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

[Nevil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenintheThumb View Post
So do you believe that every plant can form pods?

I don't know GitT. All I can do is speculate. If you had asked, do you believe that every plant can produce viable pollen, I would answer, No.
I believe that plants containing what I now understand is the MADC sequence can. I believe that the MADC, when coupled with an X chromosome, i.e. X(Xy) the small y representing the MADC linked to an X, can exhibit vaying degrees of masculinity, ranging from plants that will only produce pollen under extreme duress, to plants that will always produce some pollen regardless of conditions. I believe that a true hermaphrodite is a plant that can be represented in this way, (Xy)(Xy) and that all of the offspring from such a plant will fall into the former category when crossed with a true female, i.e. XX.
I don't think that true XX females are as common as you might imagine and that such females may or may not produce pods, but there will not be viable pollen. I am inclined to think that the use of a true male, i.e. XY has some mechanism that suppresses to some degree the latent y in in daughters that pick up the MADC sequence from their intersex mothers. I have no idea what mechanism is in play here as the daughters of the true male, do not pick up the Y from the father.
I'm also inclined to believe that it is possible for the y to be uncoupled from the X in X(Xy) female to produce a true XY male, although I wouldn't care to speculate how common that is.
I'd also speculate that the Y, when inherited singly ( not coupled to an X) effectively suppresses the plants ability to produce ethylene, and therefore female flowers and when coupled to an X, it does not.
It is my belief that where the sex of seedlings is influenced by environmental conditions, what is really happening is that the latent y in X(Xy) is being stimulated or suppressed by the environmental conditions.
When dealing with true male, true female matings the male to female ratios will statistically be 1:1, regardless of environmental conditions.

I am not an expert on feminisation. There are a lot of people who have done more work in this area than I.

The above is merely speculation based on observation.
N.

 

[bushweed]

But if you must know I run a 15,000 sq ft legal warehouse grow. Currently setting up 6 24kw flower rooms. What are you doing besides ignoring evidence and derailing threads?

If your experience is eight years growing indoors (no disrespect to indoor growers), then naturally you can expect lower female to male ratios, than growers with 30+ years experience growing outdoors. This explains why you've only ever observed 50/50 m/f sex ratios, but does not explain why you believe your observations of cannabis grown in specific artificial conditions, can be extended to cannabis grown in a variety of natural conditions.

Simply put, you don't have the experience to make an authoritative judgment on what sex ratios a veteran grower in an outdoor, cannabis friendly environment can achieve.

The major inconsistency in your position is not your dismissal of others observations, but that you've dismissed others observations while expecting that everyone accept yours. Ironically, I don't think anyone doubts you've only ever achieved 50% females.

Experience in publishing research in scientific journals does not give gravitas to a weak argument. If anyone sent in a paper with the premise, 'I've observed 50/50 m/f ratios in my warehouse, ergo this must be true of all all cannabis in all conditions,' it would be swiftly rejected by any peer reviewed journal.

This then, is your latest rejection letter.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

If your experience is eight years growing indoors (no disrespect to indoor growers), then naturally you can expect lower female to male ratios, than growers with 30+ years experience growing outdoors.

And why would that be true?

This explains why you've only ever observed 50/50 m/f sex ratios, but does not explain why you believe your observations of cannabis grown in specific artificial conditions, can be extended to cannabis grown in a variety of natural conditions.

I didn't use my own experience to come to my conclusion. Read the scientific literature or at least Chimera's posts in this very thread.

Simply put, you don't have the experience to make an authoritative judgment on what sex ratios a veteran grower in an outdoor, cannabis friendly environment can achieve.

The major inconsistency in your position is not your dismissal of others observations, but that you've dismissed others observations while expecting that everyone accept yours. Ironically, I don't think anyone doubts you've only ever achieved 50% females.

Experience in publishing research in scientific journals does not give gravitas to a weak argument. If anyone sent in a paper with the premise, 'I've observed 50/50 m/f ratios in my warehouse, ergo this must be true of all all cannabis in all conditions,' it would be swiftly rejected by any peer reviewed journal.

This then, is your latest rejection letter.

Oh no, the people who don't understand statistics, have never conducted an ANOVA in their life, don't seem to fathom what a male marker is or why half of drug cultivar populations have the male marker are rejecting me. What will I do now? I guess cannabis is really 70 or 80% females cuz the little gnomes make it that way. Right guys? The gnomes probably are responsible for this one...or perhaps those twitchy mechanical elves that the dmters rave about?

I just don't know how to respond to your anecdotal experiences...they aren't how science works or how rational people make conclusions.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Thanks for the response Nevil. Have you considered asking Chimera if any plants that were judged female by phenotype had the marker?

It's my understanding that the marker is on the Y and males have it. The intersex genes however are on the autosomes and maybe also on the PAR region of the Y. But this is my speculation.

 

[Nevil]

Have you considered asking Chimera if any plants that were judged female by phenotype had the marker?

Chimera, consider the question asked.
N.

 

[bushweed]

The difference is the people suggesting 70 - 80% females in their grows, aren't extending their ratios to include all grows in all conditions.

You seem to be saying that all sex is determined by genetics with no influence from environment. But anyone who has had their seedlings germinate in a cold snap will report lower female ratios.

Your scientific monotheism is rather like people who are dumbfounded when you say you don't think Jesus is the only way to God. It's the same dogmatic mindset that negates all other experience. It's not all about science and scientific method. Normal people can make valid observations without measuring it in a prescribed manner.

I don't see why it's so hard to accept that some growers consistently get a higher % of females than you. Is it the standards of scientific method that are being compromised, or just your ego?

 

[hempy]

hi all you know i belive that genda is genetic and each seed has its marker for sex all ready set in place as its put into germination.

When i grew out doors i would start first of october and the fem to male ratio was often the same even seeds that had fallen off the plants layed on the ground would start and even they would show the same sex ratios in all honesty i never got to many males.

I still rember my cussins brotherinlaw who iv known most of my life that grows in sa try and tell me most of my plants were males one seson by rubbing the steam and going by the smell well that year all but one was female so in short i belive its genetic and the roll of a dice to what each seed will be but even in a field of 1000 plants no way will the male to fem % be 50/50 male are much less.

I dont belive the cold or enviroment plays are roll in the sex of the seed as it does with say croc eggs.

Its like that formula hydro stores were selling years ago were you treated all you seeds to get fem plants i just dont belive it and honestly feel that like potancy leaf shape plant colour smell taste so on is carried in its dna along with its sex.

 

[Nevil]

The intersex genes however are on the autosomes and maybe also on the PAR region of the Y.

Am I to assume that the MADC is on the autosomes? Does this mean that we are dealing with 2 or maybe 3 different types of intersex or hermaphrodite types?

For the purposes of this discussion, it would be useful to limit the number of types to non sterile types. Can you elaborate?
N.

 

[moonunit]

Here is just something thats has already been covered , but it so well put and easy to read. And from of all places, wikipedia lmao

Breeding systems
Cannabis sativa seeds.

Cannabis is predominantly dioecious,[15][56] although many monoecious varieties have been described.[57] Subdioecy (the occurrence of monoecious individuals and dioecious individuals within the same population) is widespread.[58][59][60] Many populations have been described as sexually labile.[48][61][62]

As a result of intensive selection in cultivation, Cannabis exhibits many sexual phenotypes that can be described in terms of the ratio of female to male flowers occurring in the individual, or typical in the cultivar.[63] Dioecious varieties are preferred for drug production, where typically the female flowers are used. Dioecious varieties are also preferred for textile fiber production, whereas monoecious varieties are preferred for pulp and paper production. It has been suggested that the presence of monoecy can be used to differentiate licit crops of monoecious hemp from illicit drug crops.[58] However, the so-called "sativa" drug strains often produce monoecious individuals, probably as a result of inbreeding.
Mechanisms of sex determination

Cannabis has been described as having one of the most complicated mechanisms of sex determination among the dioecious plants.[63] Many models have been proposed to explain sex determination in Cannabis.

Based on studies of sex reversal in hemp, it was first reported by K. Hirata in 1924 that an XY sex-determination system is present.[61] At the time, the XY system was the only known system of sex determination. The X:A system was first described in Drosophila spp in 1925.[64] Soon thereafter, Schaffner disputed Hirata's interpretation,[65] and published results from his own studies of sex reversal in hemp, concluding that an X:A system was in use and that furthermore sex was strongly influenced by environmental conditions.[62]

Since then, many different types of sex determination systems have been discovered, particularly in plants.[56] Dioecy is relatively uncommon in the plant kingdom, and a very low percentage of dioecious plant species have been determined to use the XY system. In most cases where the XY system is found it is believed to have evolved recently and independently.[66]

Since the 1920s, a number of sex determination models have been proposed for Cannabis. Ainsworth describes sex determination in the genus as using "an X/autosome dosage type".[56]


The question of whether heteromorphic sex chromosomes are indeed present is most conveniently answered if such chromosomes were clearly visible in a karyotype. Cannabis was one of the first plant species to be karyotyped; however, this was in a period when karyotype preparation was primitive by modern standards (see History of Cytogenetics). Heteromorphic sex chromosomes were reported to occur in staminate individuals of dioecious "Kentucky" hemp, but were not found in pistillate individuals of the same variety. Dioecious "Kentucky" hemp was assumed to use an XY mechanism. Heterosomes were not observed in analyzed individuals of monoecious "Kentucky" hemp, nor in an unidentified German cultivar. These varieties were assumed to have sex chromosome composition XX.[67] According to other researchers, no modern karyotype of Cannabis had been published as of 1996.[68] Proponents of the XY system state that Y chromosome is slightly larger than the X, but difficult to differentiate cytologically.[69]

More recently, Sakamoto and various co-authors[70][71] have used RAPD to isolate several genetic marker sequences that they name Male-Associated DNA in Cannabis (MADC), and which they interpret as indirect evidence of a male chromosome. Several other research groups have reported identification of male-associated markers using RAPD and AFLP.[24][48][72] Ainsworth commented on these findings, stating,

"It is not surprising that male-associated markers are relatively abundant. In dioecious plants where sex chromosomes have not been identified, markers for maleness indicate either the presence of sex chromosomes which have not been distinguished by cytological methods or that the marker is tightly linked to a gene involved in sex determination.[56]"

Environmental sex determination is known to occur in a variety of species.[73] Many researchers have suggested that sex in Cannabis is determined or strongly influenced by environmental factors.[62] Ainsworth reviews that treatment with auxin and ethylene have feminizing effects, and that treatment with cytokinins and gibberellins have masculinizing effects.[56] It has been reported that sex can be reversed in Cannabis using chemical treatment.[74] A PCR-based method for the detection of female-associated DNA polymorphisms by genotyping has been developed.[75]

Not saying it is truth or fiction as it wikipedia lol, just good reading though and well put.
Also i think alot of the genepool here in australia has had alot of weird things done to it, for example most growers used to just pick their best females for next years seed, as there was always a few seeds in each nug due to sly intersex plants that got/get missed during male culling. So the farmers next crop is born of a sly intersexual plants pollen and the females he/she chooses. They unintentionaly selected for the sly intersex trait by their method of next years seed production. In some places of australia that i sourced beans from the female rate was like 80% and 20% intersex others had 70% fems, 20% males and 10% intersex, all dependant on if a male got his pollen out aswell as the sly intersex ladies in the field.
Other parts one could tell the growers grew winter crops of m/f plants for seed as i would get the 50%/50% ratio of m/f in the long run with enough beans planted.
The reason i believe here in oz we see high fem ratios is becuase of the fact that alot of unintentional intersex breeding went on herein the past over the years. Most bagseed from bush pot here will be female or hermi for that exact reason, feminized breeding with out even knowing its happening, weird for sure, but it happened here, not in all parts but alot.
Anyways ty all for the knowledge being shared in here now
much respect
moonunit

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Am I to assume that the MADC is on the autosomes? Does this mean that we are dealing with 2 or maybe 3 different types of intersex or hermaphrodite types?

For the purposes of this discussion, it would be useful to limit the number of types to non sterile types. Can you elaborate?
N.

No, MADC is on the Y.

I've always tried to distinguish between true hermies (which aren't around often IME) and intersex plants that only reverse late in flower or due to stress. I always found them to be very different.


So there's 1) True diecious 2) hermies 3) intersex 4) monoecious hemp. At least that's how I conceived it.

Chimera said half of #1 have the MADC and all the #4s do.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Also i think alot of the genepool here in australia has had alot of weird things done to it, for example most growers used to just pick their best females for next years seed, as there was always a few seeds in each nug due to sly intersex plants that got/get missed during male culling. So the farmers next crop is born of a sly intersexual plants pollen and the females he/she chooses. They unintentionaly selected for the sly intersex trait by their method of next years seed production. In some places of australia that i sourced beans from the female rate was like 80% and 20% intersex others had 70% fems, 20% males and 10% intersex, all dependant on if a male got his pollen out aswell as the sly intersex ladies in the field.
Other parts one could tell the growers grew winter crops of m/f plants for seed as i would get the 50%/50% ratio of m/f in the long run with enough beans planted.
The reason i believe here in oz we see high fem ratios is becuase of the fact that alot of unintentional intersex breeding went on herein the past over the years. Most bagseed from bush pot here will be female or hermi for that exact reason, feminized breeding with out even knowing its happening, weird for sure, but it happened here, not in all parts but alot.
Anyways ty all for the knowledge being shared in here now
much respect
moonunit

Yep, thailand landraces had the same problem...or so I hear.

 

[Ronin]

Derail away TROLL!!

Grower for 8 years, used to work in a psychopharmacology lab, have published research in peer reviewed scientific journals. We actually had a schedule 1 DEA license because we were working on some artificial cannabinoids.

I really don't think this is on topic cartoon man

I figured as much. You want people to answer your questions and you can't answer the simplest ones but, instead, insult me for asking. I am a troll? I have been here a long time and have never had problems with people, I just want to know why anyone should pay any attention to you.

You are the "troll".

There ya go guys , no more speculation - he isn't credible. You have been trying to appease someone arguing for the sake of arguing.

You have to be a youngster for you to be so aggressive. This is but another reason not to believe in this kid's ramblings.

We all can find what what most of the other people in the arguments experiences and accomplishments all over the net, most you can get some pics and details of their work right here.

So, to sum it up-

1.)A picture is worth a thousand words.

2.) When people are aggressive, insulting, call people names, say a lot but can't show you their work, and/or gets upset when people don't answer them but attack a person who asks them a question - I always trust the calm, cool , collected person over that type. If they have the traits listed above, or even if the didn't, if the have photo or video proof (or if they were one of the people responsible for getting killer genetics all over the world) - the proof in the work is the bottom line.

To totally dismiss peoples findings or hypothesis and talk to them like are fools isn't the way things work around here, especially when you haven't done any work to prove them other wise (Google isn't work).

When you act like a jerk people are prone not to listen to you, even if you were found to be right.

Lots of good info and theories guys! Not everything has been figured out yet, there very well could be some unfound gene that causes one of the mysteries discussed here.

 

[Nevil]

I've always tried to distinguish between true hermies (which aren't around often IME) and intersex plants that only reverse late in flower or due to stress. I always found them to be very different.

What is the mechanism that would allow types 2 and 3 to produce pollen? I have made the assumption that types 2 and 3 are in effect X(Xy) and that it was the MADC on the y that allowed plants to reverse sex. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
N.

 

[DarwinsBulldog]

What is the mechanism that would allow types 2 and 3 to produce pollen? I have made the assumption that types 2 and 3 are in effect X(Xy) and that it was the MADC on the y that allowed plants to reverse sex. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
N.

if his 2) hermies is actually referring to hermaphrodite plants which are those that have single flowers with both sex organs (or parts of both) present, i'd think that those have the same or very similar genotype to true intersex (#3) plants and have just suffered some form of mutation when it comes to the regulation of sex organs in flowers. from what i've read and heard from people who have had hermaphrodite plants, it's pretty rare and often only occurs on single/few flowers on a plant if at all.

 

[moonunit]

Yep, thailand landraces had the same problem...or so I hear.

Indeed as did and does alot of aust and south east asia, but it wasnt across the board and pockets of the old did and do remain in very isolated spots. It was unconcious female only breeding that has done damage, mainly on the level of genetic diversity and the intersexual nature now present in alot of populations in these regions.
It just shows how if the tech applied badly can indeed cause damage, on the ground and in the fields. But we all know this and its just a matter of now discussing how how female only breeding techs can be usefull worked on by knowledgable folk in isolated enviroments, as well as the mechanisms of sexual expression and reproduction.
I do think however looking at the mistakes that have happened and are happening can also give us insight into how things work and how to do things right and to avoid future mistakes.
Ty again to all contributing, and to all keeping things cool
much respect
moonunit

 

[GreenintheThumb]

edit: decided to change it so i don't get banned


I'm going to waste my time ONCE more on you troll. There's a reason people who matter listen and respond and react to my questions.

I figured as much. You want people to answer your questions and you can't answer the simplest ones but, instead, insult me for asking. I am a troll?

Since reading comprehension isn't your skill: I answered your questions. I didn't answer the age part of the question. Do you need my exact date of birth troll?

There ya go guys , no more speculation - he isn't credible. You have been trying to appease someone arguing for the sake of arguing.

Do you need my birthday? What do you want from me, I answered your questions and I speak passionately about the subject that interests me most: cannabis.

You have to be a youngster for you to be so aggressive. This is but another reason not to believe in this kid's ramblings.

I don't doubt that I'm younger than you. Notice how some people don't care? So you're just a boring old man who has nothing to offer, wants to derail threads and watches Cartoon Network? Thanks for saying nothing about the topic at hand.

We all can find what what most of the other people in the arguments experiences and accomplishments all over the net, most you can get some pics and details of their work right here.

I answered your dumb question to the point of it being detrimental to my safety. How many psychopharmacy labs have schedule 1 DEA licenses? I don't plan on shouting my real name on this forum. Sorry to disappoint, troll.

To totally dismiss peoples findings or hypothesis and talk to them like are fools isn't the way things work around here, especially when you haven't done any work to prove them other wise (Google isn't work).

I don't totally dismiss them, you don't understand the difference between anecdotal stoner musing and science. I shat on someone in this very thread for trying to use google and only reading abstracts and using them to further arguments that didn't fit. He's respected in your community, go bother him.

When you act like a jerk people are prone not to listen to you, even if you were found to be right.

And other times when you 'act like a jerk' you have a bunch of truth in your words and people who matter converse and further the community's understanding of our favorite plant.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Respect to Darwin and moonunit (your conception of reality seems closer than wiki's btw)

Better ask them their credentials "community"

 

[GreenintheThumb]

What is the mechanism that would allow types 2 and 3 to produce pollen? I have made the assumption that types 2 and 3 are in effect X(Xy) and that it was the MADC on the y that allowed plants to reverse sex. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
N.

The mechanism COULD be two form: sexual differentiation AND pollen production. They're most likely closely situated on the genome and strongly linked. But IMO they've differentiated into the types I spoke of earlier.

IMO bringing a y into this will confuse the issue. The X and Y can be determined if your peepers are good enough.

 

[hempy]

if his 2) hermies is actually referring to hermaphrodite plants which are those that have single flowers with both sex organs (or parts of both) present, i'd think that those have the same or very similar genotype to true intersex (#3) plants and have just suffered some form of mutation when it comes to the regulation of sex organs in flowers. from what i've read and heard from people who have had hermaphrodite plants, it's pretty rare and often only occurs on single/few flowers on a plant if at all.

hiya mate are you saying that a hermaphrodite plant cannabis plant that shows both sex in each flower all over the plant is rare little confused about what your saying here.

If that is what your saying well no its far from the truth.

Heres some real facts not read facts or facts past on by people but facts i have seen and posted about and argued to the likes of sam to.

Pure sativas not all but a lot of pure sativa lines express 3 types of sexual exprestion at flowering you will see plants sex as female plants sex as males and plants sex as hermaphrodites showing both sex on the same flower yet after the hermaphrodite plants are culled the females will stay as female untill harvest and the males will stay as male untill there use is achived or untill they die and if you think a sativa growing out doors is not under extream stress think agine.

What you dont see in sativas and i have never seen one do it is start to show hermaphrodite traits once its been sexet if it comes out as a female it will remain as one under stress you can not even imagen what out door sats go threw till harvest from plants been broken in half to wilting from lack of water due to extream heat being pelted by hail you name it they will bounce back and do there thing and remain female yet in that line you will see 3 types of sex being exprest at flowering from that line female/male/hermaphrodite.


It like sam tryed telling me all thia are hermaphrodite that was crap i grew some out just to prove wat i sed was fact then i cant rember the guys handle now posted sed your right hempy as he had spoken to thia farmers who had been growing thia sativas for generations and they saw the same thing reality is most dont know it all and whats worse is they claim to.

 

[Donald Mallard]

The difference is the people suggesting 70 - 80% females in their grows, aren't extending their ratios to include all grows in all conditions.

You seem to be saying that all sex is determined by genetics with no influence from environment. But anyone who has had their seedlings germinate in a cold snap will report lower female ratios.

Your scientific monotheism is rather like people who are dumbfounded when you say you don't think Jesus is the only way to God. It's the same dogmatic mindset that negates all other experience. It's not all about science and scientific method. Normal people can make valid observations without measuring it in a prescribed manner.

I don't see why it's so hard to accept that some growers consistently get a higher % of females than you. Is it the standards of scientific method that are being compromised, or just your ego?

i dont think its too much to ask for folks to present the evidence ,, i too have grown longer than i can remember outdoors ,, i will show you the pictures of hundreds of plants ,,
prior to running the numbers i do now ,, in excess of 1000 , i too thought i acheived much higher rates of females to males ,, i even recall having a conversation via pm with chimera about it ,,
his response was simple ,, run more numbers and youll get a better idea of the m/f ratio ,, and ive found it to be true ...
i just put 100 seeds in , and will do a further few hundred to be sure , its not exactly scientific ,, but assured the more numbers you run , the closer to a 50 50 ratio you will get ...