100% male with feminized seeds?

[igrowone]

mighty interesting article, is it a one-off?
probably not, just my humble opinion
actually seems to jibe with some observations I've seen posted here on IC

 

[Tynehead Tom]

I would like to get my hands on OGKushBush's cut of OGKB and self that bitch and see what happens.
If the results don't match the line I have here derived from ogkb bagseed then maybe i was stray pollen.
If the results match the line I have..... well it just opens up things to ponder now doesn't it.
The fact that the line behaves like a well bred IBL is what really throws me. If it was stray pollen it would show in the numbers of plants run by the percentages.
I've reversed the ogkb 2.0 clone...... no males yet , just real nice ladies.

 

[CharlesU Farley]

Shantibaba is selling NL5 fems nowadays, found that pretty interesting.

I saw that recently on the Mr Nice Forum and it disappoints me... profoundly, to be honest with you. Unfortunately, intentional feminization is now the norm and even this old dinosaur understands the reasons for both the sellers and growers to be interested in not having to deal with males.

Whatever's easiest and fastest to get you what you want, in the least possible time, is today's marketing mantra.

But it _astounds_ me that Shanti would use the specific #5 . If there's one thing that I've learned through many years of tracking down the origins of Northern Lights, it's that the #5 that was the foundational _plant_ for Nevil was, indeed a unicorn. If Nevil couldn't source a verifiable #5 in 2010, then absolutely no one else can either. Especially now, with all the marketing hoopla and bullshit that's being bombarded in every possible media outlet for growing cannabis.

For me, the only company that has the certified, genetic material of #5 is Sensi, and that's a fucking fact.

 

[goingrey]

I saw that recently on the Mr Nice Forum and it disappoints me... profoundly, to be honest with you. Unfortunately, intentional feminization is now the norm and even this old dinosaur understands the reasons for both the sellers and growers to be interested in not having to deal with males.

Whatever's easiest and fastest to get you what you want, in the least possible time, is today's marketing mantra.

But it _astounds_ me that Shanti would use the specific #5 . If there's one thing that I've learned through many years of tracking down the origins of Northern Lights, it's that the #5 that was the foundational _plant_ for Nevil was, indeed a unicorn. If Nevil couldn't source a verifiable #5 in 2010, then absolutely no one else can either. Especially now, with all the marketing hoopla and bullshit that's being bombarded in every possible media outlet for growing cannabis.

For me, the only company that has the certified, genetic material of #5 is Sensi, and that's a fucking fact.

I think it's pretty cool. Especially if it genuinely is an S1 of the old NL5 clone. Could even be considered a major contribution culturally then. But not sure if it is, info on the site is scarce.

He is even selling 1000 packs, maybe one of them would be the one-in-a-thousand male. 1200 EUR, not too bad.

 

[CharlesU Farley]

I think it's pretty cool. Especially if it genuinely is an S1 of the old NL5 clone.

As much as I respect Shanti and know that his heart is in the right place, I can't believe he is selling a feminized #5.

Just like with NL Seattle Greg, it's all in the mystique and marketing of Northern Lights. I have no problems whatsoever with them wanting to make money off of the hard work they did, but anyone saying they have _specific_ numbers of Northern Lights is either totally deluded or marketing bullshit to make money.

For Boomers, By Boomers, For Money.

I stand by my assertion that if Nevil could not obtain the #5 that he felt was so special and is one of the foundations of modern cannabis, then _nobody_ can... even Shanti.

 

[CharlesU Farley]

Shantibaba is selling NL5 fems nowadays, found that pretty interesting.

Sorry for temporarily jacking the thread, looks like it was dying anyway, but just found this out and remembered goingrey's post in this thread.


It looks like Shanti is selling feminized NL5 but is not claiming it is his or Nevil's, he made it from someone else's seeds:

I have no earthly idea who contracted with him to produce NL5 feminized seeds but the naming of a specific number of NL (especially a _feminized_ version of NL5) simply reeks of Boomer marketing.

Seeing that post makes me sad because he doesn't make that distinction on his website.

 

[Verdant Whisperer]

I have a male seed going that came from female clones only of old school blue satilitte that they grow in columbia and export as their sin-semilla brick. its almost done with its life cycle. it has that dominant lemon and industrial cleaner smell. I crossed it with a central american brick i think is either mexican or manga rosa, not sure all the 3 females i had where different in strucrure but had similiar smells in the sense they where all sweet and tropical, and lacked a gassy or skunky smell. and with a 3 kings domiant sative female of a 3 kings x williams wonder f1 it was cool finding this thead making me feel better about the male. that its possible for good seeds even know it came from most likely fem seed. feel pretty lucky as ive only grown less than 25 fem plants total and to find a male in such a sought after strain here is cool. unfortunately that was my only seed from the blue satillite so i can't make the pure line. but if i find another i might cross the central american x blue satillite back into a female blue satillite. but probably not as i have alot more seeds to grow eventually.

 

[mudballs]

Thought you were going crazy didnt you? Lol

 

[Verdant Whisperer]

Thought you were going crazy didnt you? Lol

funny story honestly, i was so sure it was a female, i told my son it was his plant, and i am not allowed to cull it for this reason or he will be upset and i want him to have positive experiences gardening not horrified when dad chops down his big plant ya know. so this male was lucky, or maybe im the lucky one for not culling it, i don't mind only using 3 plants for a small bit of bubble hash, and having some seeds to gift friends. but next plants will be only lightly seeded the orissas i got going, with original line male if i can find one. orissa seems to be one of those funky lines from what i've heard with high female population.

 

[kendermag]

Hi, I am posting this message because I have just come across a real male with feminized seeds by surprise and I would like to know if it is viable to be used to make seeds, what would happen? Will I have regular seeds or will they be feminized? Because two females give exclusively female offspring but the 1% chance of having a male remains very rare... and is it special? I have trouble understanding how with female chromosomes I can have a male, is it a pure male? It’s such a shame, I’m giving all my hope to this plant, it’s magnificent and growing super fast, I really wanted to keep it for its spectacular growth.

(it's a real male and not a hermaphrodite, no pistil, only male organs for pre-flowers)

It is not common, but it is perfectly possible.
Of course I would keep it, let it flower and then revegetate it... This stress is a good test of its sexual stability, if during revegetation it shows any pistil, it would show that it is not too stable.

Otherwise he has a good chance of being a good male.
If it comes from an S1 and the mother was quite stabilized (highly homozygous), it could be a good candidate to give fairly homogeneous offspring. Self-pollinations are equivalent to several generations of traditional crosses (female / male) so this male would have very similar genetics to his sisters.

I have never found a male in feminized seeds, but I do know friends who have, and the result has been regular seeds with very homogeneous offspring.

 

[GMT]

Ask someone who believes this nonsense, what their level of understanding of genetics is. I promise, they don't have one. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please post your bullshit on how the Y chromosome appears out of thin air, or admit you're woke.

 

[kendermag]

Ask someone who believes this nonsense, what their level of understanding of genetics is. I promise, they don't have one. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please post your bullshit on how the Y chromosome appears out of thin air, or admit you're woke.

Genetics is a science that is still very unknown, and even more so in Cannabis.
It is full of exceptions, they are very difficult to explain, so almost all studies conclude with phrases like "more research is necessary."

Thousands of PCRs would have to be done to find just one case. Even so, there are some studies that address this type of inconsistency:

Why not XY? Male monoecious sexual phenotypes challenge the female monoecious paradigm in Cannabis sativa L.

In any case, the feminized industry makes it clear, 0.1 - 1% can be male, and this is amply evidenced in the forums.

It could be a chromosomal mutation, who knows.

First there are the facts and then there are the theories. The theory has to be adapted to the facts, and not the other way around.

 

[GMT]

To answer the question in bold, I could simply say, why not unicorns? But it's because the Y chromosome silences the X associated genes in the autosome. This Y chromosome would need a serious mutation that makes it ineffective in order to become a male Hermie. That is however irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which is when two females breed, where is the Y coming from? To say it just does and there's evidence on the forums, well I think my point is demonstrated.

 

[kendermag]

To answer the question in bold, I could simply say, why not unicorns? But it's because the Y chromosome silences the X associated genes in the autosome. This Y chromosome would need a serious mutation that makes it ineffective in order to become a male Hermie. That is however irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which is when two females breed, where is the Y coming from? To say it just does and there's evidence on the forums, well I think my point is demonstrated.

There is numerous literature that says that monoecious hemp has a tendency to return to their natural dioecious state.
Of course it could be due to accidental pollination, or due to the existence of a monoecious XY genotype, or for some other reason.

The same could apply to our feminized seeds, it could be due to accidental pollination, or even the use of an XY plant that behaves like a female plant.
But I am not referring to these cases, my faith in this possibility is based on the fact that dioecious plants have a hermaphroditic origin, and the transformation from monoecious to dioecious has happened many times and independently.
And in the same way that hermaphrodite vestiges remain in the DNA that allow us to have feminized seeds, there could also be vestiges that allow this transformation from monoecious to dioecious.
I think it could perfectly be a survival mechanism to avoid inbreeding of the monoecious system.

On the other hand, I don't think we have a definitive theory about the sexual determinism of cannabis either.

It is my opinion, and perhaps an act of faith, I am not trying to convince you or anyone.

 

[CharlesU Farley]

There is numerous literature that says that monoecious crops have a tendency to return to their natural dioecious state.
Of course it could be due to accidental pollination, or due to the existence of a monoecious XY genotype, or for some other reason.

The same could apply to our feminized seeds, it could be due to accidental pollination, or even the use of an XY plant that behaves like a female plant.
But I am not referring to these cases, my faith in this possibility is based on the fact that dioecious plants have a hermaphroditic origin, and the transformation from monoecious to dioecious has happened many times and independently.
And in the same way that hermaphrodite vestiges remain in the DNA that allow us to have feminized plants, there could also be vestiges that allow this transformation from monoecious to dioecious.
I think it could perfectly be a survival mechanism to avoid inbreeding of the monoecious system.

On the other hand, I don't think we have a definitive theory about the sexual determinism of cannabis either.

It is my opinion, and perhaps an act of faith, I am not trying to convince you or anyone.

You are a breath of fresh air, new member. I'm a relative FNG here myself but you are welcome addition on ICM!

"On the other hand, I don't think we have a definitive theory about the sexual determinism of cannabis either."

Something some participants in this thread probably don't understand.

Welcome, fellow FNG.

 

[kendermag]

You are a breath of fresh air, new member. I'm a relative FNG here myself but you are welcome addition on ICM!

"On the other hand, I don't think we have a definitive theory about the sexual determinism of cannabis either."

Something some participants in this thread probably don't understand.

Welcome, fellow FNG.

I have had a hard time finding the meaning of FNG

Thank you very much!!

 

[kendermag]

Without wanting to get into heated discussions, I end with this reflection that I have for myself.

I understand that those who do not believe that the appearance of a male is possible, think that the 0.1% exceptions of feminized seeds refer to the appearance of "pure" hermaphrodite (or monoecious) plants, that is, they produce sacs without any stress.

I suppose you also believe in the possibility that this monoecious plant had a very masculine expression, let's say a grade 1 on the Sengbusch scale:

That is to say, it would apparently be a male, but it would have XX chromosomes.

Taking into account that Cannabis is a predominantly dioecious plant, but not strictly dioecious, my question is: Where is the line that separates dioecious and monoecious in this plant?

Maybe there are pure females (and pure males), there I would see that separating line. But the truth is that with both regular and feminized seeds, the probability of monoecious offspring is there, no matter how low it may be.

And I mean under optimal growing conditions, with minimal stress... because I am clear that with certain stress, that probability is much higher than 0.1%.

I find the following study very interesting, where they treat sexual determinism as a quantitative trait:

Sex chromosomes and quantitative sex expression in monoecious hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)

"The monoecious state presents a continuous distribution between the male and female extreme phenotypes (Bocsa and Karus 1998), and the multiplication of monoecious hemp seeds requires a strict elimination of the sporadically occurring dioecious male plants in order to prevent a gradual return to the dioecy."

I also find interesting its extended scale over Sengbusch.

From this point of view, it is difficult for me to see the differentiating line between dioecious and monoecious.

 

[GMT]

1. You can't use studies on hemp to prove a cannabis point.
2. You are confusing active Y with X to autosome.
3. Only active Y has males. If you think otherwise, congratulations you're woke.

 

[ojd]

Ask someone who believes this nonsense, what their level of understanding of genetics is. I promise, they don't have one. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please post your bullshit on how the Y chromosome appears out of thin air, or admit you're woke.

I couldn't explain to you how or why it happens, buts it's 100% proven these days with EVERY well known Feminized seed breeder has experience this after making 1000's of Feminized seeds over many years

 

[kendermag]

1. You can't use studies on hemp to prove a cannabis point.

Why not? Only the traits change due to the different breeding objectives, the specie (or subspecies) is exactly the same.

I think it's the best way to zoom in on that 0.1%

Monoecious varieties were created precisely by breeding those hermaphroditic/monoecious rarities that sporadically arise from natural dioecious varieties.

This is how Neuer, Sengbusch and others managed to stabilize this trait in Fibrimon... they took a direction opposite to ours, they "amplified" a trait that for us is very undesirable.

This is why I don't understand that you tell me that I can't use studies on hemp to prove a cannabis point.
This thread is talking about that 0.1% of rarities, and I can't think of a better source of knowledge about this phenomenon, than studies of monoecious hemp.