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

[GreenintheThumb]

I see plenty of gifs hearsay and name calling. Not so much on the topic at hand or any of the points I've made. Besides stuff about Sam which I can see you really can't get out of your head. You write for Treating Yourself? Your posts are about as informative as their journalism.

 

[Nevil]

I don't know much about forums. But I understand enough about debate. One of the quickest ways you can disrupt a topic is to get personal, another is to use loaded terms.
If some one says to me that I'm harping on about this or that, I can't get past the word harping. If some one doesn't agree with my line of thinking and accuses me of "fucked up" thinking or of being an idiot, all I want is satisfaction. I'd like to punch them in the nose and the listen to them harp on about how I broke their nose and their finger with one punch. (The analogy about a kick in the arse and a broken thumb comes to mind).

I just don't get people who say they want a debate and then do everything they can to derail it. Do you want to talk about the issue or do you want to score points off people?

I hate writing. I just don't want to waste the time I'm willing to devote to it, trading insults with people I wouldn't give the time of day to in real life.
N.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Nevil moved my post there, i didn't make any threads.

edit: Sorry Jesse but your post was deleted by mods because the MODS created that thread. Hope this edit is okay for you I'm sure you got a funny gif about it...not sure you have much else to say.

 

[hempy]

But the point of reversal is to get pollen. You don't fucking smoke those plants. It also doesn't effect the DNA or the progeny. Nice try tho. BTW most people aren't using gibberellic acid anymore.

The point is Plants synthesize an astonishing diversity of isoprenoids, some of which play essential roles in photosynthesis, respiration, and the regulation of growth and development. Two independent pathways for the biosynthesis of isoprenoid precursors coexist within the plant cell: the cytosolic mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway and the plastidial methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway. However, little is known about the effects of plant hormones on the regulation of these pathways.

The point is male plants do this with out the need of chemicals my friend a point you and others fail to bring up nature way ahead of you she many steps ahead of you and does it with out chemicals.

If it lowes the THC in the treated plant that is going to be breed with then that will be carried threw into the next generation so in short your breeding weeker smokeing cannabis correct.

Plants synthesize an astonishing diversity of isoprenoids, some of which play essential roles in photosynthesis, respiration, and the regulation of growth and development. Two independent pathways for the biosynthesis of isoprenoid precursors coexist within the plant cell: the cytosolic mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway and the plastidial methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway. However, little is known about the effects of plant hormones on the regulation of these pathways. In the present study we investigated the effect of gibberellic acid (GA(3)) on changes in the amounts of many produced terpenoids and the activity of the key enzymes, 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate synthase (DXS) and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (HMGR), in these pathways. Our results showed GA(3) caused a decrease in DXS activity in both sexes that it was accompanied by a decrease in chlorophylls, carotenoids and Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contents and an increase in alpha-tocopherol content. The treated plants with GA(3) showed an increase in HMGR activity. This increase in HMGR activity was followed by accumulation of stigmasterol and beta-sitosterol in male and female plants and campestrol in male plants. The pattern of the changes in the amounts of sterols was exactly similar to the changes in the HMGR activity. These data suggest that GA(3) can probably influence the MEP and MVA pathways oppositely, with stimulatory and inhibitory effects on the produced primary terpenoids in MVA and DXS pathways, respectively.

Effects of gibberellic acid on primary terpenoids and delta-tetrahydrocannabinol in Cannabis sativa at flowering stage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522814

How do you in fact know there are no ill affects on the plants these chemicals and hormones are used on to reverse a female to a male you dont do you becouse people doing the research dont know there affect as yet so how do you or these people makeing these fem seeds know they dont so lets start by saying your bluffing and dont have a clue on there affect.

Thats the truth of it in a nut shell right.

However, little is known about the effects of plant hormones on the regulation of these pathways

Our results showed GA(3) caused a decrease in DXS activity in both sexes that it was accompanied by a decrease in chlorophylls, carotenoids and Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contents

So maybe just say the advancement of fem seeds is to breed weeker cannabis and more finding to come as science further understands the complexety of the specias know as cannabis and the feminizeing of the cannabis plant by people that feel nature and the natreal order of things is so yesterday and out dated lol.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

I don't know much about forums. But I understand enough about debate. One of the quickest ways you can disrupt a topic is to get personal, another is to use loaded terms.
If some one says to me that I'm harping on about this or that, I can't get past the word harping. If some one doesn't agree with my line of thinking and accuses me of "fucked up" thinking or of being an idiot, all I want is satisfaction. I'd like to punch them in the nose and the listen to them harp on about how I broke their nose and their finger with one punch. (The analogy about a kick in the arse and a broken thumb comes to mind).

I just don't get people who say they want a debate and then do everything they can to derail it. Do you want to talk about the issue or do you want to score points off people?

I hate writing. I just don't want to waste the time I'm willing to devote to it, trading insults with people I wouldn't give the time of day to in real life.
N.

So debate me on the topics. Do you have anything to say about my conception of intersex cannabis?

 

[GreenintheThumb]

The point is Plants synthesize an astonishing diversity of isoprenoids, some of which play essential roles in photosynthesis, respiration, and the regulation of growth and development. Two independent pathways for the biosynthesis of isoprenoid precursors coexist within the plant cell: the cytosolic mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway and the plastidial methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway. However, little is known about the effects of plant hormones on the regulation of these pathways.

The point is male plants do this with out the need of chemicals my friend a point you and others fail to bring up nature way ahead of you she many steps ahead of you and does it with out chemicals.

If it lowes the THC in the treated plant that is going to be breed with then that will be carried threw into the next generation so in short your breeding weeker smokeing cannabis correct.





How do you in fact know there are no ill affects on the plants these chemicals and hormones are used on to reverse a female to a male you dont do you becouse people doing the research dont know there affect as yet so how do you or these people makeing these fem seeds know they dont so lets start by saying your bluffing and dont have a clue on there affect.

Thats the truth of it in a nut shell right.

However, little is known about the effects of plant hormones on the regulation of these pathways

Our results showed GA(3) caused a decrease in DXS activity in both sexes that it was accompanied by a decrease in chlorophylls, carotenoids and Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contents

So maybe just say the advancement of fem seeds is to breed weeker cannabis and more finding to come as science further understands the complexety of the specias know as cannabis and the feminizeing of the cannabis plant by people that feel nature and the natreal order of things is so yesterday and out dated lol.

Post the whole paper. Do you have it or did you just use an abstract to argue your point?

These treatments don't effect the DNA, you're trying to turn the plants to pollen donors, you don't smoke your males do you?

 

[hempy]

Post the whole paper. Do you have it or did you just use an abstract to argue your point?

Posted the link what more do you want mate wont me to find out the peoples emails and there personal info so you and the other fem supporters can contact them tell them how wrong they are and if they dont tow the line in support of the fem movement you lot will attend any lectures meetings even science award nights and protest there work becouse there not singing your song ?.

I do not know these people or have i met these people or have i had any form of contact with these people or have i bribed these people or even had a hand in there research so its what it is.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

You posted to an abstract of a paper...not to the paper.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

hi all

hi brock1, my intentions weren't to defend GM crops !

in vitro culture is a tool used to produce GM cells for sure but it is not the only thing you can do with this, many other possibilities exist as I said previously. I just wanted to explain this. these possibilities are very interesting for breeding purposes but are nothing like GM crops.

nevertheless I agree that the discussion is getting weird , just triyng to give some scientific clues for people to make their one idea.

cheers

bonbolos

You're very much so right.
I've defended the issue of tissue culture on icmag recently. But I also don't fear GM cannabis...well not any more than I fear what's already happened to our pool.

Out of curiosity what are your thoughts on GE weed? Feel free to pm me so we keep this on topic, the issue is clouded enough.

 

[kylebroflovski]

GreenintheThumb- "But the point of reversal is to get pollen. You don't fucking smoke those plants. It also doesn't effect the DNA or the progeny. Nice try tho. BTW most people aren't using gibberellic acid anymore."

Did you just come back from the future? You saw how this has had NO effect on mankind or Cannabis? I wish for you to send me the plans for your time machine. PM them to me as I wish to stay on topic.

_~KB

 

[GreenintheThumb]

GreenintheThumb- "But the point of reversal is to get pollen. You don't fucking smoke those plants. It also doesn't effect the DNA or the progeny. Nice try tho. BTW most people aren't using gibberellic acid anymore."

Did you just come back from the future? You saw how this has had NO effect on mankind or Cannabis? I wish for you to send me the plans for your time machine. PM them to me as I wish to stay on topic.

_~KB

It's been used since 1935 on food crops. Didn't require my flux capacitor.

 

[Namaskar]

You say that, like there is a difference lol.

I agree with you that a lot of seed companies who are selling fem seeds are not produced in the right way, but that counts not for every one, so there is a difference.Since Positronics is gone their varieties even got worse.They had strong varieties which were even very good mold resistant, but the varieties today with the same name they start to get moldy when you have a rainy period during flowering or they start to flower very late (half September) and that i meant with bad breeding practices.

STS is nowadays more used for fem seeds production than Gibberellic acid.STS is also easier to get than Gibberellic acid, but it doesn't affect DNA like radiation.

Namaste

 

[hempy]

I agree with you that a lot of seed companies who are selling fem seeds are not produced in the right way, but that counts not for every one, so there is a difference.Since Positronics is gone their varieties even got worse.They had strong varieties which were even very good mold resistant, but the varieties today with the same name they start to get moldy when you have a rainy period during flowering or they start to flower very late (half September) and that i meant with bad breeding practices.

STS is nowadays more used for fem seeds production than Gibberellic acid.STS is also easier to get than Gibberellic acid, but it doesn't affect DNA like radiation.

Namaste

hi Namaste no one knows how these treatments affect cannabis even scientist dont know mate so how can any person say this is an advancement or it is safe or a useful tool with out knowing the facts you cant.

The fact GA was found to lower THC in 2009 and that alone does not seam to worrie to many people for me it is a very sad thing and yet there still useing it i bet why becouse a lot of people are not in it for the plant they are in it for the money how many of these seed banks out there are run by growers or smokers.

Do you relise that seeds are getting harder to surce and unless you order threw the net and or travel to get them from a seed bank for most people they are not going to find them most people collected there seed from there bag in the old days.

Remove the possibility of finding males in seed even if they are made right and dont hermie what are you going to end up with well people needing to get seed from seed banks and then we have a monopoly / control set in place were people need to go to get seed from as they are unable to breed there own seed thats the best people can hope for from this movement.


They are breeding cannabis that will express loss of vigor that will be unable to adapet and deal with inviromental changes pests mold and so on that will hermie and become weeker in quolity and these lines will then be breed to the remaining cannabis wich is all ready happening any way.

It comes down to this as i see it they are in it for the money they dont care about the plant and they dont know what affect it will have on the plant they are not willing to put in the time to breed test and select and do it as it should be in short fem seeds is like fast food in short looks good tastes good but is not good for you.

 

[kylebroflovski]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AMEN!

It's all about the $$$

(sarcastic font) GitT says its safe though Hempy so it must be safe.

(sarcastic font) Didn't you see he used the word gyneocious? And he used the word methodologies, he must know what he's talking about.

Nothing to see here folks just a little genetic altering, move along.

 

[Chimera]

hi Namaste no one knows how these treatments affect cannabis even scientist dont know mate so how can any person say this is an advancement or it is safe or a useful tool with out knowing the facts you cant.

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. This is not being done today, but that should not mean that this technique is not useful, or can be achieved in a responsible manner.

"Feminized" seeds are currently a destructive force to the cannabis genepool, but NOT because of the process of "feminized" matings in and of themselves. The real problem IMNSHO with "feminized" matings as available in the seed industry today is due to the low population sizes of the mating pool (ie- in almost every case N=2- a 1:1 mating scheme).

This FACT, combined with poor selections, and as stated $eed dollar$ as the main goal is the REAL problem with these methodologies.... and "seed releases" or hack jobs for lack of a better term. I don't see how 1:1 matings, combined with poor selection, and low numbers of mating individuals in the 'production population' (again, N=2- a 1:1 mating scheme) are ANY LESS of a problem that n the 'feminized' matings. Let's face it- there are numerous companies (read: ALMOST ALL IMO) companies who pretend to develop new varietals, but are in the business of creating seeds for profit, rather than improvement. Breeding means MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, not seed sales.


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?

Please keep in mind that even the Y chromosome in cannabis undergoes recombination (cross overs) with the X chromosome... in fact the Y chromosome is mostly genetically homologous to the X with regards to genes present along the chromosome. I think this is a very important FACT that many people are not aware of.... it is however the case, as documented in the scientific literature.

I should state I haven't read this thread in its entirety , but I would have to assume that it likely contains the same arguments that are posted over and over on the various cannabis discussion forums on the internet. As of yet, I've not been able to read a SINGLE scientifically sound argument against the use of responsible gynoecious matings in Cannabis. The gynoecious matings are not the problem, it's how the folks using the technique are undergoing the matings that are the problem- (ie poor selection and low numbers of mating individuals) that is leading to the poor performance of so called 'feminized' seeds.

Respectfully,
-Chimera

 

[Chimera]

Kyle,

I hope my use of the words 'gynoecious' and 'methodologies' does not preclude my argument in this discussion from being useful... I certainly don't intend these words to be used as a measure of what I do or don't know..... I hope we can get past that so we can all come to a more enlightened viewpoint.

I'm open to concrete, factual and verifiable evidence and/or ideas that can support your theory and disprove my current opinion on the subject. I would hope in a logical conversation that you other posters won't hold on to your 'faithful' belief against the process as well,and are open to the possibility that you current opinion might not be backed up by ample scientific evidence... I have a difficult time discussing FACTS with those of Faith and opinion, who's beliefs are not supported by FACTS.

Respectfully,
-Chimera

 

[Chimera]

If it lowes the THC in the treated plant that is going to be breed with then that will be carried threw into the next generation so in short your breeding weeker smokeing cannabis correct.

>>This is simply not correct, and represents a 'Lamarackian' evolutionary concept that was long ago abandoned by respectable scientists in favour of the Darwinian perspective.

Your argument is along the lines of saying that Giraffes have long necks because they stretched their necks to reach the food sources available on higher branches, and this stretching was then passed onto the offspring... over generations this lead to animals with long necks.

It's like saying a I got a 'I love Mom" Popeye tattoo on my arm, so all of my children will now have the same markings on their arms.... you can surely appreciate this isn't the case. If your arm was cut off in an accident, would any children sired by you post-accident still have arms?

We have to remember to tease apart phenotype from genotype... phenotype is is the result of environment on the genotype. It's not phenotype that is passed on to offspring - it's genes that are passed on- and thus genotypes are what is more importantly a contributing factor in the subsequent generation.

If a treatment changes the DNA in a GERMLINE CELL, an effect *MAY* be passed on to offspring... but that is not to say that a treatment that changes the hormone levels of an individual temporarily and transiently will have any impact on the genotype of the individual- and applications of STS and other ethylene blocking chemicals have not been shown to induce genetic changes.


If you inject me with estrogen, and I grow large breasts... do you think that means my future progeny will also have larger breasts?

-Chimera

 

[JessE]

Kyle,

I hope my use of the words 'gynoecious'

Hi Chimera,
Its nice to see you here, as I can remember many years ago, speaking with you about your own strains at CW. You had offered to send some free of charge, which I appreciated, but ultimately declined however. As I think bonbolos discussed previously, your use of the term gynoecious, in relation to the quote posted originally here in the forum also struck me as a cleverly disguised way of saying you would be offering a "feminized product" in the future as well. While you explained why you didnt like the term feminized, I also didnt find your use of the word gynoecious as meaning anything else other than what others are currently offering as well. It came off to me as a clever way to pretend you're offering something on a greater level than others, but ultimately an apple is still apple is it not? Bare in mind, Im not attacking you, as I appreciate the way you're going about this, as opposed to others, just stating my opinion on the subject that you're clearly gearing up to offer a "feminized" product of your own. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Chimera
Chimera Seeds will NEVER offer feminized seeds. I will however offer TRUE GYNOECIOUS releases in the next couple of years. 'Feminization' or 'Feminized' seeds are marketing terms, not plant breeding terms. I think feminized seeds have problems because that's what they are: poorly "feminized" version or the same - not a true gynoecious populations.

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?

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?

 

[DarwinsBulldog]

It came off to me as a clever way to pretend you're offering something on a greater level than others, but ultimately an apple is still apple is it not? Bare in mind, Im not attacking you, as I appreciate the way you're going about this, as opposed to others, just stating my opinion on the subject that you're clearly gearing up to offer a "feminized" product of your own. Did I miss something?

with respect jesse, you have missed something, "an apple is an apple is it not"... no it doesn't work like that. you race a greyhound with a pit-bull, the results will always be that the greyhound runs circles around the pit-bull because of (in this case) superior breeding techniques/selection for quick dogs. like i've stated many times before in this thread and others, and chimera just did i think too. it's how you use the breeding techniques and selection to create gynoecious seed that is important... it can be done poorly or it can be done very well, currently a lot of people are doing it poorly... this isn't to say that it can't be done well though. there're plenty of crap regular "unfemmed" seeds on the market... you can't just say "well shanti makes good regular seed so all regular seeds must be of the same quality" and visa versa "i grew out so and so's regular seeds of this strain, they were crap, therefore all other regular seeds are rubbish!" an apple isn't "just another apple".... it comes down to the breeding practices these guys have put into play when creating lines. if chimera takes the time to select and breed gynoecious seeds of high quality i'm sure they will be just that, whether or not other companies have shit gynoecious seeds has no bearing the quality on chimeras seeds at all. the technique in and of itself doesn't automatically = shit seeds.

 

[Chimera]

Foods for the mind, thought and your consideration

Plant Mol Biol. 2000 Dec;44(6):723-32.
Site-specific accumulation of a LINE-like retrotransposon in a sex chromosome of the dioecious plant Cannabis sativa.

Sakamoto K, Ohmido N, Fukui K, Kamada H, Satoh S.

Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Abstract

Male-associated DNA sequences were analysed in hemp (Cannabis sativa L.), a dioecious plant with heteromorphic sex chromosomes. A male-associated DNA sequence in C. sativa (MADC1) and its flanking sequence encoded a reverse transcriptase that was strongly homologous to those of LINE-like retrotransposons from various plants and other organisms, as well as another open reading frame (ORF). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with MADC1 as probe, which yielded strong signals specific for male genomic DNA in gel blot analysis, generated a clear doublet signal at the end of the long arm of the Y chromosome. FISH using pachytene chromosomes of pollen mother cells at meiotic prophase I revealed that pairing of X and Y chromosomes occurred at the short arm of the Y chromosome where MADC1 was not present. Furthermore, FISH using extended DNA fibers, with MADC1 and its flanking DNA as probes, revealed that 100 to 200 copies of the retrotransposon were located in tandem on the Y chromosome. These results support the hypothesis that accumulation of a specific LINE-like retrotransposon at the terminal region of the long arm of the Y chromosome might be one cause of heteromorphism of sex chromosomes.

PMID: 11202435 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Genome. 2005 Oct;48(5):931-6.
RAPD markers encoding retrotransposable elements are linked to the male sex in Cannabis sativa L.

Sakamoto K, Abe T, Matsuyama T, Yoshida S, Ohmido N, Fukui K, Satoh S.

Plant Function Laboratory, The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Saitama, Japan. ksaka@taka.jaeri.go.jp
Abstract

Male-associated DNA sequences were analyzed in Cannabis sativa L. (hemp), a dioecious plant with heteromorphic sex chromosomes. DNA was isolated from male and female plants and subjected to random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Of 120 primers, 17 yielded 400 to 1500-bp fragments detectable in male, but not female, plants. These fragments were cloned and used as probes in gel-blot analysis of genomic DNA. When male and female DNA was hybridized with 2 of these male-specific fragments, MADC(male-associated DNA sequences in C. sativa)3 and MADC4, particularly intense bands specific to male plants were detected in addition to bands common to both sexes. The MADC3 and MADC4 sequences were shown to encode gag/pol polyproteins of copia-like retrotransposons. Fluorescence in situ hybridization with MADC3 and MADC4 as probes revealed a number of intense signals on the Y chromosome as well as dispersed signals on all chromosomes. The gel-blot analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization results presented here support the hypothesis that accumulation of retrotransposable elements on the Y chromosome might be 1 cause of heteromorphism of sex chromosomes.
Forward Message