundreds of generations of inbreeding that allowed much of the genetic load to be removed. And this is the basic difference between inbreeding species and outcrossing species, the amount of genetic load contained in their genepools. Outcrossers don't really allow the genetic load to be removed and therefore it accumulates. Unfortunately, cannabis is predominantly an outcrosser, although not absolute. The natural occurance of hermies has allowed some of the genetic load to be removed and therefore cannabis is somewhat more tolerant of inbreeding than other species such as dogs and humans. But still much less tolerant than selfing species such as most field crops.

Will Inbreeding ALWAYS lead to Inbreeding Depression?
No, there is always a chance that the inbred homozygous population will be lucky enough to not have any of the deleterious recessives. Like take the AaBbCcDdEe heterozygous line in the example above, there is a chance that one of the inbred lines could be AABBCCDDEE and therefore not suffer any inbreeding depression. Once created, population size and relatedness of parents would never theoretically cause inbreeding depression. Sounds like the idea situation, right? The problem is finding that specific inbred line. As already mentioned, the results of the inbred lines is determined by chance, and such a result would occur in one of every 32 inbred lines. The problem is that the genetic load of cannabis is much in excess of 5 genes pairs. If we were only concerned with 10 gene pairs, we would find the homozygous dominant in only one of 1024 inbred lines. The chance of finding the right combo decreases exponentially as the genetic load increases, and cannabis, being an outcrosser, has a significantly high genetic load. Therefore, the chances of randomly finding the perfect purely homozygous plant in our generation, or even century, is pretty much non existant. Therefore, qualified breeder's of outcrossers such as cannabis don't try to remove the genetic load of the cannabis genepool, they choose strategies that try to manage it.

How Does this Relate to Adaption?
From a simple perspective, take the AaBbCcDdEe genotype again. Lets say that offspring wth AA are best suited for arid conditions, and those with BB are best suited for cold situations. In the first round of inbreeding, the breeder could, by random chance, end up with aa or bb and as a result loose the AA or BB genes. Once these genes are lost, the genepool is no longer able to perform well in arid or cold environements. Therefore, as inbreeding increases, adaptability decreases.

Can Inbreeding be Measured?
In a sense yes, one can calulate the estimated decrease in heterozygosity for a generation, or over several generations. To calculate the inbreeding coefficient of one generation, see section A on the attatched image, inbreeding1.jpg. Using sections B, C, and D of the image, the inbreeding coefficient can be used to calculate the inbreeding rate over multiple generations.

Inbreeding basics
Interpreted from pages 33-35 of Wright, 1976

 

[krk]

hi all

first of all a few remarks :


third remark for KrK

I think you've posted it to make it look nice and complex... you don't fool me !

Bonbolos

Whats not good for you, maybe just what someone else wants to read. And in this whole disscusion your the one I agree with the most. And most informed.

 

[kopite]

Let me explain my thoughts a little further Kopite, re feminised seeds.
The best fem seeds would not be selfed! If I wanted to produce fems, I'd start with a true "lady" Say NL5. This would be represented by XX. The latent hermaphrodite I would choose would be one that doesn't show signs of masculinity under normal circumstances, but can be induced to produce some pollen when treated with hormones. Nevertheless, this parent would be represented by XX'. The X' represent the sex chromosome that carrying the latent hermaphrodite gene.
Therefore XX x XX' will give you 50% XX' and 50% XX(true females).
A female plant carrying a latent hermaphrodite gene when selfed is represented by the following. XX' x XX'. This will give you 50% XX', 25% XX (true female) and
25% X'X' ( strongly hermaphroditic)..
I know that this is an over simplification because of the various types and degrees of hermaphroditism, but in broad lines it will hold true to what ever degree the hermaphroditism is displayed.

NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.

NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.

it is not a "true female" it is a female that could produce viable pollen via this process the fact it reversed says enough.

There are no hermaphroditic within Cannabis, however intersexed mono specimans there are plenty... you get no intersexed plants from a dioecious population.. you should be working with plants that contain no intersexed plants.. these can be found via selfing... that said if I follow you correctly you are mis-using the word hermaphrodite, i believe you are saying that you use a plant that can be only induced via hormone treatment ie reversed and use that pollen ?

NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.

refering to this comment again.. because the NL5 clone could bare seeds is of no relation to the fact that when reversed it cannot produce viable pollen.. they are different functions are they not?

kopite

Ps I feel forced parthenogensis is the way.

 

[Nevil]

Quote:
NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.
End Quote
"refering to this comment again.. because the NL5 clone could bare seeds is of no relation to the fact that when reversed it cannot produce viable pollen.. they are different functions are they not?"

You are twisting things around Kopite. It is not the function of a female to produce pollen, The fact that it couldn't be induced proves it's femininity. You say the fact that it reversed says enough. I didn't say that it reversed, I said that I got about 5 single flowers that didn't produce pollen, in a room full of plants that refused to change sex.

Pick a random guy, say Arnold Schwartzenegger. Pump him full of oestrogen and he might grow tits ( didn't he make a movie about that?), but he wont grow ovaries and produce eggs. (I was going to use Hillary Clinton's scrotum as an example but she didn't make the movie).

I'm not trying to dissuade you from a path you would like to explore, I'm just trying to point out the pitfalls as I see them. Between you me and the rest of the world, I'm a great believer in inbreeding. I've actually got a couple of cousins.... but I'm going off track.

Parthenogenisis is not the correct term for selfing. It means biological reproduction that involves development of a female (rarely a male) gamete (sex cell) without fertilisation. It occurs commonly among lower plants. Cannabis is not a lower plant.

A hermaphrodite is a plant or animal that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes, enabling a form of sexual reproduction.

But let's not get hung up on definitions, if you feel that you can make rapid progress using this method, then go forth and show us how it's done.
N.
Ps I've got to learn how to use the quote button selectively

 

[Resinfinger]

Quotes

Quote:

Pick a random guy, say Arnold Schwartzenegger. Pump him full of oestrogen and he might grow tits ( didn't he make a movie about that?), but he wont grow ovaries and produce eggs. (I was going to use Hillary Clinton's scrotum as an example but she didn't make the movie).

I'm not trying to dissuade you from a path you would like to explore, I'm just trying to point out the pitfalls as I see them. Between you me and the rest of the world, I'm a great believer in inbreeding. I've actually got a couple of cousins.... but I'm going off track. y

I'm not familiar with that movie. I still would have understood the Clinton reference as well as many others I'm sure. Hilarious none the less.

 

[hempy]

Here is an up date.

Now here is something very od i have not seen in any of the Mango haze or other haze hybrids to date purpling in the flowers think they may go purple if not fully a good amount of the flower and its not temp related.

Different plant flower starting to show it to.

 

[Kangativa]

Here is an up date.

Now here is something very od i have not seen in any of the Mango haze or other haze hybrids to date purpling in the flowers think they may go purple if not fully a good amount of the flower and its not temp related.

Different plant flower starting to show it to.

See you soon for a taste test mate Awesome Hempy. Have you grown this one before or is it new seed ????

 

[hempy]

See you soon for a taste test mate Awesome Hempy. Have you grown this one before or is it new seed ????

hiya mate its a little science experiment i am running these are s1 seeds i made using queeny i showed the f1 mum and then showed a picture of a f2 made by the f1 mum and brother from the f1 seed and then ran the s1 seed which is from the f1 mum queeny.

The main thing i have seen is loss of vigor.

 

[brock1]

Ps I've got to learn how to use the quote button selectively

to selectively quote just copy and past what you wont to quote. then put QUOTE= inside [ ]. before i havent put them inside because it would show just as a quote. then at the end of the quote wright [/QUOTE] this should give you your quote. if you quote someones post it should help understand how it works.

 

[kopite]

Tits

Quote:
NL5 was not sterile, the world is awash with it's progeny. It could be induced to produce male flowers, but the pollen sacks were empty. A true female.
End Quote
"refering to this comment again.. because the NL5 clone could bare seeds is of no relation to the fact that when reversed it cannot produce viable pollen.. they are different functions are they not?"

You are twisting things around Kopite. It is not the function of a female to produce pollen, The fact that it couldn't be induced proves it's femininity. You say the fact that it reversed says enough. I didn't say that it reversed, I said that I got about 5 single flowers that didn't produce pollen, in a room full of plants that refused to change sex.

Pick a random guy, say Arnold Schwartzenegger. Pump him full of oestrogen and he might grow tits ( didn't he make a movie about that?), but he wont grow ovaries and produce eggs. (I was going to use Hillary Clinton's scrotum as an example but she didn't make the movie).

I'm not trying to dissuade you from a path you would like to explore, I'm just trying to point out the pitfalls as I see them. Between you me and the rest of the world, I'm a great believer in inbreeding. I've actually got a couple of cousins.... but I'm going off track.

Parthenogenisis is not the correct term for selfing. It means biological reproduction that involves development of a female (rarely a male) gamete (sex cell) without fertilisation. It occurs commonly among lower plants. Cannabis is not a lower plant.

A hermaphrodite is a plant or animal that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes, enabling a form of sexual reproduction.

But let's not get hung up on definitions, if you feel that you can make rapid progress using this method, then go forth and show us how it's done.
N.
Ps I've got to learn how to use the quote button selectively

I'm still not with you as you seem to contradict yourself.. and the only person twisting anything here is yourself, or your knickers?

I've used Gibberelic acid on NL5 to try to get it to produce male flowers. It did, about 5 flowers in a whole room full. The Anthers did NOT contain pollen. NL5 was a true female. A true female will not produce pollen. The ability to produce pollen is a hermaphroditic trait, which may be suppressed, but must be present to produce pollen.

There is a use for feminised seed in breeding, you get to see what the "males" phenotype is before crossing. 50% of the offspring will be true females, the only way to tell is to try and get pollen from the selected female. If it won't produce pollen it's a true female.

There is a better way to do things and that is to feminise the male to check the phenotype. I did this with my Red and Blue lines of Sk1 and got great results.
N.

so YOU DID reverse it ? though it produced no pollen.. so now to your superb analogy of Arnold and Hillary where you sort of helped my point! A man can grow breasts and produce milk given the right hormones though GENETICALLY he is still a male, just like a reversed female can produce Stamens/Anthers and pollen although in some cases not due to something like CMS... but GENETICALLY its still female...

Clarify which it is.....

now to you being condescending I'm fully aware of the meaning behind Parthenogenesis or I would not of used it, and I stated forced... where did I state it was selfing? I didn't...

I don't have a prob with the correct terms, you it would seem do...

theres NO hermaphrodite specimens with cannabis just plants with both male and female flowers live on one plant are called monoecious(intersexual). And Plants with male and female flowers borne on separate plants are termed dioecious.

Kopite

 

[Nevil]

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by reversing Kopite. A plant that flowers in all respects like a female and produces seed and no pollen, did not reverse, irrespective of a single male flower with empty anthers. ( Guys who wear make up and a dress don't fool me either).
Gynoecious, is the term for plants producing female flowers only, produces seeds but no pollen.
And if we are going to split hairs, then we should include this term :-
Subgynoecious, has mostly female flowers, with a few male or hermaphrodite flowers.
However, the above description describes plants that are normally considered hermaphrodites in the trade.
I didn't mean to be condescending Kopite, I just assumed that you meant selfing when you used the term "forced parthenogenesis" My mistake, please describe your technique for forced parthenogenesis.
N.

 

[kopite]

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by reversing Kopite. A plant that flowers in all respects like a female and produces seed and no pollen, did not reverse, irrespective of a single male flower with empty anthers. ( Guys who wear make up and a dress don't fool me either).
Gynoecious, is the term for plants producing female flowers only, produces seeds but no pollen.
And if we are going to split hairs, then we should include this term :-
Subgynoecious, has mostly female flowers, with a few male or hermaphrodite flowers.

just to clarify before we go further, I'm right in thinking you call a herm a reversable plant that sheds pollen ?

 

[Nevil]

just to clarify before we go further, I'm right in thinking you call a herm a reversable plant that sheds pollen ?

I wouldn't use that definition. Some herms are not reversible.

I get the feeling that you would like tie me up with definitions, e.g.

"theres NO hermaphrodite specimens with cannabis just plants with both male and female flowers live on one plant are called monoecious(intersexual). And Plants with male and female flowers borne on separate plants are termed dioecious."

I doubt that the above statement is correct, but I don't wish to get into a debate about semantics, this is a cannabis forum. In common parlance, a hermaphrodite that is female that produces male flowers that contain pollen.
N.