-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Male clones transformed to Female to judge male smoking quality
- Thread starter Sam_Skunkman
- Start date
Miraculous Meds
Well-known member
florel is the product I used.
Im leaning towards trying it. Im going to research it some more before I do. I know sam said his opinion was that it was safe I believe.
Im leaning towards trying it. Im going to research it some more before I do. I know sam said his opinion was that it was safe I believe.
if you live in a med state and youre getting it tested for terps or cannabinoids anyway you could request a test for it. they have a standard for at the lab i use. its super unstable and hard to test for. i dunno. sam is pretty fucking old and he smoked it a long time ago. so i dont think itll kill ya 
just kidding. look at msds,environmental fate studies, and crop residue studies on ethephon if you want to do due diligence before ingesting it.
just kidding. look at msds,environmental fate studies, and crop residue studies on ethephon if you want to do due diligence before ingesting it.
Ethephon is used at 250-500 ppm on edible fruits and berries such as cherry, apple, and cranberry till 10-14 days before harvest. Though highly reactive (read: dangerous and very unhealthy!) in it's pure form (spilled or inhaled during handling and application), it decomposes fast and nearly completely within hours to a few days once in water of physiological pH. If you pH-adjust your foliar spray, it will be safer and if you use it via watering it's even more safe. I simply wouldn't use it as foliar application on plant parts you plan on consuming and go with a safety time of 4 weeks prior to harvest.
There aren't much agrochemicals I would want on my plants (I know, I haven't much of a choice with all the fruits and veggies I buy at the supermarket unless they're OMRI) but ethephon is one of those I would not really bother too much. Still, if someone were to sell weed treated with it (for example to reduce stretch) I'd expect a declaration *dreaming*. But then again, all the expensive stuff in plastic bottles people add and where nobody knows what's really inside... sorry, I deviate...
EDIT: It also decomposes quickly when you try to smoke it but I wouldn't want to estimate if the degradation product are significantly safer... maybe, maybe not...
There aren't much agrochemicals I would want on my plants (I know, I haven't much of a choice with all the fruits and veggies I buy at the supermarket unless they're OMRI) but ethephon is one of those I would not really bother too much. Still, if someone were to sell weed treated with it (for example to reduce stretch) I'd expect a declaration *dreaming*. But then again, all the expensive stuff in plastic bottles people add and where nobody knows what's really inside... sorry, I deviate...
EDIT: It also decomposes quickly when you try to smoke it but I wouldn't want to estimate if the degradation product are significantly safer... maybe, maybe not...
Ive smoked the finished product from Florel Treated plants. It was months afterwards cutting them down though. Im still here, and I wouldn't be afraid to do it again.
I smoked transformed male to female, I do not think it is dangerous at all. I used pure ethephon.
-SamS
-SamS
shishkaboy
>>>>Beanie Man<<<<
Wow!!!
Great read.
The documentation of these experiments is worth all the effort. Who knows what will be discovered in the future? Maybe we dont know everything that we think we do about plants.
The world used to be flat and pluto was a planet.
Great read.
The documentation of these experiments is worth all the effort. Who knows what will be discovered in the future? Maybe we dont know everything that we think we do about plants.
The world used to be flat and pluto was a planet.
You would be better off use a male transformed to female then pollinated with a different male not related to avoid vigor loss from inbreeding, to do this. You will still get 25% YY if you are lucky and they do form finished seeds. No one has done a large statistical analysis where they looked at the X&Y of all the seeds made to see if they are female XX 25%, Male YY 25%, and 50% XY male, maybe some of the YY's do not finish?
See post 35 in this thread.
-SamS
I know I'm replying to an old post and haven't read the entire thread yet but you won that bet. I've had some grow above the reflector of my light. Took a few days to start growing pistils only on that spot.
I selected against it to avoid what you said in that last part, but in hindsight, I wonder if that was wise.
I'm not sure it's always a matter of intersex genes, if such a thing even exists.
From: The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359589/pdf/gb-2011-12-10-r102.pdf
"Cannabis has a diploid genome (2n = 20) with a kar- yotype composed of nine autosomes and a pair of sex chromosomes (X and Y). Female plants are homoga- metic (XX) and males heterogametic (XY) with sex determination controlled by an X-to-autosome balance system [20]. The estimated size of the haploid genome is 818 Mb for female plants and 843 Mb for male plants..."
X-to-autosome balance refers to A genotypic sex determination system in which the ratio between the numbers of X chromosomes and number of sets of autosomes is the primary determinant of sex.
In other words, 2 X is female, 1 X is male. The two X combined result in the hormone balance that makes it express as female. It's not something on the Y that makes it male, it's the absense of a second X. I do not think this is correct, I am sure Y determines sex not X. -SamS
Another quote:
"sex determination in Cannabis has been supposed to be based on a X:autosome dosage rather than on an active-Y mechanism (Westgaard, 1958; Grant et al., 1994"
This fits with the ability of XX plants being able to create staminate flowers, as it doesn't need an Y to do that. A female hermie (XX) could possibly have one or two inferior X's that even combined cannot produce enough of the female hormone ethylene to tip the balance entirely to the female side.
A male hermie (XY that produces pistillate flowers) could then have a strong/superior X that partly or entirely (if fully expressing as female) makes up for the absent second X.
If that's the case, the superior X of a male hermie could possibly be used to breed out intersex traits in females in a variety with weak Xs.
Part of the reason why one X could be stronger/weaker than another could be from crossover on the pseudoautosomal region.
On a similar note, I also found this one interesting:
"The ability to undergo sexual reversion is thought to have a genetic base: some ecotypes such as the Italian Carmagnola are very resistant to any sex reversion treatment..."
Finding the male hermie with the strongest X could be simply a matter of testing which reverts to female with the least help, with the least amount of essentially adding ethylene production artifically.
Last edited by a moderator:
K
kopite
more the presence of a Y chromosome that makes it male and not "male", in fact that's the only thing that ensures it's male (isn't it?).
There's a good post by chimera in here:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=261935&page=8
(in fact I see you have read it!!)
Interesting!
Where did you find this?
@Kopite
I've read the publications cited by sativied and I've read some more and they all point to the X-to-autosome balance which determines sex in hemp/cannabis. Furthermore, Chimera's post does not contradict this.
Chimera's insights and practical experiences are worth much but, from what I understand, he is a grower/breeder with a lot of helpful and well funded observations but he is not a scientist (mentally yes, but not on a professional level, if you know what I mean). Hence, with all the work he's done, he might not be able to prove that sex determination is Y dependent (if he even wanted to do that in the first place).
Bottom line is, scientific evidence outweighs your opinion and therefore the likelihood of a "useless/functionless" Y chromosome is very high.
That is not the case according to those quotes. It's not the presence of the Y that makes it male, it's the lack of a double X. I realize that sounds like the same thing but it's an essential difference.
Actually I don't think I ever finished that thread after posting my reply, will do, thanks.
@OO: I copied that from something I wrote before in which the only reference is that doc I linked to, so I expect it's in the full version. ( euphitica 2005 hemp pdf ). It goes on to mention another variety that reverses easily if I remember correctly.
K
kopite
I've read the beano and I'm still going with a Y
Just checked the doc again and can't find it in there so apparently somewhere else, google shows it has recently been posted here at ic mag as well though:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In some hemp genotypes it is possible to obtain total or partial reversion of the sex. It is known that the treatment with masculinizing or feminizing chemical agents is effective in determining the formation of the opposite sex reproductive organs even in plants that are already sexually well differentiated. Chemicals that inhibit the biosynthesis or the activity of ethylene, such as aminoetoxyvinylglycine, silver thiosulphate and silver nitrate, have a masculinizing effect, while the precursorsor activators of the biosynthesis of ethylene, like etephon, have a feminizing effect (Mohan Ram & Sett, 1982a, 1982b). The ability to undergo sexual reversion is thought to have a genetic base: some ecotypes such as the Italian Carmagnola are very resistant to any sex reversion treatment, while plants belonging to Fibranova cv. are quite prone to sex reversion(G. Grassi, E. de Meijer, personal communications). [/FONT]
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=7013453&postcount=156
Ok, third attempt, OO that's from:
The sexual differentiation of Cannabis sativa L.: A morphological and molecular study, the 10+ page full version of the doc I linked to in that thread koptite linked to. I'd upload it if I could cause I don't have the direct link anymore.
The sexual differentiation of Cannabis sativa L.: A morphological and molecular study, the 10+ page full version of the doc I linked to in that thread koptite linked to. I'd upload it if I could cause I don't have the direct link anymore.
@Sativied: Thanks! I've found it in the meantime . Unfortunately, it's just based on a personal communication without further notes...
It was still helpful as I found some other interesting publications along the way (and some more which indicate that it's not the Y, at least neither in cannabis nor in hops... like EVERY other publication on the subject nicely reviewed in "Review on different mechanisms of sex determination and sex-linked molecular markers in dioecious crops: a current update" by Monika Heikrujam, Kuldeep Sharma, Manoj Prasad, and Veena Agrawal in Euphytica 2014 -> sci-hub.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1293-z).
. Unfortunately, it's just based on a personal communication without further notes...It was still helpful as I found some other interesting publications along the way (and some more which indicate that it's not the Y, at least neither in cannabis nor in hops... like EVERY other publication on the subject nicely reviewed in "Review on different mechanisms of sex determination and sex-linked molecular markers in dioecious crops: a current update" by Monika Heikrujam, Kuldeep Sharma, Manoj Prasad, and Veena Agrawal in Euphytica 2014 -> sci-hub.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1293-z).
K
kopite
@Sativied: Thanks! I've found it in the meantime
It was still helpful as I found some other interesting publications along the way (and some more which indicate that it's not the Y, at least neither in cannabis nor in hops... like EVERY other publication on the subject nicely reviewed in "Review on different mechanisms of sex determination and sex-linked molecular markers in dioecious crops: a current update" by Monika Heikrujam, Kuldeep Sharma, Manoj Prasad, and Veena Agrawal in Euphytica 2014 -> sci-hub.org/10.1007/s10681-014-1293-z).
And they also said;
They got markers in 1995 and 99/02 (Sako and Mando)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085118
Yes, they have markers for the cannabis Y chromosome because it is not useless (that's why I put that word in quotation marks). Furthermore, the Y chromosome is larger than the X and contains as far as we know all (we don't know all before the cannabis genome project is done) the genes which are also on the X. BTW males express a few enzymes more than females. And this is why up till now only reliable male markers have been found (they correspond to sequences on the additional part on the Y chromosome). Nonetheless, this has nothing, really nothing at all, to do with sex determination and it's still the X-to-autosome ratio which dictates sex expression .
.
K
kopite
Not bothered by the triggers of expression, but I am by the determination and I still say the presence of the Y makes it male... the paper I posted thinks so too, do you still say it's ;
"@Kopite
I've read the publications cited by sativied and I've read some more and they all point to the X-to-autosome balance which determines sex in hemp/cannabis."
