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

  • Thread starter Thread starter hempy
  • Start date Start date
DarwinsBulldog said:
with respect jesse, you have missed something, "an apple is an apple is it not"... no it doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...


I disagree Darwin...
Predominantly gynoecious cultivars produce almost all female flowers
Click to expand...
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/ag552f.html

If you're telling me that in fact Chimera is not gearing up to offer "feminized seed", but instead cultivars that produce all female flowers, which is the generally recognized meaning to the consumers who seek feminized seed in the first place, then I have to wonder what you're trying to achieve by attempting to pretend that its much more complicated then that.

it comes down to the breeding practices these guys
Click to expand...
Im working on a special blend of Whiskey tonight, while Jack Daniels is not the same thing as Jim Bean, its still whiskey is it not? So how is offering a predominantly "almost all female"product", with the term gynoecious or feminized, different, when the same end result is being attempted to be achieved by both parties? I think you're trying to make it far more complicated than it truely is Darwin. There may be different methodology, but in the end, whiskey is whiskey, whether its perceived quality is slightly different to its competitor or not (which in the case of Jack or Jim, is up to the individuals personal pallate to decide).
 
Last edited:
Chimera said:
No scientist could possibly say "there will be no negative effects of feminized breeding", but a scientist would use the available knowledge about the cannabis genome to make hypotheses and conclusions about how to go about the process in a practical and USEFUL way.
Click to expand...
Hi Chimera,
Drawing conclusions from hypotheses seems like a dangerous thing to do, akin to gambling more so then drawing conclusions from a methodical process which yields an end result.


Chimera said:
and are open to the possibility that you current opinion might not be backed up by ample scientific evidence...
Click to expand...

As I think a few have touched on previously, including Shanti, there really isnt ample scientific evidence to discuss one way, or another, what impact this trend will have on the future definitively. Drawing conclusions, from hypothesis, is definitely not what I would call ample scientific evidence. So it ultimately appears that you're gambling that your current opinion is in fact correct, despite the presence or lack there of, of said ample scientific evidence to support a conclusion. A dangerous thing to do, when we're talking about the impact and future of the plant itself based on a loose methodology.
 
JessE said:
I disagree Darwin...

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/ag552f.html

If you're telling me that in fact Chimera is not gearing up to offer "feminized seed", but instead cultivars that produce all female flowers, which is the generally recognized meaning to the consumers who seek feminized seed in the first place, then I have to wonder what you're trying to attempt in pretending is much more complicated then that.


Im working on a special blend of Whiskey tonight, while Jack Daniels is not the same thing as Jim Bean, its still whiskey is it not? So how is offering a predominantly "almost all female"product, with the term gynoecious or feminized, different, when the same end result is being attempted to achieved by both parties? I think you're trying to make it far more complicated, than it truely is Darwin. There may be different methodology, but in the end, whiskey is whiskey, whether its perceived quality is slightly different to its competitor or not (which in the case of Jack or Jim, is up to the individuals personal pallate to decide).
Click to expand...

i think we've misunderstood what we both meant. i was trying to say that if chimera produced gynoecious/true femmed seeds then you can't say because others have poor quality femmed seeds that he will do simply because they are femmed seeds. i've seemed to get the impression a lot of what's said on here is anti-femmed seeds simply for being femmed seeds, without further analysis or understanding of the quality or specific "femming" techniques the breeder has used. there will be shitty breeders with shitty products out there, but i'd say there will also be very decent breeders making amazing products that are femmed seeds too. so in that sense i meant an apple isn't an apple. i do agree that yes gynoecious and femmed seeds can be one in the same thing, however gynoecious plants are plants with only female flowers - ie the kind of femmed seeds the buyer would really want, where no "hermie" or monoecious plants will appear... femmed seeds in general aren't necessarily gynoecious when grown out. that's the difference and that's what needs to be attended to.

in my eyes gynoecious = plants that won't become monoecious. feminized = plants that are all female but may become monoecious.
 
Hi JessE,

long time. ;)

I'm not offended at all, and can see how you are confused by the difference.... which in my opinion does exist.

'Feminized' is a marketing term, not a plant breeding term. To me, from my perspective of the current seed market and the so called "female" or 'Feminized' seeds that are currently available- the VAST MAJORITY of which are poor performers compared to the standard versions of these varieties. I call these 'feminized' seeds, as do most in the industry.

a TRUE Gynoecious population refers to a population of all females. For the most part, I don't think what is available on the market currently would qualify as Gynoecious... with the intersex problems that persist. In some cases (see Rodelization from Soma), the practice of creating these "feminized" seeds unintentionally selects FOR these negatve intersex traits by design.

This methodology and others that use poor selection, bottleneck events capturing intersex alleles etc) that in turn select for intesexuality in the line are not actually working towards a true, female population without intersex traits.... a population I or any educated plant breeder could not call Gynoecious... so to me 'Feminized' and 'Feminization' are terms that reflect what is actually going on within the market. They aren't true, all female seedlines... so to me they don't qualify to receive the Gynoecious label.... and I therefor call them feminized lines, as do their marketers. ;)


Quick Etymology Leson

Mooecious- 1 House
Diecious - 2 houses
Gynoecious - Female House
Androecious - Male House

I hope I answerred your question JessE.

Respectfully,
-Chimera
 
Chimera said:
Hi JessE,

long time. ;)

I'm not offended at all, and can see how you are confused by the difference.... which in my opinion does exist.

'Feminized' is a marketing term, not a plant breeding term. To me, from my perspective of the current seed market and the so called "female" or 'Feminized' seeds that are currently available- the VAST MAJORITY of which are poor performers compared to the standard versions of these varieties. I call these 'feminized' seeds, as do most in the industry.

a TRUE Gynoecious population refers to a population of all females. For the most part, I don't think what is available on the market currently would qualify as Gynoecious... with the intersex problems that persist. In some cases (see Rodelization from Soma), the practice of creating these "feminized" seeds unintentionally selects FOR these negatve intersex traits by design.

This methodology and others that use poor selection, bottleneck events capturing intersex alleles etc) that in turn select for intesexuality in the line are not actually working towards a true, female population without intersex traits.... a population I or any educated plant breeder could not call Gynoecious... so to me 'Feminized' and 'Feminization' are terms that reflect what is actually going on within the market. They aren't true, all female seedlines... so to me they don't qualify to receive the Gynoecious label.... and I therefor call them feminized lines, as do their marketers. ;)


Quick Etymology Leson

Mooecious- 1 House
Diecious - 2 houses
Gynoecious - Female House
Androecious - Male House

I hope I answerred your question JessE.

Respectfully,
-Chimera
Click to expand...

trouble is how do you create a pure female (gynoecious) population without the use of intersex traits? you need to be able to produce pollen in females in order to pollinate other females to create seeds that are female. by doing this you're selecting for monoecious plants. what's a way around this if there is one chimera?

darwin
 
JessE said:
Perhaps so...



Only is an exclusive term, especially in light of NCSU's definition of "almost." Almost meaning majority, but not entirely.



http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/ag552f.html
Click to expand...

yeah well that's it. you just need to create a population with plants as unlikely to show male flowers as possible, however it is my understanding you still need to be able to induce male flowers in them say through chemical treatment, where they're resistant to any form of environmental stress, so that you can get pollen to use in the future to create more seed. if the population was 100% female and pure no intersex traits, it wouldn't be able to reproduce sexually, only via cloning, so the ball would stop there. every individual would then be genetically isolated from all others. i think it's impossible to create a population that is androecious or gynoecious as they would be unable to breed with one another if they were all the same sex... ie a group of male plants is a androecious population... there are no females. a pure male plant with no intersex traits is an androecious plant. but i don't think you can have a population that can reproduce that is 100% androecious or gynoecious, they need to have individuals which are monoecious or dioecious. then in lies the issue with "hermies" as they're called, or monoecious plants. they're a necessary part of creating female seed, though selection determines how easily they show their intersex traits. people need to work hard at selecting plants that won't show male flowers under natural stresses so that the average grower will never find that PHENOTYPE even if it is in the GENOTYPE. do you get what i mean?
 
Last edited:
Chimera said:
I hope I answerred your question JessE.

Respectfully,
-Chimera
Click to expand...
Hi Chimera,
Thanks for the response, though I dont think I agree with you on the dioecious/feminized side of the discussion.

I may have had too much Bourban tonight lol, but did you skip over this question? As I was hoping for some clarification...

Quote:
Originally posted by Chimera
My question to those that oppose feminized matings would be this: Why is it OK for a selection to be used a as seed carrier (maternal donor), and not a paternal donor? If it's good enough to be a goose, why not a gander?
Click to expand...
Originally posted by JessE
Im curious if you're ultimately asking why a male plant shouldnt be subjected to the same kind of selection process that females are put through?
__________________
Click to expand...
 
I'm not really sure what is being said here. Are they suggesting that the Y can act as a TE and it can detach itself from say an XXY and recombine to form an XY(true male)?
If so it offers an explanation for something that I have been wondering about for some time.
Could you clarify?
N.
 
JessE,

I am more than happy to discuss these things with you, but please domwe the honourable service of quoting the words I say, and not manipulating them to suit your proof. I choose my words carefully and thoughtfully, and don;t really appreciate when people take those words and spin them around to suit their agenda.... it's an unscientific and manipulative tactic to misquote and present the misquote as fact.

I said nowhere that Conclusions could be drawn from Hypotheses... I did say:"...a scientist would use the available knowledge about the cannabis genome to make hypotheses and conclusions about how to go about the process in a practical and USEFUL way."


Hypotheses lead to experimental design, performing an experiment, collecting DATA, calculations, interpretation, discussion with colleagues in the field, and Conclusions are drawn....of course hypotheses don't lead to conclusion directly, and I don;t believe I said they did.


I hope you aren't interested in debating the semantics and minutia aboutlabels like feminized/gynoecious... apples/apples thing... when there are much more interesting and unresolved points to debate (as shown in this thread). I know I'm not.....

Please quote my words directly, or not at all... it's not cool to twist someone's words to suit your point IMO. I'm sure there was no malice intended, but I think it's a fair and certainly relevant point to make.

With respect,
-Chimera
 
Chimera said:
JessE,

I am more than happy to discuss these things with you, but please domwe the honourable service of quoting the words I say, and not manipulating them to suit your proof. I choose my words carefully and thoughtfully, and don;t really appreciate when people take those words and spin them around to suit their agenda.... it's an unscientific and manipulative tactic to misquote and present the misquote as fact.

I said nowhere that Conclusions could be drawn from Hypotheses... I did say:"...a scientist would use the available knowledge about the cannabis genome to make hypotheses and conclusions about how to go about the process in a practical and USEFUL way."
Click to expand...
Hi Chimera,
From my seat, you're getting upset over me interpreting the meaning of your own words in the context in which you presented them. You seem to be getting quite defensive now, though its pretty self evident what you've posted. I can only guess that you agree, drawing conclusions from hypotheses is a dangerous combination, which seems to be what you posted above in "to make hypotheses and conclusions" without mentioning the methodical approach which should logically come inbetween hypothesis and conclusions.

If you made a mistake, just own up to it, but lets not get so defensive Chimera, because I interpret that as a sign of aggression, and you wont like me if I respond back to aggression. If you would like to have a discussion, Im game, im right here discussing things with you, but if you're going to get defensive, based off your own postings which can only be interpreted as they stand, perhaps you're better suited discussing this with Darwin and not myself?
 
Last edited:
Not Quite Nevil,.. Nice to speak with you finally btw.


I have not read the article in a few years, so please excuse my potential lack of acuity on the matter.

In 1995 a research group (I'm sorry I can't remember if it was Sakamoto's group in Japan or Mandollino's group in Italy) identified a DNA marker that associated with the Male sex in Cannabis- this was Dubbed MADC (Male Associated Dna sequence in Cannabis).

This is how I used to pull males out of populations without having to grow them all out... we'd analyze the DNA of each seedline and perform PCR using MADC as a probe... the result is we could determine the sex of the plants with 6 hours, from the DNA alone.

Further investigation into the exact sequence of the marker (the actual genetic code) was analyzed using a BLAST search (available online for free). A BLAST search takes your sequence and compares it to every other known sequence already discovered and placed into the gene bank.... when a researcher discovers a sequence they upload the sequence to this database that essentially stores all of the sequences for use and comparison by other researchers.

When this search was done, it was noticed that the closest genetic sequence of high homology (the closest to the same) was from a LINE-Like retrotransposon... essentially a TE remnant in the cannabis genome located only on the Y. The authors speculate that this insertion of the TE is what caused the differentiation an X chromosome into a Y chromosome. This marker is not mobile currently- I've seen it in every population I've tested and ALWAYS correlates with the male phenotype. I've been told by hemp researchers that it also shows in every dioecious hemp line they have tested. I think we can conclude that it has been fixed in the genome for a long long time.

I have a copy of the paper I can send you, or you should be able to google the abstract and find a copy online for free I would imagine. If not let me know and I can send one along.

Respectfully,
-Chimera
 
Last edited:
JessE,

I'm not defensive, or upset...if you were sitting here beside me you'd see for yourself... sometimes emotions are not well portrayed over the internet and perhaps we can just leave it at that and get back to the discussion?

Not to belittle the point but you did say I suggested that we draw conclusions from hypotheses. I already re-posted the quote of what I actually posted. It's obviously not clear to you. but let me assure you as a scientist speaking with other scientists, I wouldn't outline every step of the scientific method... they would know that I wouldn't ever intimate that a scientist would draw conclusions from hypotheses. Perhaps that is my failing here... I shouldn't assume that you are a scientist so if you feel you need an apology for us to move on, then I am sorry. Hopefully the actual, factual information I've contributed in the last page to this thread that is so far based on 'faith', 'emotion' and 'opinion' can serve as a gift of 'good faith and intention'? ;)



Originally posted by JessE
Im curious if you're ultimately asking why a male plant shouldn't be subjected to the same kind of selection process that females are put through?
Click to expand...

>> No that's not what I am asking. A male in it's natural form can't be selected upon as we would a a female... I'm sure you agree? We'd need to apply ethephonic-acid to the male to have him expose his traits under a 'female-condition'... essentially, a reverse-reverse. ;)


No, my question is this:

If a given female is good enough to use as a female (mother in a breeding scheme), why would she not be good enough to use as a pollen source?

Respectfully
-Chimera
 
Last edited:
Chimera said:
Not to belittle the point but you did say I suggested that we draw conclusions from hypotheses. I already reposted the quote of what I actually posted. It's obviously not clear to you.
Click to expand...

lol...okay ;) You still sound a little defensive to me, but lets move on indeed.


Chimera said:
>> No that's not what I am asking. A male in it's natural form can't be selected upon as we would a a female... I'm sure you agree? We'd need to apply ethephonic-acid to the male to have him expose his traits under a 'female-condition'... essentially, a reverse-revers. ;)

_
Click to expand...
Ah, the ol tool argument...though as previously stated, the tool, in terms of how it stands in todays market, which is what this thread is ultimately about, should not be the entire tool box. The tool box in this case, is the product(s) offered by numerous companies today as an end product.

Yes, you can use that tool to expose the traits, thus gaining a better understanding of what your male has to offer. But, testing the end results of that male to the female is also a great way of seeing what he has to offer. If the end product is trash, you've got an idea of what that male has to offer. Thus leading us to another approach and philosophy other than using the "ethephonic-acid", which may expose the traits in which that male has to offer, but still the testing of the male and females end results is still required ultimately, not simply relying upon your results based off the observation of your conclusions of the "ethephonic-acid" experiment.



Chimera said:
No, my question is this:

If a given female is good enough to use as a female (mother in a breeding scheme), why is she not good enough to use as a pollen source?
Click to expand...

Ah okay, this sounds a bit revised, but none the less the first thing that strikes me is the original post I made, referring to the lack of conclusive work, one way or another, in determining the validity or lack there of, of the "feminization" process in regards to cannabis itself as it all currently stands. Which leads back into making conclusions, based off hypotheses, without the methodical approach to support the conclusions. The methodical approach in this case has yet to be fully studied in regards to the future and the safety of the plant itself based off the feminized trend, gambling as I had previously referred to it, as opposed to relying on concrete work to base ones presumptions/assumptions/thoughts off of.
 
Last edited:
Hey Chimera,

Nice to make your acquaintance. I was or am in the process of trying to collect landraces, old farmed lines of cannabis to eventually catalog the different cannabinoid and terpenoid profiles with gas or liquid chromatography. The idea is to get a baseline of these old lines and with selective breeding, and testing before and after to see what traits (cannabinoids/terpenes) are passed down from their parents. The idea (male x) contains (XX) profile then crossed to (female y) with (YY) profile, measurements of 50/50 or whatever recombination can be logged to assess if this type of breeding can narrow the breeding process down. In this way I believe you could theorize that a male may contain the potential for potency and also that the female may contain the genetic markers for structure. The idea that not just cellular DNA is passed with the brethren but could be from other sources such as mitochondrian DNA or other sources.
 
So what is your position and what evidence is there to support it?

edit: Sorry Jesse I know you don't like edits but I just want you to know this question was aimed at your irrational fear of the ladies.
 
Last edited:
my crude observations ,ideas, and assumptions have brought me to this conclushion;

gynoecious plants is where the "buc" stops!!!,,,,without mono`s or males,we may aswell forget sexual repoduction,,,its cloning from then on

gynoecious inderviduals have sterility mutations [imo],,,,thats what makes them gynoecious,,,,i personly like the idea that ALL my plants can produce viable given the right eviroment,,,,i wouldnt want to EVER take polen-viability away from them!!

imo,,,the sexual phenotype of cannabis is entirly enviroment dependant and from what ive seen most cannabis IS sexualy bipotant

:)

good to see you chimera:),,,if ive said anything inaccurate im very sorry,,i know you know better than me ,,

im not saying im right...im just saying "this is what ithink",,,,,,by all means tell me im wrong

thanks for any correction you might have
 
SnowHigh said:
In this way I believe you could theorize that a male may contain the potential for potency and also that the female may contain the genetic markers for structure.
Click to expand...
Sorry Snow, I somehow quoted your post when I was meaning to quote Ricks? Bourban...
 
Last edited:
GreenintheThumb said:
So what is your position and what evidence is there to support it?

edit: Sorry Jesse I know you don't like edits but I just want you to know this question was aimed at your irrational fear of the ladies.
Click to expand...

Just when the thread was getting good too...
Jesus_facepalm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top