Basic genetics explained

[Only Ornamental]

so is synthetic thc the exact same molecule?

Yes it is... unless you're a very esoteric or shamanistic person in which case the synthetic one would lack life energy or something like that. But then again, isolating it via HPLC, preparative or centrifugal TLC, CCC or CPC, open or flash column chromatography, fractional supercritical CO2 extraction, or even liquid-liquid extraction and recrystallisation would also lead to energy loss. Anyway, a spiritual person doesn't think about THC but the whole cannabis plant and certainly wouldn't bother to isolate something from it (apart from simple water or alcohol extraction and alike). Just saying .

 

[rasputin]

G`day Rasputin

Well when some calls me a cock sucker I take offence . [ Tom ]
And when some one self proclaims themselves the Michael Jordan of cannabis [Storm Shadow]...
You think I should button my lip ?

Lunatics running the asylum ?

Thanks for sharin

EB .

Gimme a break, Elmer, will you? Did I say you should never respond? No, so spare me your strawman bullshit.

Did you not respond to Tom already for that 'offense'? Tell me, how many times do you have to respond for that matter to be sufficiently settled? Is it even possible to sufficiently settle that matter on the fucking internet?

As for Storm Shadow claiming he is the MJ of cannabis, so what? Unless you think you're the MJ of cannabis, what the hell do you care what he says? Half the time he says shit like that to rile people up so good job, you fell for it and he played you like a drum.

If you really don't understand the distinction between responding once to address the matter and then droning on for weeks like a whiny bitch then, well, shame on you, frankly. It's obvious to anyone following this thread or the DUD thread that you are beyond beating a dead horse and spending an unhealthy amount of time trolling each of them.

I couldn't help but notice your nonstop posting in the DUD thread calling Storm Shadow out by name, only to have him completely ignore you. It got old, fast, and the only one that didn't seem to notice was you. What a surprise.

Anyway, it must be a nice life you have to be able to spend so much time and energy on ICmag worrying about two guys you've never even met or will likely ever see in your life.

Good job, Elmer. Keep it up. You're really "winning", aren't you?

 

[Only Ornamental]

Call for a mental healer: this thread is mortally ill!

Call for a mental healer: this thread is mortally ill!

This thread is officially cursed, dripping of bad mojo, and attracting digital vermin like a midden blowflies . Has to be linked to the title; as soon as there's mention of breeding, science, or hints of a professional discussion it always goes *BAM!* full facebook style.

Right now, there can be no winner cause everyone looses, especially the poor mod who has to scrub the dirt off... again.

 

[rasputin]

Meh. I've seen worse on this site, OO. Though you are right about the fact threads like this often turn to shit. Not entirely sure why, except that a lot of people on this site fancy themselves as expert plant breeders who have all the answers and anyone who thinks differently than them is an idiot or someone deserving to be trolled endlessly.

Since you brought it up, what is the point of this thread at this stage, anyway? Serious question. The last few pages have been junk and most attempts at discussing plant genetics have come across mostly as mental masturbation instead of someone genuinely interested in having a discussion on basic plant genetics.

I mean, you have people babbling on about things well above and beyond the basic premise of this thread, so much so that another poster said "its basic genetics, not advanced" which, of course, netted a smarmy reply of "its all relative" which translates to "don't you know I'm a genius and as such this is all basic to me?" Yeah, I'm sure that was helpful to someone.



You're right, this thread is fucked.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Pfff... you with your world in black&white and seeing things which aren't really there; comes with the nick, doesn't it? (though, I learned to live with that by now )... but apart from that, I agree with you and, sad as it is, you hit the bull's eye.
I still keep up the good hopes that the thread gets the right turn again.

 

[oldchuck]

Why don't you start a new one, OO?

 

[rasputin]

Actually, I take that back. This thread isn't necessarily doomed. It depends on us, we can trash it if we want or we can turn it around.

So to that end, OO for real... let's discuss something, if you're up for it.

Tom's theory on breeding cannabis like strawberries. Where do you stand on the matter?

I like the French's history with breeding edit: STRAWBERRIES as a parralell for cannabis. Private breeders pursuing their own ideas/visions and seeing what may come. Then again, you can't argue against the success more streamlined programs had in the 40s and 50s for developing disease resistant varieties that consumers preferred for a variety of uses.

I just think we're at a point currently where we can't yet do all of the work necessary to objectively improve the cannabis gene pool yet we know enough to fuck things up royally if we take a wrong turn. I just can't help but think of how early lines were lost and how we collectively have not really 'learned our lesson' as it relates to preserving and maintaining lines and the same fate potentially awaits some of the current cannabis darlings if we don't get our act together.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Let's see what happens to this one first .
Would actually be quite nice if the thread starter could chose (notably, publicly visible) if he wants full mod access to it so he can trash by himself what doesn't fit in his opinion .

@Rasputin: I'm in, just let me eat something first.

 

[Weird]

Well, in one way the problem is perpetuated by both sides,plant/breeding "experts" alike as well as general membership have their focus and their skills focused on plants not people.

It really ruins our capacity to take all the underlying data, anecdotal and otherwise and compile a big data picture.

When "experts" don't stay on topic and go into discussions that offer no real world solutions in the scenarios given by the membership where is the benefit?

True expertise know how to scale and add value to all the appropriate scenarios.

Experts vested into sharing their expertise do so in such a way as to illicit a positive result.

If they aren't they are selling something else, a personal agenda with no mutual benefit for all.

 

[gaiusmarius]

yeah we really don't like to see members calling other members out by name repeatedly, specially when said members have been warned not to engage this kind of postings. keep it to the topic at hand and forget the personalities.

 

[oldchuck]

I just think we're at a point currently where we can't yet do all of the work necessary to objectively improve the cannabis gene pool yet we know enough to fuck things up royally if we take a wrong turn. I just can't help but think of how early lines were lost and how we collectively have not really 'learned our lesson' as it relates to preserving and maintaining lines and the same fate potentially awaits some of the current cannabis darlings if we don't get our act together.

I don't think anything has been "lost." All the genes are still out there now kicking around in ever more interesting combinations.

How old do you think a variety like Panama Red actually is? I would call it a modern variety certainly no older than a few hundred years. This incredibly diverse and flexible species continues to bend and blend with the flow and the desires of its primary predator.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Tom's theory on breeding cannabis like strawberries. Where do you stand on the matter?

Concerning actual breeding, I can't agree with him, but regarding cultivating he's actually quite right I think. The problem with cannabis is the dominance of traits assessed only by subjective preferences like taste, smell, and bag appeal. These factors in turn are highly susceptible to placebo effect, hearsay, marketing, and advertisement. Taste is often learned, we like what our social environment tell us is good. Only a very few things are liked by most (simply put what's scarce in nature: sugar and salt). How does a farmer breed for that? IMHO he doesn't. I see two solutions for him: He hires some dude (king of strawberries ) to advertise his stuff and make it famous or he 'breeds' with already famous things to hit the mainstream.
The majority of the people ready to spend dear money react well to this. I think it's a minority which does appreciate honesty and tradition over that but these are maybe the ones who use their own seeds... money-wise, not necessarily in favour of the breeder.

There's a growing market of 'scientific' breeders but as it appears to me (I can only estimate from afar), most aren't scientists and hence don't realise the full power of their machines. Owing one is easy with the right cash, running it can be learned even online, truly using it though is another chapter. But too often, there's no use to go beyond the basics and some proper advertisement to make the pigeons pick the seeds from your hands. Look for example at the terpene profiles by GHS: For a scientist, they are useless but they work! Meaning, they increase the income and people (like me right now) are talking about it and inadvertently advertise the seedbank (BINGO double-win!).

If we could put all the knowledge found with these profiles (and get a volunteer to sift through all the data and see the bigger picture), there might be a hidden treasure within. But which breeder would give the chance away of salvaging it for himself (and likely fail)? Now that they see that it doesn't work the way they imagined at first and that everybody else does it too, they come up with a new trick, genetic testing.

That said, breeding cannabis IMHO is more like cosmetics . By law (at least in Europe), they can't have a real effect beyond rehydration and pimping the looks because else, they would be regarded as pharmaceutical (i.e. drug). We know that, the cosmetics guys even say so too (had some joint operation with them ), but still, it's one of the biggest markets with tremendous cash flows also into proper scientific research (which is tossed afterwards... but it's a good opportunity for universities to get to some cash, keep the gained knowledge, and get a bit of fame for a publication) when finally, people don't buy beauty and youth but hopes and dreams. There is no way out, humanity can't be changed... we're only common animals (with a distorted perception and fancy ideas).

But back to breeding: I also think that many cannabis breeders, the ones not in for 'pure cash no questions asked' but actual breeders, are those who do it because they like it or because they know how to do it; which makes them farmers. Improving cannabis above that level (which is already great, if you ask me) needs a different angle: a real scientific view. Or in other words, a crop mogul (cause that's the one who can afford all the things which come with it). Certainly, we don't want Monsanto to participate... but judging from other fields it is the logic conclusion ;( .
Some try to do that stuff at home, tissue culture and gene tests, but usually their approach doesn't look much of a strategy, let alone a good one, to me. They may know how to grow a callus in a Petri dish but have no idea why they are doing it (apart from being trendy) nor what they really could achieve with it (no, not artificial seeds). And too often, they ignore the real field they're working in, agriculture, and hence ignore history and what's done with other crops. When did we treat our cannabis plants with mutagens and were officially proud of having done it? Some boast about colchicine though that's no mutagen... and others bitch about gene technology when hearing so, though mutagen use is biotechnology and an accepted and largely employed strategy in plant breeding. Maybe it has been done but nobody mentions it because it is not trendy. At least DJ Short speculated that his Thai line had been subjected to some mutagen treatment but in a way which puts in way into the past and gives it an aura of mystery (= marketing).

I think, for now it's enough. Got to get the dogs out...

 

[Only Ornamental]

I don't think anything has been "lost." All the genes are still out there now kicking around in ever more interesting combinations.

How old do you think a variety like Panama Red actually is? I would call it a modern variety certainly no older than a few hundred years. This incredibly diverse and flexible species continues to bend and blend with the flow and the desires of its primary predator.

Good point!
The heirloom varieties may be lost, but often not the genes... that's sad form a sentimental point of view but by far not the end of the world.

Also, we like to think about lost land races and forget that imported varieties only added to the gene pool what proves beneficial, all the rest gets eliminated very fast especially in extensive cultivations or wild populations. Hence, the land race may be diluted, not lost. Not saying we didn't lose anything... but this is the way human history has been since time immemorial. And we move forward, create bigger and better things, and hope that our children and children's children find a solution for the collateral damage we produced along the way...

 

[Betterhaff]

I wonder if the reference to strawberries (compared to corn) is in reference to how they are grown commercially or how they are actually bred.

From my understanding of breeding strawberries, once parents are selected they are cross bred many, many, many times and the resultant seeds are grown out looking for that outstanding progeny that meets the desired goals. This is partly due to most modern strawberries being octoploid so the results can somewhat be like the lottery. If a select plant is found then it is reproduced asexually (for commercial production). This is with traditional breeding.

 

[Luther Burbank]

What he meant in comparing cannabis and strawberries is that known superior plants are asexually reproduced as cultivars in the same way. It's why he suggests for open pollination - you're not attempting to tie down any trait because the inheritance is too complicated to pick winners that way. The best way is to run sheer numbers and pick out the winner.

 

[Infinitesimal]

What he meant in comparing cannabis and strawberries is that known superior plants are asexually reproduced as cultivars in the same way. It's why he suggests for open pollination - you're not attempting to tie down any trait because the inheritance is too complicated to pick winners that way. The best way is to run sheer numbers and pick out the winner.

that and the point of progeny testing to identify individuals with superior genotypes, since now a days quality phenotypes are a dime a dozen but, do to the complexities in inheritance and the polygenic nature of cannabis traits, the traits expressed by most phenotypes begin to segregate according to mendels law of independent assortment... and why like strawberries the point is to identify and use these relatively rare homozygous dominant individuals that breed true across all the desirable characteristics.

but alas it seems most people on theses boards still don't know the difference between a monohybrid and a (poly)dihybrid cross (super basic ass knowledge)... so generally these breeding threads are doomed aside from the input from a small minority

 

[Luther Burbank]

The major complication with progeny testing is numbers. Prohibition is the barrier now. I dare say when prohibition disappears we'll see some serious work going. More and more my policy is to crash everything together in a trainwreck in preparation for the future.

 

[Infinitesimal]

no doubt, there are already people (collectives and dispensaries) in medical states running large numbers as far as fed mandatory minimums are concerned, but they are more focused on production and revenue than advancing cannabis...

but yeah I agree, the future is bright... I just hope; that passion and knowledge are able to trump the greed, and we can see some real breeding being done... and show the people how it is supposed to be.

 

[Luther Burbank]

I hope so too, man. That said, greed is one hell of a motivating factor and I wouldn't be surprised if we see big money doing some serious numbers and making what will have to be admitted to be headway. I just hope the rest of us can keep our heads afloat with them.

 

[ozza]

Yes it is... unless you're a very esoteric or shamanistic person in which case the synthetic one would lack life energy or something like that. But then again, isolating it via HPLC, preparative or centrifugal TLC, CCC or CPC, open or flash column chromatography, fractional supercritical CO2 extraction, or even liquid-liquid extraction and recrystallisation would also lead to energy loss. Anyway, a spiritual person doesn't think about THC but the whole cannabis plant and certainly wouldn't bother to isolate something from it (apart from simple water or alcohol extraction and alike). Just saying .

Spagyrics? just saying.