What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Male clones transformed to Female to judge male smoking quality

Cannabologist

Active member
Veteran
Your studies wouldn't probably be published these days. They're fairly archaic. They're from the 20's and 30's. Look to the molecular marker studies of today if you want to understand the sex determination system in cannabis. And remember drug cultivars aren't exactly hemp. Most of hemp lines are monoecious.

You're idea of using intersexed individuals to create gynoecious releases hasn't worked out. It is breeding TOWARDS intersex not females only...
- Yes, the studies are very old, I made mention of that.

- I do not feel this means they lack significance for growers in the 21st century; these studies represent some of the first study ever done of the kind. Of course there will be flaws and misstatements, and plenty that we now know that they didn’t nearly 90 years ago.

- My post was not concerning observations upon the sex determination system in Cannabis, it was to give old and unknown information about simple (organic) methodology, techniques using photoperiod and temperature, that can be used to force plants to intersex (and theoretically create all female F1, F2, and so on, seed populations).

- I find it quite interesting that certain scientists had figured out how to create all female seed lines of Cannabis in the early 1900s, but I hear plenty of BS in Cannabis communities about how certain individuals invented XYZ techniques to make female seeds. Schaffner as far as we can tell did it too, did it first, and kept it organic; All I’m saying is god bless that man, ok :D?

- I feel this information is quite relevant to the thread, and is a proven technique using simple environmental manipulations to force males and females alike to bear intersex inflorescenes.

- The technique works whether the individuals are male or female or generally bear intersex flowers or not; if I read correctly usually upwards of 90% of dioecious plants will bear intersex flowers via the technique.

- The technique is not necessarily breeding towards intersex, but using environmental stress factors to force plants to intersex. The gene that will pass on the sexual phenotype is within the gametes of an individual which are highly mutable; whether a plant intersexes or not is no guarantee that you will pass on intersex genes or not (but using individuals that intersex regardless of extreme environmental stress for breeding will breed towards intersex individuals because we know the genes are there, there will be an extremely high likelihood of passing on the trait), again given the data any population up to 90% of the individuals can intersex (using this particular stress technique) but typically only bear flowers of one sex under normal light regimens.

- In turn, you could use this method to select out individuals which will intersex (which study shows will comprise up to 90% of any particular Cannabis population) and work towards a strong regimen of trying to breed out the intersex trait in your cultivar.

- With the techniques given in the paper, you could take males, alter the photoperiod and drop the temperature, and force them to bear female flowers which could then be smoke tested for potency qualities. There are zero chemicals involved in forcing intersex, so only what you put in is what you will get out in this experiment.

- There are no additional costs to the grower; you just have to alter your particular environment as described and run your experiment to see if it works.

- Remember, this technique isn’t changing the genes of an individual, or the genes it will pass on. It will either pass on intersex genes or not (and seems this study shows that in any given population, 90% of the individuals will have the ability to intersex ;-)!). Are these studies numbers accurate? I will work under the assumption that they are, given the data and lack of evidence to the contrary (and anecdotally, I find this true in general for Cannabis populations and an individuals’ ability to intersex).

- Also the gametes of an individual are highly susceptible to mutations, so you could breed out intersex traits but always have a random mutation along the way, especially if inbreeding a cultivar for a long time. But even out-breeding will have the same drawback in the acquisition of new genes and thus intersexing phenotypes, so you are kind of fucked either way ;).

-FYI Cannabis is dioecious, I don’t know where you hear that most hemp lines are monoecious, as far as I know, this is not the case. Drug and hemp Cannabis IS Cannabis sativa.

- If any particular Cannabis cultivar is monoecious, it is because that particular phenotype has been selected for either artificially or naturally.

- This technique isn’t using “naturally” intersexing individuals at all; it is forcing a non-intersex individual, either a pistillate or staminate plant, to bear staminate or pistillate inflorescenes respectively. The data given shows in any given population you will find that upwards of 90% of the individuals can be forced to bear flowers of both sexes. Your conclusion is spurious.

- There is nothing about breeding towards intersex individuals, you are breeding with females (or males) you have forced to intersex. I don’t know how you come to your conclusion.

- Alternatively as previously stated, you could force a population to intersex and select out all the individuals (the 90%) that do intersex, and breed with the 10% of the population that seems to not intersex under these particularly stressful environmental conditions. But remember that will not guarantee an intersex-free population, but it is one technique to breed towards this goal and ensure a high proportion of individuals that cannot intersex under any condition ;)
 

GreenintheThumb

fuck the ticket, bought the ride
Veteran
If you're breeding with intersex individuals you are selecting for intersex traits. Traits that most find detrimental to our drug pool. Why don't you look up how it worked out for Soma? Shit, even he doesn't use this method anymore.\


"- This technique isn’t using “naturally” intersexing individuals at all; it is forcing a non-intersex individual, either a pistillate or staminate plant, to bear staminate or pistillate inflorescenes respectively."

>>>You can't "force" a non-intersex individual to reverse sex without chemical/hormone treatments. If the plant reverses it IS an intersex individual.
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
I feel there is a huge gray area that is worthy of selection, and nor should we be so naive as to hold solely fast to what may have worked for some outdoor trip long ago. Better subject them to some amateur scenarios for rejection if they are to be grown indoors. But to select nothing but those that don't flip under heavy conditions must surely be a squandering of material too. There is just no way any of this is black and white - no way. Move into a new situation, take some time to think about it, adapt or get your ass kicked. But if ever in doubt, save the germplasm for tomorrow. Quantitative traits tend to laugh in our face when we try to treat them like qualitative traits. -T
 

Baba Ku

Active member
Veteran
Like I have always said...you fuck around with Ying too long and Yang will eventually pop up and kick your ass. Invite them in and keep a close eye on both of those rascals...

You know, if there are 10% of a population that would be considered true sexually, that means that only 5% of a population will be true female, and 5% true male.
And there is nothing that states these small percentage of plants will hold the other desirable traits of the line.
I for one would not be real happy with a boring line that didn't hermie no matter what.
Unless of course all I was made of was a greedy sack seller.

Now, if a plant does not show intersex during a normal grow from cast to cut...how is it any different from a plant that is 100% true sexually? As far as we are concerned there is no difference. None that we could tell without further investigation...right?
And let's assume we find a 100% true female and breed it to a 100% male...are the progeny going to throw more than 10% true sex plants? Hmmmm....
Perhaps there is a difference in the numbers from a full natural population compared to a manipulated population? Perhaps not....

Just food for thought...whatever thought eats...
 
I feel there is a huge gray area that is worthy of selection, and nor should we be so naive as to hold solely fast to what may have worked for some outdoor trip long ago. Better subject them to some amateur scenarios for rejection if they are to be grown indoors. But to select nothing but those that don't flip under heavy conditions must surely be a squandering of material too. There is just no way any of this is black and white - no way. Move into a new situation, take some time to think about it, adapt or get your ass kicked. But if ever in doubt, save the germplasm for tomorrow. Quantitative traits tend to laugh in our face when we try to treat them like qualitative traits. -T


speaking on QTL etc you or anyone else had a gander at this book?

http://stemmapress.com/
 

GreenintheThumb

fuck the ticket, bought the ride
Veteran
I feel there is a huge gray area that is worthy of selection, and nor should we be so naive as to hold solely fast to what may have worked for some outdoor trip long ago.

I don't know about this statement Tom. I almost don't care what worked long ago for some outdoor stuff that wouldn't be suitable in 99% of drug cultivator's environments. They didn't do everything correctly and selecting away from intersex in thai populations makes sense. And works!


Better subject them to some amateur scenarios for rejection if they are to be grown indoors.

Better yet, professional scenarios ;)


There is just no way any of this is black and white - no way.

Ya never know Tom...ya never know. I think the THC/CBD mystery turned out to be pretty damn black and white.


But if ever in doubt, save the germplasm for tomorrow. Quantitative traits tend to laugh in our face when we try to treat them like qualitative traits. -T

Agreed :tiphat: All the more reason for RRS programs. (Yes, I publicly bait people into debates Tom)
:cathug:
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
Hi UnclePeter,

I have not read that one.

GitT,

Kinda seems you're wanting to argue both sides of a conflicting coin there (finally :) , but let's acknowledge it). In RRS or any other type of program that takes into account theories of biometrical genetics, there is a common denominator. And that is to stop placing all this importance on phenotypic values, it's folly - this is my point regarding the gray area. The only thing that matters is genotypic values observed in the offspring - and the correlation between the two is low. Example: In RRS when we're looking at the outcome of a number of reciprocal crosses, a parent may slip in that expresses some weakness in regards to modifying factors controlling sexual expression. However, this proved not to be a problem in the offspring. Not only that but the progeny from it ranked the parents highest overall. Now what? Do we shitcan the bottom line in favor of archaic phenotypic selection methods? I think this would most certainly be error. -Tom
 

GreenintheThumb

fuck the ticket, bought the ride
Veteran
Tom,

I understand your position. However, I don't imagine the intersex trait(s) to be as complex as most of the quantitative traits of interest to most growers. But only science will tell us :D Get on it Sam I want my intersex markers! Ha.

Do you often cross two intersexed individuals and find only true sexes in the progeny?

I understand your apprehension at a prolonged program eliminating potentially 90% of your options. And I certainly wouldn't recommend it. But the key word to me there is 'prolonged'.

Also look at it the other direction: Maybe when you select against intersex by phenotype you don't get anywhere; but then going the other direction why were there so many problems in feminized seeds made through the roderlization (or whatever he called it) method. It seemed to me that phenotypic selection made swift gains with respect to this particular trait.

It's important to realistically look at all the potential pitfalls of any methodology and I notice you're always there to debate me Tom and I always enjoy our dialogues. I feel like sometimes you just err on the side of caution. And there's nothing wrong with that. Preservation is more important than progress as far as I'm concerned. Respect.
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
Hi GitT,

Why would you imagine intersex traits to not be as complex as most other quantitative traits? I'll go on record and say that this is most certainly the case. Granted, not all quantitative variation is due to many loci, but it seems this has to be. Take a quick look at Sam outlining a few tests to attempt to force to the surface weaknesses regarding intesex traits.

"Photoperiod disorders. Light leaks.
Photoperiod shock from 20 hours light to 8 and back up to 20.
Lumins disorders, too high or too low of lumins.
Too Hot or Cold.
Too Wet or Dry, air or soil.
Nutrients out of wack, to much or to little.
Pruning shock, plant or roots.
Transplant shock.
Insect shock.
Disease shock."

....and then it gets even worse, because resistance to all of the above are quantitative traits in and of themselves. Will resistance to these things suppress the expression of intersex traits? I don't see why it wouldn't, it would raise the threshold necessary for "shock" to be reached. It becomes this friggen pandora's box, highly complex, not black and white, there is just no way man.

I am not talking about crossing two intersex plants and having the outcome be only strongly male/female. I'm talking about being careful not to go overboard when we place value be it plus or minus regarding the phenotypic expression of the parent. Nor am I talking about preservation, let's put that on the back burner for a moment -when I said save the germplasm, I was only referring to the next selection cycle. I'm talking about coming up with the best possible outcome and to hell with all else! :) Respect back atcha bro, always a pleasure to explore thoughts together with you. -Tom
 
Last edited:

GreenintheThumb

fuck the ticket, bought the ride
Veteran
I need to bait people into debate more often.

Without a doubt what we call intersex is a multifaceted monster. And maybe just maybe it's as complex as all the scenarios that you listed. But I doubt it. It's a stress response system. Think of it as an alarm system: you may have motion sensors, infrared cameras, laser trip beams and all sorts of "feelers" but all these plug into the siren that sounds. One way to look at it is to see every potential pitfall and worry about them all individually. (and I'm the first to admit that maybe they're all independent systems) But it's just as likely that they all plug together and you could just cut the power and not worry about them or mute the siren itself and trigger all the sensors you wanted.

I think at the end of the day it'll be simpler than you think Tom but not THC/CBD simple...

Looking at Sam's list I don't see how the competent grower would be making many of those mistakes. Regardless, I find intersex all over the place in this pool of ours. I'm not a great grower but I'm sure I'm at least average. I can't be the only one finding and being annoyed by these expressions.

So, what's a man to do about it?
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
lol, ok we'll call this GitT's single-trigger switch theory that flies in the face of independent assortment, and I'll go on record to say that that's not how it's coming down brother. So the thc/cbd puzzle didn't turn out to be biometrical, but nor did it turn out to be the sum of all parts either, the sum is most certainly quantitative. Screw mistakes - there are plants that work in a variety of scenarios and plants that don't. There are plants that thrive in what we might consider to be optimal and those that don't come into their own until we are well outside of that. Not a lot of room for absolutes there, we already know much better than that. We need to collectively back away from such bs, that's what a man should do imo. I don't think intersex traits have moved one smidgen since long before rodelization etc, but we certainly got somewhere with yield. How anybody could purpose that sexual expression somehow involves a less complex set of factors is just completely lost on me. It simply doesn't wash imo. -T
 
Last edited:

GreenintheThumb

fuck the ticket, bought the ride
Veteran
How does it fly in the face of independent assortment?

And yes the thc/cbd mystery wasn't biometrical. But I can imagine years ago us having a discussion overcomplicating the system. "But this plant has 1% this plant has 3 and this plant has 4%. It must be a quantitative trait" one of us might say.

I said it MIGHT be less complex than we imagine Tom. I'm certainly not saying it for certain. And I believe if you look at the reviews you will see WAAAAY more "hermies" in feminized seeds than traditional releases. It's what fools harp on as a negative consequence of reversing technologies.

And a point of clarification: I didn't even imagine a single trigger switch. I imagined perhaps dozens of triggers but a smaller number of hormone(s) that are actually responsible for the reversal. The electricity of my metaphor. And it was just a metaphor to get the point across and spark conversation. Don't be shocked! mmmm wordplay.

If you had 100 years and nothing better to do what would you do to eliminate intersex from your populations Tom? All I hear is the continuum of expression: some individuals reverse just enough to stay in the pool. And you think we've made marked advances in yield? Likely an equally complex trait? I just don't know.

Do you think stress testing as a tool looking to eliminate potential intersex phenotypes is a completely wasted effort?

Thanks for your time Tom. Always a pleasure. I wish there were more like you working in our favorite pool. And if we can ever get approval on a glasshouse I'd happily rock out your wares.
 

Baba Ku

Active member
Veteran
You give us a link to some of Hempy's ranting? You can't be serious?
I thort maybe you would do better than that...
Before I wade through over 100 pages of opinionated drivel, can you point me to the pages that would support your original claim? For sure Nevil didn't back up this myth.
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
Hi again GitT,

Likewise, always a pleasure sir.

Well, maybe I would have done better to hold back a bit until you got some more of your thoughts on the table, thanks for the clarification. But it still sounds to me that you are describing quantitative variation anyway we slice it. The simple fact that environment has such an effect places it squarely in that category.

I do not think sexual expression will turn out to be as complex as yield. Yield (overall yield, not simple fiber, or seed etc) components encompass nearly everything a plant does from start to finish, we can't really get more complex than that I don't think.

I think stress testing parental candidates prior to selection may be an effective part of such a program. I also think folk who look down on others for not employing it have lost their marbles, and have taken their eye off the big picture - which is coming up with the best possible outcome and to hell with all else.

I would go about breeding out intersex traits via pedigree selection methods - for the throat via selfing. But again, I do not share others' enthusiasm about it.

I kinda feel that it's coming down something like - drug cannabis will never again be grown from seed on a large scale like corn is, With the possible exception of DH lines etc. Even in the most homogeneous lots, there is plenty of room for improvement via clonal selections. Closer to strawberries than corn. Perhaps closer to cane sugar, where a small group of clones would be grown together in an attempt to avoid environmental catastrophes etc.

So I always have to chuckle inside a bit when I hear folk ranting on about how it's done as they try to transfer over what they read about corn, to cannabis. :) BigLove -Tom
 
I kinda feel that it's coming down something like - drug cannabis will never again be grown from seed on a large scale like corn is, With the possible exception of DH lines etc. Even in the most homogeneous lots, there is plenty of room for improvement via clonal selections. Closer to strawberries than corn. Perhaps closer to cane sugar, where a small group of clones would be grown together in an attempt to avoid environmental catastrophes etc.

So I always have to chuckle inside a bit when I hear folk ranting on about how it's done as they try to transfer over what they read about corn, to cannabis. BigLove -Tom
to me DH is the future and its being widely used in Corn.... I agree in that you will always find a standout plant even amongst a homogeneous line.. but then theres plenty you can do with that! for me we should to everything to stack in our favour. weather thats a return to RRS for DH I don't know!.

I'm sticking with corn more than strawberries mind!(at least with regard to breeding, maybe for growing its different).
 

Tom Hill

Well-known member
Veteran
Heya Unc,

I think DH lines have an undeniably strong future in outcrossing plants that are not easily propagated asexually, eg corn. However its worth is diminished in plants that are easily asexually propagated, eg cannabis.

At any rate whether or not DH lines have a grand future in cannabis is debatable, but that drug cannabis is and will continue to be propagated asexually is not - farmers just don't throw away advantages like that. It would be foolhardiness to simply state cannabis is an outcrosser and so let's breed it like corn without also taking into account what else distinguishes them from each other. There are roadblocks to be acknowledged and shortcuts to be taken advantage of.

It would not surprise me one bit if drug cannabis proved to be too complex to be as successfully bred as corn in all the same ways. Obviously, this would be a major roadblock, is currently, and is why more serious farmers continue to opt for the shortcut - asexual propagation.

I don't think we can separate breeding strategies from growing reality, the latter greatly provides direction to the former. If I was hunting parents for asexual propagation, or candidates for DH lines for that matter, I see zero advantage to going through whittled down populations, a candidate does not care if its sister or grandmother wavered sexually etc.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that my time is best spent on two separate strategies. First, preservation, as broad a net as is possible. Second, just full-on for the throat intensive breeding techs, overlooking a lot of the inbetween methods. Others can dick around with their highly inclusive long term corn breeding strategies and please let me know how that works out for you all. :D -Tom
 
Heya Unc,

I think DH lines have an undeniably strong future in outcrossing plants that are not easily propagated asexually, eg corn. However its worth is diminished in plants that are easily asexually propagated, eg cannabis.

At any rate whether or not DH lines have a grand future in cannabis is debatable, but that drug cannabis is and will continue to be propagated asexually is not - farmers just don't throw away advantages like that. It would be foolhardiness to simply state cannabis is an outcrosser and so let's breed it like corn without also taking into account what else distinguishes them from each other. There are roadblocks to be acknowledged and shortcuts to be taken advantage of.

It would not surprise me one bit if drug cannabis proved to be too complex to be as successfully bred as corn in all the same ways. Obviously, this would be a major roadblock, is currently, and is why more serious farmers continue to opt for the shortcut - asexual propagation.

I don't think we can separate breeding strategies from growing reality, the latter greatly provides direction to the former. If I was hunting parents for asexual propagation, or candidates for DH lines for that matter, I see zero advantage to going through whittled down populations, a candidate does not care if its sister or grandmother wavered sexually etc.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that my time is best spent on two separate strategies. First, preservation, as broad a net as is possible. Second, just full-on for the throat intensive breeding techs, overlooking a lot of the inbetween methods. Others can dick around with their highly inclusive long term corn breeding strategies and please let me know how that works out for you all. :D -Tom

then we may as well go for the 1 in a 1000 shot... I'll dick around then.

Asexuals are all fine and dandy for inbred lines imo be it via a selfing or as clones, but to me it is just as stated a shortcut.

and for DH lines I certainly see usefulness in a whittled down population...

but I guess I'm not serious!.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top