-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
~Cannafornia Style~◆Area51~Kiddie Pool PPK◆VERT~Evolution~
- Thread starter DamnUglyDogE
- Start date
Straight back to the couch my good man
Oh more dabs then, OK.
SRGB
Member
Cannafornia:
Time to put this handle away and see if it grows on me.
Im kinda wanting my own identity at this point...
I mean...
When im just having fun and learning any name is all good...
Once you start asking people to help test your gear out and work on crosses with many common strain names..
Not only do I take a chance of running into issue with fans of the common name. (Haters simply because of the handle)
I expose others to said issues...
This weighs heavy on my mind as of late...
That and I happen to be growing and have seeded Alien O.G. and she is a great looking tasting and great head high that lead to a couch. One unique strain to say the least...
But...
How do I do anything with it or Lemon dawg or any of the other dozens Alien & Dawg strains/crosses out there...
And... Not look like im clamming this or that...
Do I not use it or them at all... IDK... Thats a option... Lots of golden strains I can play with...
Anyways... Im just thinking/typing out loud...
Hi, Cannafornia.
You appear to be at an interesting crossroads relevant to your genetic experiments. If others have devoted
time and energy towards developing a specific work, or simply stumbled upon specific qualities they endeavored to
preserve, perhaps attribution for the work of others might be continued. It is not the `name` necessarily being preserved,
but the respect for others that might have worked to preserve or improve characteristics of a thing they found interesting.
It might be advantageous to define a scope, or mission, for your work. Is your work based on `improving` existing
genetic lines, or developing `new` lines. Both might be within your scope. There might be rewards in `improving` a
thing, as well as developing a thing from `scratch`. Both directions might have their place, in most fields of endeavor.
The key item for the experimenter to acknowledge might be recognizing, or deciding which scope they might be working
in, and accurately conveying that scope to fellow experimenters - for accuracy in future experiments.
It might be an option to preserve those orginal `names` to preserve respectful attribution for those that may have
done previous work on those genetics. It might be advantageous to consider a response that you might have to
others changing the `names` of your work.
The previous experimenters endeavored to preserve whatever they found, whether that process
may have been incidental, or precisely scientific. In either instance, the previous experimenter did the(ir) work. Such
work might be considered, and perhaps not omitted or discarded.
A possible experimental option for blind development of your own works might be to take sample populations from
each of the genetics that you have acquired, perhaps five to ten of each. Perhaps mix them up in a cup or jar, so the
initial sowing is `blind`. From the sample popuplation, perhaps, choose a single male and a single female for a `new`
line. If the experimenter had worked with the same lines a few occasions, they might be able to glean the traits of the lines once they reach a certain stage, and be able to associate it with a specific `name`, however, that is only the first part of the
experiment.
Relevant to `new` genetic experimentation and development, a `blind` population of a sample groups, mixed and
unsorted might be an optional start point. The larger the population, the better, yet it could be as small as forty-nine
or so. From that sample group, after taking a cutting from each and moving through the entire season, perhaps
selecting only a single female and a single male for development of a `new` genetic convergence, perhaps discarding
the `unselected`. Even if the characteristics from the parents might be gleaned during this, if the initial population was
`mixed` and `blind`, it might then be, perhaps, scientifically ethical to `name` the work whatever you desire. Selection
might be the work. For that work, honoring the `name` of that selection, or `selected name` might be part of the reward
for the `work`.
From the`selected` single female and single male from the larger population, an experimenter might have filtered 96%
of the original population, having `selected` approximately 4% of the population for continued experiments; whether that
future scope be variance exploration, or stabilizing projects. In any event, that amount of `work` froma `blind` mixed and
unsorted (relatively `small`) population, might lead to progeny from those converged genetics that might be open for a
`new` `name`, as there would be minimal weight given to the selection process based on the `name` of the original
stock of the population.
The resultant progeny of the `new` genetic line might be open for any `name` that you might choose, as you would
have _began_ work on the `start` of the `new` line. From there, the experimenter might further continue the process with
successive `generations` of the progeny of the original `blind` experiment. That is, for example, from forty-nine of the
litter from the first round of experiments, perhaps selecting only two from that population - for stability of the `new` genetic
combination. Or, perhaps increasing the selection process to four specimen, or two females and two males, if exploring for
variation or `sports`.
In any event, after experimenting with such a process, the experimenter might, perhaps, come to better appreciate
the `art` , `craft` or `work`commonly refered to as `selection`. And further, IF some genetic expression of significant
distinctiveness might be `found` through selection of desired traits, and the experimenter decided to `name` that cultivar,
they might well appreciate the continued attribution conveyed with the `selected` `name`, following a year or several
of `work` on `selection`.
The above is not intended to diminish the `work` of simply working with `snmaller` populations for experimental development,
even if the inital population might be only two. It is nearly impossible to `predict` how genes might recombine and express
themselves in specific traits, even if controls may be placed on the process. `Sports`, or `variation` apperas in nature - naturally.
If an experimenter might `feel` as though use of `new` names for established genetics may not be appropriate for all, a
possible solution might be to perform a complete cycle of `work` on a genetic line to the depth that the resultant progeny
might be considered `worked` by that experimenter.
It might be that not all experimenters will `agree` on what constitutes `new`, `improved`, or other matters. However, if the
experimenter themselves did the `work` on the genetic line, they at least _should_ be able to `create`, or `add` their own form
of attribution relating to `their` work - if the experiments were actaully completed in earnest. The same process might also
give rise to greater appreciation for previous experimenters` work - and resepct for the `name(s)` they may have selected for
those individual `things`. At the close of the day, regardless of any others` interpretation of `your work`, _you (would) have done the work_ -
and that might be the `thing` that none can alter and may offer the most golden rewards - irrespective of at large interpretation of
the work.
This post is not necessarily about any specific topic, just some possible considerations for experimenters in any field of endeavor; posted here in the hope that it might be helpful.
Best,
/SRGB/
Time to put this handle away and see if it grows on me.
Im kinda wanting my own identity at this point...
I mean...
When im just having fun and learning any name is all good...
Once you start asking people to help test your gear out and work on crosses with many common strain names..
Not only do I take a chance of running into issue with fans of the common name. (Haters simply because of the handle)
I expose others to said issues...
This weighs heavy on my mind as of late...
That and I happen to be growing and have seeded Alien O.G. and she is a great looking tasting and great head high that lead to a couch. One unique strain to say the least...
But...
How do I do anything with it or Lemon dawg or any of the other dozens Alien & Dawg strains/crosses out there...
And... Not look like im clamming this or that...
Do I not use it or them at all... IDK... Thats a option... Lots of golden strains I can play with...
Anyways... Im just thinking/typing out loud...
Hi, Cannafornia.
You appear to be at an interesting crossroads relevant to your genetic experiments. If others have devoted
time and energy towards developing a specific work, or simply stumbled upon specific qualities they endeavored to
preserve, perhaps attribution for the work of others might be continued. It is not the `name` necessarily being preserved,
but the respect for others that might have worked to preserve or improve characteristics of a thing they found interesting.
It might be advantageous to define a scope, or mission, for your work. Is your work based on `improving` existing
genetic lines, or developing `new` lines. Both might be within your scope. There might be rewards in `improving` a
thing, as well as developing a thing from `scratch`. Both directions might have their place, in most fields of endeavor.
The key item for the experimenter to acknowledge might be recognizing, or deciding which scope they might be working
in, and accurately conveying that scope to fellow experimenters - for accuracy in future experiments.
It might be an option to preserve those orginal `names` to preserve respectful attribution for those that may have
done previous work on those genetics. It might be advantageous to consider a response that you might have to
others changing the `names` of your work.
The previous experimenters endeavored to preserve whatever they found, whether that process
may have been incidental, or precisely scientific. In either instance, the previous experimenter did the(ir) work. Such
work might be considered, and perhaps not omitted or discarded.
A possible experimental option for blind development of your own works might be to take sample populations from
each of the genetics that you have acquired, perhaps five to ten of each. Perhaps mix them up in a cup or jar, so the
initial sowing is `blind`. From the sample popuplation, perhaps, choose a single male and a single female for a `new`
line. If the experimenter had worked with the same lines a few occasions, they might be able to glean the traits of the lines once they reach a certain stage, and be able to associate it with a specific `name`, however, that is only the first part of the
experiment.
Relevant to `new` genetic experimentation and development, a `blind` population of a sample groups, mixed and
unsorted might be an optional start point. The larger the population, the better, yet it could be as small as forty-nine
or so. From that sample group, after taking a cutting from each and moving through the entire season, perhaps
selecting only a single female and a single male for development of a `new` genetic convergence, perhaps discarding
the `unselected`. Even if the characteristics from the parents might be gleaned during this, if the initial population was
`mixed` and `blind`, it might then be, perhaps, scientifically ethical to `name` the work whatever you desire. Selection
might be the work. For that work, honoring the `name` of that selection, or `selected name` might be part of the reward
for the `work`.
From the`selected` single female and single male from the larger population, an experimenter might have filtered 96%
of the original population, having `selected` approximately 4% of the population for continued experiments; whether that
future scope be variance exploration, or stabilizing projects. In any event, that amount of `work` froma `blind` mixed and
unsorted (relatively `small`) population, might lead to progeny from those converged genetics that might be open for a
`new` `name`, as there would be minimal weight given to the selection process based on the `name` of the original
stock of the population.
The resultant progeny of the `new` genetic line might be open for any `name` that you might choose, as you would
have _began_ work on the `start` of the `new` line. From there, the experimenter might further continue the process with
successive `generations` of the progeny of the original `blind` experiment. That is, for example, from forty-nine of the
litter from the first round of experiments, perhaps selecting only two from that population - for stability of the `new` genetic
combination. Or, perhaps increasing the selection process to four specimen, or two females and two males, if exploring for
variation or `sports`.
In any event, after experimenting with such a process, the experimenter might, perhaps, come to better appreciate
the `art` , `craft` or `work`commonly refered to as `selection`. And further, IF some genetic expression of significant
distinctiveness might be `found` through selection of desired traits, and the experimenter decided to `name` that cultivar,
they might well appreciate the continued attribution conveyed with the `selected` `name`, following a year or several
of `work` on `selection`.
The above is not intended to diminish the `work` of simply working with `snmaller` populations for experimental development,
even if the inital population might be only two. It is nearly impossible to `predict` how genes might recombine and express
themselves in specific traits, even if controls may be placed on the process. `Sports`, or `variation` apperas in nature - naturally.
If an experimenter might `feel` as though use of `new` names for established genetics may not be appropriate for all, a
possible solution might be to perform a complete cycle of `work` on a genetic line to the depth that the resultant progeny
might be considered `worked` by that experimenter.
It might be that not all experimenters will `agree` on what constitutes `new`, `improved`, or other matters. However, if the
experimenter themselves did the `work` on the genetic line, they at least _should_ be able to `create`, or `add` their own form
of attribution relating to `their` work - if the experiments were actaully completed in earnest. The same process might also
give rise to greater appreciation for previous experimenters` work - and resepct for the `name(s)` they may have selected for
those individual `things`. At the close of the day, regardless of any others` interpretation of `your work`, _you (would) have done the work_ -
and that might be the `thing` that none can alter and may offer the most golden rewards - irrespective of at large interpretation of
the work.
This post is not necessarily about any specific topic, just some possible considerations for experimenters in any field of endeavor; posted here in the hope that it might be helpful.
Best,
/SRGB/
I truly am...
I have come to recognize a opportunity for a
( Win ~ Win ) approach to achieve my personal goals...
Perhaps even being able to give back
to the community that has given me
their time,knowledge and understanding
of how to grow marijuana and truly see
this plant as something special.
Worthy of my time/energy and capable
of great rewards(Not talking $) and challenges...
How awesome is ICMAG ...
How awesome are 99% of those that will read this...
~I have a troll~
100% of you rock,even you buddy...
Heart felt thank you to all...
MY thinking as well... Spot on...
I have tried to convey my goals as...
1) Use the making of crosses to learn the skills needed and gain
grow under my belt,so as to understand what I am both seeing and wanting to see or chase in a particular strain(Through breeding)
2) Create a gene pool from which I can begin my work.
3) Year 6- Begin working on a line for myself and hone needed skills.
Thinking this will be a 3 year journey...
From there _ Who knows... Chase CBD's or Chase a 7 week pure sativa...
Not really thinking beyond the next 3 years... I seem to have a hard time clearly conveying certain subjects.
Could be... I just have dank weed...
There by, I get to stoned to make sense 100% of the time... Reading my mind... I feel (when creating crosses)the prior work needs it due recognition and respect goes to the prior breeders whom created the mom and pop..
My year 6 in a nutshell...
I was missing the "Blind" aspect and very much appreciate you providing this missing piece...
I have wondered how one claims a line...
Pure gold....
Nature keeps things interesting....
Food for thought...
Everyone has an opinion...
Every strain available has been touch by more than one set of hands. (Would be my opinion)
Every word matters in laying out lineage of ones work...
Words to live by...
Right back at you...
I cant believe she stood back up...
That stem was crunched really good...
These are some tuff chicks...
Topped the male once again.
That stem was crunched really good...
These are some tuff chicks...
Topped the male once again.
I dont know about these beans..
Really thick shell and I used my teeth to crack em and soaked for 36 hours...
Well see and into the side of BH#1 smart pot...
Not really doing anything here... Im just playing a round a little and these seeds still show a touch of green...
On another note...
Remember this one..
An amazing plant...
This thing fell over in the yard for at least 3 days - out of the container yet in the shade and receiving daily mist.
Found it and tossed it in the closet and Bam... Growing...
Talked the girlfriend into growing a lady and this will be her show girl.
Going to have her re~pot this into a PPK smart pot and bury the stem right up to the bottom leaf...
Can you imagine the root system this lady is going to have...
I wonder which of the 4 crosses she is...
I imagine well be able to tell in a couple month... This is a keeper whether Fem or male...
I got to think its Kong due to strength....
Really thick shell and I used my teeth to crack em and soaked for 36 hours...
Well see and into the side of BH#1 smart pot...
Not really doing anything here... Im just playing a round a little and these seeds still show a touch of green...
On another note...
Remember this one..
An amazing plant...
This thing fell over in the yard for at least 3 days - out of the container yet in the shade and receiving daily mist.
Found it and tossed it in the closet and Bam... Growing...
Talked the girlfriend into growing a lady and this will be her show girl.
Going to have her re~pot this into a PPK smart pot and bury the stem right up to the bottom leaf...
Can you imagine the root system this lady is going to have...
I wonder which of the 4 crosses she is...
I imagine well be able to tell in a couple month... This is a keeper whether Fem or male...
I got to think its Kong due to strength....
P
postal trout
Very interesting. i like your set up. hope you dont mind me tagging along.
Welcome to the pool party P. T ...
Grab a jar and bucket and enjoy the ladies. .
.
D
DaveTheNewbie
i thought each of those was a swimming pool PPK for a sec and shit myself.
then i saw the CFLs and realised it was a smaller setup
For tonight's show.. I thought... Purple....
A little Kong and Alien OG...
P
postal trout
What pheno and what seed company is that from? I saw your running testers
P
postal trout
chemdog that is
CD is from the same local breeder as are 5 other strains...
Chem Dawg-
Chemdawg D x Sensi's Hindu Kush
The Chemdawg Crosses
'OG Kush' (the original cut)
came from an s1 from in a bag of - 91 Chemdawg in the Lake Tahoe area in 1996.
'Sour Diesel' aka ECSD came from an accidental cross of ('91 Chemdawg x Mass Super Skunk/NL)x DNL
after the DNL hermed and seeded the room.
The DNL's lineage is NL/Shiva x Hawaiian.
Original Diesel' (also known as Diesel #1, Headband, Daywrecker Diesel, Underdawg)
came from a cross of '91 Chemdawg x (Mass Super Skunk x Sensi's Northern Lights)
done by a guy known as ‘weasel’. 'chemdog' and friends made several crosses that are held closely
by a small group of friends and acquaintances.
These crosses included
Chemdawg D x Sensi's Hindu Kush
Oh.. I have testers running of 4 stains and I am testing one of my own crosses... Border Haze...
Chem Dawg-
Chemdawg D x Sensi's Hindu Kush
The Chemdawg Crosses
'OG Kush' (the original cut)
came from an s1 from in a bag of - 91 Chemdawg in the Lake Tahoe area in 1996.
'Sour Diesel' aka ECSD came from an accidental cross of ('91 Chemdawg x Mass Super Skunk/NL)x DNL
after the DNL hermed and seeded the room.
The DNL's lineage is NL/Shiva x Hawaiian.
Original Diesel' (also known as Diesel #1, Headband, Daywrecker Diesel, Underdawg)
came from a cross of '91 Chemdawg x (Mass Super Skunk x Sensi's Northern Lights)
done by a guy known as ‘weasel’. 'chemdog' and friends made several crosses that are held closely
by a small group of friends and acquaintances.
These crosses included
Chemdawg D x Sensi's Hindu Kush
Oh.. I have testers running of 4 stains and I am testing one of my own crosses... Border Haze...
Speaking of...
She will be seeded...
Only thing is she is only getting plain water ATM as im flushing the pools...
So far so good...
She will be seeded...
Only thing is she is only getting plain water ATM as im flushing the pools... So far so good...
I need to find more info on this He/she Ga3 (Thing)
Kinda afraid to post it in the breeder section... lol
Going to give it a shot though...
I understand the Dj short Male with female flowers but cant seem to find a picture...
Has anyone seen this before ? Remember it was hit with Ga3...
This is a proven male....
Kinda afraid to post it in the breeder section... lol
Going to give it a shot though...
I understand the Dj short Male with female flowers but cant seem to find a picture...
Has anyone seen this before ? Remember it was hit with Ga3...
This is a proven male....
