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

  • Thread starter Thread starter hempy
  • Start date Start date
.... cont'd

Now, here's some meat for you Nevil. There is a good amount of meat in the refs already posted. I would suggest checking them out before dismissing the claims presented therein.

Thank you for respoding Chimera.

Your welcome, Nevil- you don't need to thank me... but perhaps you could respect the fact that I have other pressing matters in my life, and can't be online 24/7 as some of your finer members, and afford me some degree of patience.


This leads to the questions;
Could the same females be induced to produce pollen?

Almost ALL females I have come across can be induced to produce some amount of pollen via the use of GA3 (the gibberellin pathway) or via ethylene inhibitors (the ethylene pathway). I too have encountered oddballs, with (what I assume are) genetic mutations in specific genes involved in the shedding of pollen (dehiscence)... perhaps what has been referred to in this thread as 'sterility mutations'... which is an incredibly broad and IMO not a very useful term, other than to indicate "somethings going on". You see there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of genes that act in concert to produce what we see as 'pollen' at the end of flowering. Specific gene regulators turn genetic switches on and off to promote the cells to undergo meiosis, cellular division and gamete formation, the production of anthers, the internal production of pollen, production and regulation flavanoids that allow the chemical signaling for pollen to germinate on stigmas that are recognized as 'the same species'. These are very complex yet well demonstrated genetic pathways that exist, and allow pollen of a species to germinate on the stigma of a con specific (a member of the same species). Because there are some many genes involved in the process, there is a lot of room for error...a problem in one gene may completely disrupt the pathway, and lead to a deficiency in pollen production. What's interesting, an probably obvious to anyone that A) understands evolution and B) appreciates the impact of flaws in these genes... any non-functional copies of the genes would impact (ie negate) the ability of the individual with these genes to leave offspring. (This isn't entirely true because all outrossers can mask the genes and pass them along via carriers, with only homozygous recessive individuals showing the deficit... and therefor not contributing to the next generation.. the point being that these genes won't be completely purged from the population, and can still 'pop-up' in the form of males that can't produce pollen, or even females that can't produce pollen. To say these plants can;t exist would be foolish, they certainly do... especially in further generations or tightly bred (ie inbred) lines. However, the fact that these genes are highly conserved from one species to another (ie almost all flowering plants have versions of these genes) shows that they promote high fecundity (high fertility) and confer a high level of fitness (ability to leave offspring) to those who possess them.

I too have come across plants that are 'resistant' to switching sex... they will produce anthers, but no pollen will fly on heir own. Some plants must be beaten with sticks to force them to shed the pollen inside... but baring a rare mutation, almost all females are able to produce pollen.

Will any of these females show intersex/ hermie traits under normal conditions?

Please remember Mendel's Second law of Inheritance- Independent assortment of characters. 'Gender' is a separate trait from 'intersexualty'. You can have female intersex plants and you can have male intersex plants, just like you can have 'pure' male and female plants (ie no flowers of the opposite sex under healthy environmental conditions).


Alternatively, do all intersex/hermie have the marker....

Only MALE intersex plants show the MADC marker. Intersexuality is a completely different trait.. apparently autosomal in nature. Any genetic trait will have a marker, we just haven't identified the intersex marker(s) yet'


and if not, what is the mechanism that causes these traits?
N.

That is a question nobody can currently answer. However, there are mounds of evidence that any grower can suggest....fluctuating pH, light stresses... sever plant mutilation (heavy pruning during flowering)... there are a whole host of environmental effects we as growers try to avoid in our environment. Outdoors and greenhouse growers are less likely to induce these stresses being in a natural environment (baring soil/watering issues), which in my opinion is why we see less intersex plants in greenhouses or outdoors. We do know that stresses cause alterations in Ethylene levels within the plant- and we know that interfering with the ethylene pathway can alter sexual expression. Some stresses also alter Gibberellin levels, and we know application of exogenous Gibberellin-like molecules (like GA3) can induce male flowers on females (this is all well documented in other species if you care to look). I can't tell you for sure what mechanisms cause what, because cannabis research has been stifled for decades, and this type of question has not been adequately addressed by the scientific community.... hopefully over the coming years this will change... and the fact that Mandolino, Rinalli and Carboni and others in the Italian group along with Sakamoto and others in Japan are continually publishing new genetic works in Cannabis seems to support this claim. I would suggest many fruits are yet to be harvested in this regard, so we'll see what the future brings.

-Chimera
 
Last edited:
You are right JessE, this thread had no conflict, off-topic posts, insults or anything negative until I posted! :rolleyes:

Another fantastic contribution. It's obviously easier to cast aspersions of someone's character than to debate the topic at hand, or contribute to the discussion at hand. Now what exactly on topic were you adding to the discusion? Or are you simply just trying to deflect, distract, discourage and mis-inform?
 
Originally Posted by Chimera
Jesse, I just don't know what to say to you man.... you cast aspersions against anyone who speaks positively of all female seedlots.. pretty weak. You sound like a religious zealot being shown evidence that the earth is billions of years old... it's like it contradicts the bible and shakes your world.

Chimera,
You seem like a walking set of contradictions to me, casting aspersions against anyone who speaks positively of all female seedlots? You mean the same feminized seed trend you admit are a destructive force to the cannabis genepool? I thought you were all about making improvements? Not taking two steps backwards?
"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.
As Hempys experiment showed (which mirror a great deal of many of todays business ethics and practices), the feminized seeds showed an incredible lack of vigor compared to the F1 or even F2 Mango Haze. His S1s, were but a shadow of their former being! Clearly your response above, is in direct relation to my most recent post to Namaskar! If you're so interested in improvements, (as quoted above), how can you defend this position knowing that the feminized seeds which are being questioned in relation to breeding practices are showing such a lack of vigor? Do you support using plants which show a noticeable lack of vigor in a breeding scheme, when there are clearly more options available that would lead to steps forward, instead of steps backward? Is working with such lines your idea of improvements? And you dare call yourself a breeder with this line of thinking? There is a good reason why I declined your offer to send seeds! You simply have no clue what you’re talking about, despite your best efforts to convince others to the contrary! You’ll defend using sub par feminized plants in breeding, while pretending you’re for improvements? How do you figure using plants, which exhibit a lack of vigor and god knows what else, are acceptable plants worthy to hybridize with? As that’s exactly what you’re doing!

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....

So not being familiar with their methodologies, you've come into the thread to defend their breeding schemes, while talking trash to me, all the while admitting that such practices as they stand today lead to intersexuality, genetic bottle necking etc?
And this is your idea of improvements? Leading the plant into the future, instead of taking steps backward?
You're no patriot of the plant, but rather someone attempting to defend his own future releases (meant to take advantage of noobies who do not know any better) all at the expense of the plant and your customers pocket book and good sense! You're a nothing Chimera, someone who cant even get his own story straight while attempting to hype up his own releases with BS terminology (Gynoecious, google it folks lol) designed to mislead others into thinking you're doing something more scientifically sound than the competition!
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.
A typical business practice, the likes of which even Burger King and other run of the mill businesses practice in an effort to convince those who do not know any better your product is greater than the competition!
Originally posted by Chimera
hack jobs for lack of a better term
Chimera Grapefruit x Northern Lights
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=117010

Nice one ;) Hey, isnt that the same thread both GreenintheThumb and Kopite can be found in Chimera? (Knock me over with a feather).
So we can trace fem central/Stoner Gate members to Chimera? Well, I never...
Good to know you're not a hakk, like those pesky others lol. Not riding anyones coat tails, like Nevil or DJ Short etc....
lol

Originally Posted by GreenintheThumb
fiminized $eed$. Cha-ching!

This FACT, combined with poor selections, and as stated $eed dollar$ as the main goal is the REAL problem with these methodologies....


Originally posted by Nevil
Don't assume that GitT, I thought that it was interesting but hardly definative in support of your/ Chimera's position ( I keep getting you two mixed up for some reason ).

Honest mistake Nevil, no worries mate ;)

 
Last edited:
@ GitT.....You know mate just coz I didnt do a Chimera and put myself up on a pedalstal for all the world to see with some fancy paperwork and scientific facts and then expect that everytime I dropped my pants some fan, like yourself would jump on for the ride.....I bet he never uses toilet paper with you around, I am nothing to you.
As for his famous breeding, where even he is so full of himself that he even Quotes that its possible I have the best Grapefruit smelling arse or whatever in the world, well mate I checked out his strain list and to tell you the truth I found jack shit so bought nothing, yet I checked out MNS and bought everything.
So my advice to you is take all your dopplegangers with you back to ICMag and Chimeras arse and keep licking there......because all you have achieved here is to stir up shit...with your dicks.

All I have done as Doobz say's is grow some good plants and cross a few strains and put them up on the internet, nothing more and then just put a little bit of my knowledge out there and never have I said anything bad about anybody's suggestions on what they do, Ive never said that it was right or wrong.....but all I have to do is mention I get 70-80% fem, with no reason at all to lie and its to much for Chimera and his bunch of arse lickers ego's.
Its a sorry and dissapointing thing when people get to see that people like you and your bullshit crap are what has become of what used to be a friendly world of marijuana growers.

Also and let this sink in I am not a fan of Nevils but a friend.l...cheers K


Kangativa, I don't consider myself to be on a different level then you brother.. I've just taken a different path, and have learned a few things that peharps you may not have on your journey.... which I am here to share. I'm sure you have learned a few things that I haven't learned, and am thrilled to learn from you. Those monster thin-leaved plants are lovely, I've seen quite a few of them myself growing in sub-equatorial climes... we do 15 foot'ers easily in greenouses north of '50 given ample start time under glass or indoors.. it's a marvel what the plant can do given the proper resources. I would claim that it's not my work though ,other thanproviding good nutrition, but hers... I'm not going to take credit for what the plant does naturally given the right environment. And I assure you my ass smells as much as yours.. no grapefruit here friend!

I'm not interested in ego-rubs from people over the internet, or people in person for that matter... I have gotten many pms over the years praising me but I respond with the same thing every time brother... I'm just a person behind a computer like you- I may have been exposed to some material that someone else hasn't in my time studying cannabis, but I don;t think it makes me any better than anyone else.

Please don't judge what you don't know... I'm not the person you think I am.

The 70-80% claim was not too much for me, but I do question it's validity... and being a scientist (ie someone ho practices science) I tend to question claims that are not supported by ample evidence to the contrary. At the least, I'd require some additional data of yours to support your claim before I believe it.. and since you are unwilling to share your data.... well I think you know where that leaves us.

As such, I respectfully disagree with your position pending further input.

-Chimera
 
hiya rick were ya been mate you been MIA on us don't tell me your been in them books again trying to prove fem seeds are better still.

What quote from icmag ? Post it up so i can read it along with your post so it makes sense.

I believe in lots of things rick one being regular seeds are the way forward and coke is better than Pepsi i also believe in god and in my fellow man but i also believe that 2 wrongs make no right i believe in women having a nurturing nature and i believe the sun rises and sets and i have more to shear if you are interested.

ive been chillin:),,,

il just get told im wrong if i open up my mouth,,,,im on my own sometimes with my ideas,,,seriously,,,im a propper billy nomates:),,,im hangin on to ainsworth,,,:),,

funny thing is;,,,i agree with your crew about alltering sex ratios,,,,i believe i can alter the 1:1 ratio with selection and enviromental pressure,,,im sure nev was saying this same thing beffore,,

im sure you miss-understand me hempy bro,,,,fem breeding is good for 1 main reason in my eyes, an thats to help increese freequencys in a seedline,,,adding a small amount of reverced XXpolen to your XYpolenmixbag can actualy be a very goodthing an even greeninthethumb will agree with that[ithink]:):)

yeh hempy,,,the post im refering to is the one jesse is talking about,,,
 
I'm having trouble with what seems to be contradictory positions. On the one hand we have the position that sex is genetically determined and will produce 1:1 ratios M + F and that they can be verified by the presence of the MADC sequence and on the other hand we have the position that the MADC in not involved in intersex plants and yet somehow matings will still produce 1:1 ratios M + F. It seems to me that you have undermined your argument by categorising intersex plants as females and cut off your escape route by saying that environmental factors don't influence sex.
What we are left with is a genetically determined mechanism for intersex traits which does not involve MADC for which you do not have a marker to determine it's presence.
What is your working model to account for intersex plants? Considering the main argument against fem seeds is the fear of ingraining intersex traits, the issue needs to be addressed. Calling a hermie intersex does not make it go away.
N.
Nice one Nev ;)

I think it may be lost in the que if not for the quote function however....
 
It seems to me that you have undermined your argument by categorising intersex plants as females and cut off your escape route by saying that environmental factors don't influence sex.

Perhaps I wasn't clear; please allow me to clarify my position.

I don't believe I did categorize intersex plants as females. The intersex trait is not unique to either gender. There are both intersex females (no MADC) and intersex males (MADC present). There are also females that do not show intersex characteristics, and males that do not show intersex characteristics.

MADC and intersexuality are not mutually inclusive traits.


Environmental effects DO NOT affect GENDER. They DO affect sexual expression. Environmental affects (ie streses) can certainly cause the appearance of staminate flowers on otherwise pistillate plants.. pistillate plants that would otherwise not produce male flowers under healthy grow room/greenhouse/outdoor conditions... the possible mechanisms for such were outlined in my previous post re: the meat.

What we are left with is a genetically determined mechanism for intersex traits which does not involve MADC for which you do not have a marker to determine it's presence.

No marker(s) for intersexuality have YET been identified... genomics is expensive work, and very few labs in the world are looking at cannabis in terms of molecular genetics. Shanti knows Mandolino, I know because we spoke about it years ago. I would have thought you'd be aware of their work. However, being that there are likely tens of thousands of genes, developing a marker system for every trait will take a long while.


What is your working model to account for intersex plants?

Well, this is my HYPOTHESIS.... we are a ways away from a 'working model' per se.

Obviously, as in mammals, there are different endogenous levels of hormones... you've seen women with high testosterone levels and hairy upper lips.... this trait obviously varies, as most do, within the population. My submission would be that plants, too, have variations in hormone levels within the population. Hormones are the result of, but also regulated by, transcription factors... some of which are other hormones. The varying levels of these hormones in the population likely accounts for the degrees of intersexuality we see in different cannabis plants.


Considering the main argument against fem seeds is the fear of ingraining intersex traits, the issue needs to be addressed. Calling a hermie intersex does not make it go away.


The argument is based on poorly created methods of 'feminizing'... as I said in a previous post like Soma's RODELIZATION. His process is do select plants that will throw male flowers late in the cycle, and select the plants for the creation of 'feminized' seed. The problem with this method is the selection pressure is TOWARDS plants that show intersex traits- the very method of creating the seed selects for the trait. This will obviously lead the population TOWARDS intersexuality... LIKE BEGETS LIKE.

I don't know what methods other breeders are using, but surely the degree of intersexuality reported in some 'feminized' seedlots is a result of the selection, and the PROCESS that is used to produce said seed. I've never gown feminized seed from any other company, I have no interest in it knowing the methods, minuscule population sizes and selection criteria most of the companies use.

For the record, I've used gynoecious mating schemes (your definition is incorrect JessE) to REMOVE intersex traits from a population, so I know it is possible to decrease intersexuality. It works, but it's all about the selection and methodology used to create the seed.

~~~~

I'd like to ask one question to the "anti-fem" group. I've yet to see a decent response to this question:

Given that even the Y-chromosome undergoes substantial crossovers and thus recombination with the X, what exactly (genetically speaking) are we losing by engaging in female:female breeding schemes? How does this purport to be a problem when cannabis growers are SOLELY interested in the female progeny of any given union?
 
Last edited:
Apparently valid sources, from respected institutions, only count to Stoner-Gate when its to their benefit...

And I thought we were scientist?
320x240.jpg
 
If they are giving that definition, then yes whoever wrote the definition (and by corollary you) are incorrect. Perhaps they are referring to gynoecious cucumbers which are prodominantly female with some male flowers?

However, technically the term is derived from the greek roots for 'Female' and 'Household".

There is a similar definition in my Botany Dictionary, but this one is available for you to see for yourself so you can confirm, which of course you would like to do.

Gynoecious - has only female reproductive structures; the "female" plant.

Perhaps now that you understand the proper definition for Gynoecy, you will stop attempting to mock me for using the term to correctly identify true, all-female populations?


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sexual_reproduction#Terminology



Individual plant
The Alder is monoecious. Shown here: maturing male flower catkins on right, last year's female catkins on left
The Alder is monoecious. Shown here: maturing male flower catkins on right, last year's female catkins on left

* Hermaphrodite - A plant that has only hermaphrodite reproductive units (flowers, conifer cones, or functionally equivalent structures). In angiosperm terminology, a synonym is monoclinous from the Greek "one bed."
* Monoecious - having unisexual reproductive units (flowers, conifer cones, or functionally equivalent structures) of both sexes appearing on the same plant; from Greek for "one household." Individuals bearing flowers of both sexes at the same time are called simultaneously or synchronously monoecious. Individuals that bear only flowers of a single sex at one time are called consecutively monoecious; "protoandrous" describes individuals that function first as males and then change to females; "protogynous" describes individuals that function first as females and then change to males.
* Dioecious - having unisexual reproductive units (flowers, conifer cones, or functionally equivalent structures) occurring on different individuals; from Greek for "two households." Individual plants are not called dioecious: they are either gynoecious or androecious.
* Because many dioecious conifers show a tendency towards monoecy (that is, a female plant may sometimes produce small numbers of male cones or vice versa), these species are termed subdioecious (McCormick and Andresen, 1963).
* In angiosperm terminology, diclinous ("two beds") includes all species with unisexual flowers, although particularly those with only unisexual flowers (i.e. the monoecious and dioecious species).
* Gynoecious - has only female reproductive structures; the "female" plant.
* Androecious - has only male reproductive structures; the "male" plant.
* Gynomonoecious - has both hermaphrodite and female structures.
* Andromonoecious - has both hermaphrodite and male structures.
* Subandroecious - plant has mostly male flowers, with a few female or hermaphrodite flowers.
* Subgynoecious - plant has mostly female flowers, with a few male or hermaphrodite flowers.
* Trimonoecious (polygamous) - male, female, and hermaphrodite structures all appear on the same pla
 
My hair is pink and I don't wear glasses, but otherwise that picture is pretty much spot on..... good for you attempting to discredit me by disparaging my looks rather than the content of the post.

Of course that's the only field on which you can compete... rather than discuss the content of the post? Don't worry, perhaps someone else will be able to do your thinking for you....

Deny, discredit, disparage.... ...deluded? :rolleyes:

-Chimera
 
Twenty-one minutes and no trolling response? No out-of-context parsing of quotes? You must surely be google-ing intensely! Only 21,799 pages of Google results for Gynoecious to go... you'll be able to find something of value JessE ... keep the dream alive!

Take your time; I'm out for the night... will try to check in tomorrow if time permits...

Have fun!
-Chimera
 
Last edited:
God damn, if a bunch of the world's biggest potheads can't get along, I think we're all fucked.


Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends?
 
Hello Again Chimera!,

I'm glad you cleared up the higher percentage female thing cause we ALL know we can get more fem's expressed or otherwise from a few tricks/stresses along the way.

Chimera -"About this "I'd like to ask one question to the "anti-fem" group. I've yet to see a decent response to this question:

Given that even the Y-chromosome undergoes substantial crossovers and thus recombination with the X, what exactly (genetically speaking) are we losing by engaging in female:female breeding schemes? How does this purport to be a problem when cannabis growers are SOLELY interested in the female progeny of any given union?"

I will tell you why I'am scared with your own words...

"No marker(s) for intersexuality have YET been identified... "

"Well, this is my HYPOTHESIS.... we are a ways away from a 'working model' per se. "

And finally...

"Please don't judge what you don't know... I'm not the person you think I am."

Now I appreciate what you are bringing to the table here Chimera so don't mistake my passion for dickheadedness. But you are asking Kanga to not judge you because he does not know you yet you seem to be aggressively promoting something you do not FULLY understand yourself (you may know MORE than any other man alive but for now that bar is low.)

Please Humor Me Chimera-

Hypothetical Situation:

We do find out that XX seeds are bad for WHATEVER reason. We find out after many seeds have been popped. Many of these seeds, with the same name feminized or regular are made into cuttings and exchanged in dispensaries. How can the layperson tell he has the "bad" feminized ssh or the "good" regular one? Test for MADC?

Will YOU be selling MADC test kits? Sorry I couldn't resist, please don't get mad just open your mind and see the possibilities. I do not froth at the mouth with my "beliefs" I have none and value knowledge so please relieve my fears.

How does this purport to be a problem when cannabis growers are SOLELY interested in the female progeny of any given union?"

This entire thread should show that we are not JUST interested in the female progeny.

Change My Mind Please,

KB 8)_~
 
@kopite

Since we're now posting private messages, I thought I'd
indulge you in a bit of the truth, kopite. I liked (past tense)
you because you seemed (again, past tense) intelligent
and informed. I thought we could all learn from what you
had to say, and I thought you might learn something from
interacting with Nevil. I cannot ask Nevil the questions you
can. I do not know as much about the subject as you do.
I know you had a rough time over at IC and I was hoping
you would come here and appreciate the culture we are
trying to build. Instead you came here and got yourself
banned. Now you've come back and you're back to being
a troll. For some reason you can't just discuss things, you
have to resort to trolling. I have been made aware that
you've never been the same after DocLeaf got into you,
and I believe it now. You aren't the same kopite I invited
here originally. If you must know I feel terrible for having
invited you here, as I was not aware that your personality
had taken a turn for the worse. I certainly do apologize.
As for switching handles, it's not really a big deal. I still
don't understand what the big deal is. I had admini delete
the account. I wanted a new handle. Sorry. That's all that
happened. I wish I could tell you a more exciting story btw.

NOW TRY TO BE NICE.

nice try JB

you do remember the friend invite you sent last week don't you....

do check yourself before you rep yourself dickhead! as to a rough time there, I thought Docleaf did not warrent his mentor tag as he was giving out bad advice, thats all but sheeeet Stressie is much worse than anyone over there.... seems its all about sales here there and everywhere..... , the mods there didn't like that stance and took action, I don't care if you or anyone else does not like me I'm not here for friends just facts, time is short if IMO yheres bad info being put out I will try to correct it as best as can, and theres plenty in this thread I only hope some have learnt out of it! (myself included on sterility mutations CMS etc.).

Kopite
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Originally Posted by kylebroflovski

"Why (if it is a later evolutionary step) does this develop in a species when it can pollinate itself already? I don't understand this."

GitT-"It's an outcrossing species. Grow out some S4 seeds and you'll see how detrimental self pollination can be."

Thanks Good Point,

KB 8)_~
 
The story of Luther Burbank

Luther Burbank (7 March 1849 – 11 April 1926) [1] was an American botanist, horticulturist and a pioneer in agricultural science.

He developed more than 800 strains and varieties of plants over his 55-year career. Burbank's varied creations included fruits, flowers, grains, grasses, and vegetables. He developed a spineless cactus (useful for cattle-feed) and the plumcot.

Burbank's most successful strains and varieties include the Shasta daisy, the Fire poppy, the July Elberta peach, the Santa Rosa plum, the Flaming Gold nectarine, the Wickson plum, the Freestone peach, and the white blackberry. A natural genetic variant of the Burbank potato with russet-colored skin later became known as the Russet Burbank potato. This large, brown-skinned, white-fleshed potato has become the world's predominant potato in food processing.

Born in Lancaster, Massachusetts, Burbank grew up on a farm and received only an elementary school education. The thirteenth of fifteen children, he enjoyed the plants in his mother's large garden. His father died when he was 21 years old, and Burbank used his small inheritance to buy a 17-acre (69,000 m²) plot of land near Lunenburg. There, he developed the Burbank potato. Burbank sold the rights to the Burbank potato for $150 and used the money to travel to Santa Rosa, California, in 1875. Later, a natural sport of Burbank potato with russetted skin was selected and named Russet Burbank potato. Today, the Russet Burbank potato is the most widely cultivated potato in the United States. A large percentage of McDonald's french fries are made from this cultivar.

In Santa Rosa, Burbank purchased a 4-acre (16,000 m2) plot of land, and established a greenhouse, nursery, and experimental fields that he used to conduct crossbreeding experiments on plants, inspired by Charles Darwin's The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. (This site is now open to the public as a city park, Luther Burbank Home and Gardens.) Later he purchased an 18-acre (7.3 ha) plot of land in the nearby town of Sebastopol called Gold Ridge Farm.[2]

From 1904 through 1909 Burbank received several grants from the Carnegie Institution to support his ongoing research on hybridization. He was supported by the practical-minded Andrew Carnegie himself, over those of his advisers who objected that Burbank was not "scientific" in his methods.[3]

Burbank became known through his plant catalogs, the most famous being 1893's "New Creations in Fruits and Flowers," and through the word of mouth of satisfied customers, as well as press reports that kept him in the news throughout the first decade of the century.



Burbank creations
Russet Burbank potatoes
New Creations in Fruits and Flowers cover.
Burbank plums
Forms of leafs and fruits quality correlations. After issue 1914.

Burbank created hundreds of new varieties of fruits (plum, pear, prune, peach, blackberry, raspberry); potato, tomato; ornamental flowers and other plants.[4]

Fruits

* 113 plums and prunes
* 35 fruiting cacti
* 16 blackberries
* 13 raspberries
* 11 quinces
* 11 plumcots
* Ten cherries
* Ten strawberries
* Ten apples
* Eight peaches
* Six chestnuts
* Five nectarines
* Four grapes
* Four pears
* Three walnut
* Two figs
* One almond

Grains, grasses, forage

* Nine types

Vegetables

* 26 types[citation needed]

Ornamentals

* 91 types[citation needed]



Alright, now that you know who Luther Burbank is, what he did, and when he did it, you can start to understand how important genetic diversity is.

Luther Burbank found ONE mutated potato plant one year in his garden, took it indoors over the winter, cloned it out, and grew his entire field full of this ONE mutated clone the next year. What did he discover? THIRTEEN DIFFERENT, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT potato strains, from ONE mutated plant, including the Russet Potato itself. If you eat a potato today, 95% of them are Russet Potatoes.

I'm just saying before you look at female to female breeding, you should take a look at what someone like Luther Burbank did with much less knowledge and no modern chemicals.
 
. I personally don't think JessE's abraisive, uninformative comments reflect upon you Nevil or Shanti... and so I disagree with Herbert in that sense... how can one be responsible for another's words on an open forum?

I wouldn't hold Shanti & Neville responsible if Jesse was just spewing this bile at other sites & being dealt with accordingly, but Jessse uses this site as a sounding board & is often encouraged here to carry on with the negative work ethic, I also wouldn't hold Shanti & Neville partly responsible if they weren't constantly mentioned in the member's dubious work or if they made a simple public statement to distance themselves from this member's motives & tactics. I view this as a virtual house & as mentioned previously this member's given free reign to be as abusive as it likes to everyone & anyone in the canna scene as long as it slips in some compliments about Shanti & Neville, almost as if because of this praise in the shoddy PR work people should just swallow the bile with a spoonful of sugar & not respond.
If this was your house would you allow somebody to openly attack everyone & anyone? I know i wouldn't, but if the behavior is tolerated & people are offended & do leave then they will leave with not only a bad impression of the person attacking them but also the people that allowed the behavior to continue, those that tolerated the nasty behavior, that's where i partly hold these guys responsible, but again, they have neither confirmed nor denied that they are OK with Jesse's negative outlook(aside from praise left at their feet) so with that in mind & lack of intervention it's easy to form opinions, I hope I'm mistaken, I really do

In the scheme of things Neville has had very little aimed at himself apart from 1 or 2 off the cuff remarks & again in quite a short period of time he's publicly threatening people with bans, yet his online PR Jesse is allowed to be as abusive & negative as it wishes without fear of reprimand, never mind a public message of being asked to discontinue the negative manner in which Jesse posts. This is why I question Shanti & Neville's standpoint on the matter, apart from the seed a main attraction of Shanti was that he was a down to earth, caring individual, a genuinely nice man, I still believe this, I want to believe this but I'm asking for clarity as I'm also aware it's easy when business is concerned to present & promote yourself in a positive light that is differnt from a true persona, like Christians that attend church every Sunday yet fail to act in a christian manner during the week, if Shanti & Neville are genuine, caring, spiritual individuals then they will see that for the most part all Jesse does is spread negativity, mostly unfounded allegations, none of this is in the interest of good, it's shit slinging disguised as shoddy pr work on behalf of mr nice seed co

I find it questionable when people come out from the woodwork and ask for forgiveness, tolerance & tranquility, not because I'm against these gestures, far from it, but simply because where are these comments & requests when Jesse is on 1 of the deluded missions, spreading negativity & hatred for all & anything non Shanti/Neville, why are these same members silent when Jesse is openly abusive?
There is a long history of this behavior with this individual going back several years, Jesse's always been the same but it seems is allowed to practice however it see's fit, it only becomes a problem when others question how the negativity spewed by this individual is anything but nice?

Jesse, rather than using chimera as your latest project to try a character assassination on, why don't you return to billy liar's leaving thread where you were very vocal of your feelings & respond to the post I left for you there, I believe you continue to show the same behavior in this thread

I'll go out a limb here & take a wild guess that some use you as a pawn, they may feed you words of encouragement & share in your trolling by providing you with snippets, if this is the case then these same people aren't nice either & are possibly using you to manipulate a situation all the while allowing you to receive the flack while they sit in the shadows, again that's not nice

Hempy, I also group you in with Shanti & Neville, not on achievements or anything like that, that's not intended as an insult, i think you're OK & get the impression that you're passionate about things & you'd actually be a cool cat to sit, smoke & reason with, however your defense of Jesse while commendable for attempting to defend a friend must be questioned.
Why don't you publicly or even privately ask Jesse to refrain from the manner in which Jesse posts? Why only see a need to intervene when Jesse is being held accountable? Are you of the belief that everyone in the canna scene should be held accountable for an individuals distorted notions yet when the same member that casts these allegations is held accountable or brought to task then suddenly it's not nice? A bit negative? Why don't you do your friend a real favor & tell Jesse to pack it in, not the online world, just all the negativity, Why only spread this message to everyone but your friend. Jesse obviously respects Shanti, Neville and yourself & it is my belief that he may actually adhere to your request & give all this negativity a rest. I assure you if that was the case then nothing would be directed at Jesse, everything would be nice, but to expect this individual to be allowed to act in the manner it does & then not be held accountable is wishful thinking to say the least, as Jesse's friend you should take responsibility for these actions if you are in a position to intervene, rather than tapping Jesse on the head and congratulating the negativity & the articles attacking all & sundry & then pulling Jesse to your bosom & trying to shield this member when things get a bit hairy & issues with Jesse are finally being addressed

Despite the user name I'm no expert lol but nor did i just float up the river on a water biscuit, this behavior of Jesse's needs to stop, there's no conspiracy it's just really not nice & shouldn't be tolerated but to suggest its only the people that respond to it that are the problem is bizarre to say the least & a very unusual way of looking at things

best wishes to all
 
Last edited:
It's really sad how the focus of this forum in recent times has become Jesse.

That was a well-written and thought-out post Herbert.

I wish we could forget about Jesse and get back to more important things.

This thread is totally ruined now, there is more in it about Jesse and other beefs people have than fem seeds and that is a shame.
 
Back
Top