Where? Please enlighten me. (Just for the record, I'm not trying to be right no matter what.)
-
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
Hello Only Ornamental
what do you mean by the above portion of your post that I quoted?
I don't understand it...
why would anyone need an academic degree from a university in order to have scientific evidence?
scientific evidence does not magically become just opinion because whoever is expressing it does not have an academic degree.
or am I misunderstanding you?
thanks!
peace!
You misunderstand me .
What I mean is that he (supposedly, I don't know for sure... obviously) is not working with methods/equipment which for example a university lab has access to. Together with me mentioning that he, from my point of view, has an 'scientific heart' means that his observations are, though rational and objective, just observations and hence likely not enough to prove certain things a research lab could.
Does that explanation make more sense to you?
.What I mean is that he (supposedly, I don't know for sure... obviously) is not working with methods/equipment which for example a university lab has access to. Together with me mentioning that he, from my point of view, has an 'scientific heart' means that his observations are, though rational and objective, just observations and hence likely not enough to prove certain things a research lab could.
Does that explanation make more sense to you?
I have been to Chimeras lab facilities, while not at the level of a university they are much better then any of the labs I have visited in Calif., and they get results that I believe is more accurate then all the other labs. The submitted identical samples to Steephill labs, SC Labs, and Werk Shop, as well as others, and they did the same samples themselves. All the shops misidentified Cannabinoid and or terpene peaks as well as amounts. They have an infrastructure I would have loved to have had when I started.
I personally would listen to Chimera's observations, he knows the difference between observations and proof and did attend a university for a while at least.
I would prefer his experienced observations over many Phd's that have little experience Cannabis growing, smoking, lab work, what ever. Same with Rob Clarke he has BS or MS not a Phd, but he knows more about Cannabis then any Phd I suspect. Experience can be as good as an education, better in some cases.
I have been science based all my life, but until the 1960's Cannabis was a neglected field, really almost until 2000, now it is all changed and people that cared little about Cannabis are now interested, to me it us all good, the more scientific knowledge the better for Cannabis and the people that love Cannabis or use Cannabis.
-SamS
I personally would listen to Chimera's observations, he knows the difference between observations and proof and did attend a university for a while at least.
I would prefer his experienced observations over many Phd's that have little experience Cannabis growing, smoking, lab work, what ever. Same with Rob Clarke he has BS or MS not a Phd, but he knows more about Cannabis then any Phd I suspect. Experience can be as good as an education, better in some cases.
I have been science based all my life, but until the 1960's Cannabis was a neglected field, really almost until 2000, now it is all changed and people that cared little about Cannabis are now interested, to me it us all good, the more scientific knowledge the better for Cannabis and the people that love Cannabis or use Cannabis.
-SamS
You misunderstand me
What I mean is that he (supposedly, I don't know for sure... obviously) is not working with methods/equipment which for example a university lab has access to. Together with me mentioning that he, from my point of view, has an 'scientific heart' means that his observations are, though rational and objective, just observations and hence likely not enough to prove certain things a research lab could.
Does that explanation make more sense to you?
You misunderstand me
What I mean is that he (supposedly, I don't know for sure... obviously) is not working with methods/equipment which for example a university lab has access to. Together with me mentioning that he, from my point of view, has an 'scientific heart' means that his observations are, though rational and objective, just observations and hence likely not enough to prove certain things a research lab could.
Does that explanation make more sense to you?
Hello Only!
ah ok, I understand your statement better now, thanks; for a second I thought a knowledgeable guy like you had gone a little insane for a second there hehehe...
I was always under the impression that Chimera had a pretty nice lab, and Sam confirms this for sure. Hence why I was taken aback by the comment, because I thought many people from the community already knew about his lab.
peace!
K
kopite
Probably a clue in the title? ;
Molecular Cytogenetic Characterization of the Dioecious Cannabis sativa with an XY Chromosome Sex Determination System
Sure, nice title .
Seriously, if you'd take the time to do the right thing and look into the cited publications and into those mentioned in these then you'd ended up with the publication by Yamada, I. (1943) The sex-chromosomes of Cannabis sativa L. Rept. Kihara Inst. Biol. Res. 2, 64-68.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find it on the net but other publications indicate that the only thing in there was Yamada's finding of the Y being larger.
If Hoffmann, von Sengbush or any other famous hemp breeder who cared about such things ever investigated whether sex is determined by the X or Y chromosome I do not know. Those publications I read were either the finding of an XY system irrespective of the question at hand and their dispute over sex chromosomes in monoecious hemp.
Furthermore, one cited publication leads to a contradictory publication wherein their table (which is more or less a copy-paste from someone else) says "active Y" whereas in the text they speak or the X-to-autosome ratio. Also, the references for the claim in said table refer to size, not function, of the Y chromosome and hence, genome and microscopic size are the only indications for "Y dominance". All newer investigations regard the X-to-autosome ratio as "the current truth".
The most obvious reason to a non-scientist might be the finding that monoecious hemp has two X chromosomes but still produces male flowers. An active Y would render this ability impossible whereas the ratio assumption does allow such a phenomenon.
.Seriously, if you'd take the time to do the right thing and look into the cited publications and into those mentioned in these then you'd ended up with the publication by Yamada, I. (1943) The sex-chromosomes of Cannabis sativa L. Rept. Kihara Inst. Biol. Res. 2, 64-68.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find it on the net but other publications indicate that the only thing in there was Yamada's finding of the Y being larger.
If Hoffmann, von Sengbush or any other famous hemp breeder who cared about such things ever investigated whether sex is determined by the X or Y chromosome I do not know. Those publications I read were either the finding of an XY system irrespective of the question at hand and their dispute over sex chromosomes in monoecious hemp.
Furthermore, one cited publication leads to a contradictory publication wherein their table (which is more or less a copy-paste from someone else) says "active Y" whereas in the text they speak or the X-to-autosome ratio. Also, the references for the claim in said table refer to size, not function, of the Y chromosome and hence, genome and microscopic size are the only indications for "Y dominance". All newer investigations regard the X-to-autosome ratio as "the current truth".
The most obvious reason to a non-scientist might be the finding that monoecious hemp has two X chromosomes but still produces male flowers. An active Y would render this ability impossible whereas the ratio assumption does allow such a phenomenon.
K
kopite
Sure, nice title
Seriously, if you'd take the time to do the right thing and look into the cited publications and into those mentioned in these then you'd ended up with the publication by Yamada, I. (1943) The sex-chromosomes of Cannabis sativa L. Rept. Kihara Inst. Biol. Res. 2, 64-68.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find it on the net but other publications indicate that the only thing in there was Yamada's finding of the Y being larger.
If Hoffmann, von Sengbush or any other famous hemp breeder who cared about such things ever investigated whether sex is determined by the X or Y chromosome I do not know. Those publications I read were either the finding of an XY system irrespective of the question at hand and their dispute over sex chromosomes in monoecious hemp.
Furthermore, one cited publication leads to a contradictory publication wherein their table (which is more or less a copy-paste from someone else) says "active Y" whereas in the text they speak or the X-to-autosome ratio. Also, the references for the claim in said table refer to size, not function, of the Y chromosome and hence, genome and microscopic size are the only indications for "Y dominance". All newer investigations regard the X-to-autosome ratio as "the current truth".
The most obvious reason to a non-scientist might be the finding that monoecious hemp has two X chromosomes but still produces male flowers. An active Y would render this ability impossible whereas the ratio assumption does allow such a phenomenon.
Seriously I've read them, there's a clear difference between monoecious and dioecious, that's clear from the link I did to chims posts where he states no males were found in the monoecious population and why the whole Bosca thing imo is bullshit about hemp reverting to be dioecious.. and because they appear as "males" does not make them male in a monoecious population, they are female but express with a few different morphs... call them intersex if you like....
I suppose we speak about the same thing but differently .
Yes, there is a clear difference between the two. I think it's without question that monoecious hemp is XX or in other words female derived and that these varieties are human made (other varieties may be different). How the Y exactly influences the whole lot is the point I talk about but best we let that go as it's rather useless for most of us anyway.
If there is a strong and weak X and Y chromosome or at least a more or less dominant or functional allele on one or both of them or if the many observations regarding hermaphroditism, sex reversal, and monoecious populations depend on other mechanisms is way more interesting but to my knowledge still not understood.
For some of you it might be a problem that many of the old publications regarding that subject are in German... fortunately not for me and that's why I could actually read them and not just reviews which are often faulty or incomplete. The works by von Sengbusch, Hoffmann, and others show a very strong correlation between % females in monoecious populations, their "stability" to remain female/monoecious, and remoteness of the location (i.e. isolation from stray hemp pollen -> greenhouse!). I don't remember which of the hemp breeders it was (Bocsa or Bredemann?) who failed to breed/select a monoecious variety because he couldn't find a location isolated enough from all the hemp fields in the former Soviet Union (must have been Bocsa then). This was the main reason why he, Bocsa, invented the unisex varieties for which one only needs a few monoecious (female) pollen donors and not a really stable monoecious line plus a bunch of common females to obtain "feminised" seeds.
Ah, yes, what I wanted to say is that with all the evidence and proof we have (for example the difference between X and Y chromosomes), a real monoecious variety remains monoecious and does NEVER give true male offspring (at least until proven otherwise) unless pollinated by stray pollen.
PS There's that link in my signature to THE HEMP SEED HUB for a little bit more about monoecious hemp.
.Yes, there is a clear difference between the two. I think it's without question that monoecious hemp is XX or in other words female derived and that these varieties are human made (other varieties may be different). How the Y exactly influences the whole lot is the point I talk about but best we let that go as it's rather useless for most of us anyway.
If there is a strong and weak X and Y chromosome or at least a more or less dominant or functional allele on one or both of them or if the many observations regarding hermaphroditism, sex reversal, and monoecious populations depend on other mechanisms is way more interesting but to my knowledge still not understood.
For some of you it might be a problem that many of the old publications regarding that subject are in German... fortunately not for me and that's why I could actually read them and not just reviews which are often faulty or incomplete. The works by von Sengbusch, Hoffmann, and others show a very strong correlation between % females in monoecious populations, their "stability" to remain female/monoecious, and remoteness of the location (i.e. isolation from stray hemp pollen -> greenhouse!). I don't remember which of the hemp breeders it was (Bocsa or Bredemann?) who failed to breed/select a monoecious variety because he couldn't find a location isolated enough from all the hemp fields in the former Soviet Union (must have been Bocsa then). This was the main reason why he, Bocsa, invented the unisex varieties for which one only needs a few monoecious (female) pollen donors and not a really stable monoecious line plus a bunch of common females to obtain "feminised" seeds.
Ah, yes, what I wanted to say is that with all the evidence and proof we have (for example the difference between X and Y chromosomes), a real monoecious variety remains monoecious and does NEVER give true male offspring (at least until proven otherwise) unless pollinated by stray pollen.
PS There's that link in my signature to THE HEMP SEED HUB for a little bit more about monoecious hemp.
There's nothing in that title that indicates an active Y system.
Fruit:
Apples
Pears
XY Chromosome Sex Determination System Mechanisms:
Active-Y
X:autosome balance
It uses an XY chromosome sex determination system yes. The mechanism employed however is x to autosome balance. This means in a diploid that a ratio of 1.0 (xx aa) is female pheno and 0.5 (x aa including xy aa) is male pheno, regardless of what's on the Y. It's inactive only in the action of sex determination, doesn't mean its genes are all inactive throughout its lifecycle.
I know very little about genetics and only have a few seasons of growing so I could be way off.
But I thought what most growers call 'hermies' are when a female bud throw out 'nanners' that contain pollen and can self seed themselves which is where female seeds come from. This can be induced by stress and is supposed to be a survival mechanism so that when a plant encounters stress which is usually a product of poor growing conditions, they are giving themselves every opportunity to produce seed so their genetic line can continue.
On the other hand, there are 'true' hermaphrodites that produce both male and female sex parts on different parts of the plant. Branch tops will start to bud like a normal female while where a branch meets the main stem/stalk it will also put out balls that turn into traditional male flowers. This seems to happen right from the start once flowering begins, while the 'nanners most experience happens toward the end of flower once the female buds are well developed. I was under the impression that the creation of both male and female sex parts was an actual genetic mistake/abnormality/trait that is passed on from a parent and is built into it's genetic coding, while nanners occur on a completely female plant that is under stress and reacts with a survival mechanism.
I have seeds from a strain that a breeder was trying to create ( names aren't important) that had many leaf mutations that he tried to breed out. There were also 'hermie' issues that reportedly popped up and so far out of nine plants I've grown, 6 have been hermaphrodites right from the start of flower and have shown both sex parts. Most have been how I describe above but 2 started growing like a normal male but then at the very top of the plant, it started to also produce a clump of pistils. So it looks like the plant takes on a mainly female or male structure, but then also starts to put out parts of the opposite sex which is less prolific. So either a female with extra male parts, or a male with extra female parts. From what I understand, this is an actual genetic 'mistake' and is actually quite rare.
I guess I'm asking if this is how others understand the hermie issue? And when the breeders talk about breeding out the hermie trait are they talking about the tendency to throw nanners? And can it really be completely bred out if it's a survival tactic and not an actual plant with both male and female genes? I guess I'm convincing myself that selective breeding can still breed out the tendency for a genetically female plant to grow nanners in an effort to self pollinate and increase chances of making seeds.
If this is the case though, it seems a bit more complex than simply male XY and female XX plants contributing a sex chromosome, and is more similar to the equivalent of breeding out girls that have green eyes or some other trait not based on the actual sex chromosome that determines whether seeds are male or female?
I've also heard the claim that environment can determine whether a plant is male or female. If this is the case it doesn't seem like there would be a gene that determines sex as it would be etched into the genetic makeup and environmental factors couldn't influence sex.
I'm not really sure where I'm trying to go with this and if I had more knowledge of genetics I could probably ask what I'm trying to get at better. Hopefully someone will understand what I'm getting at and can add something.
Thanks!
But I thought what most growers call 'hermies' are when a female bud throw out 'nanners' that contain pollen and can self seed themselves which is where female seeds come from. This can be induced by stress and is supposed to be a survival mechanism so that when a plant encounters stress which is usually a product of poor growing conditions, they are giving themselves every opportunity to produce seed so their genetic line can continue.
On the other hand, there are 'true' hermaphrodites that produce both male and female sex parts on different parts of the plant. Branch tops will start to bud like a normal female while where a branch meets the main stem/stalk it will also put out balls that turn into traditional male flowers. This seems to happen right from the start once flowering begins, while the 'nanners most experience happens toward the end of flower once the female buds are well developed. I was under the impression that the creation of both male and female sex parts was an actual genetic mistake/abnormality/trait that is passed on from a parent and is built into it's genetic coding, while nanners occur on a completely female plant that is under stress and reacts with a survival mechanism.
I have seeds from a strain that a breeder was trying to create ( names aren't important) that had many leaf mutations that he tried to breed out. There were also 'hermie' issues that reportedly popped up and so far out of nine plants I've grown, 6 have been hermaphrodites right from the start of flower and have shown both sex parts. Most have been how I describe above but 2 started growing like a normal male but then at the very top of the plant, it started to also produce a clump of pistils. So it looks like the plant takes on a mainly female or male structure, but then also starts to put out parts of the opposite sex which is less prolific. So either a female with extra male parts, or a male with extra female parts. From what I understand, this is an actual genetic 'mistake' and is actually quite rare.
I guess I'm asking if this is how others understand the hermie issue? And when the breeders talk about breeding out the hermie trait are they talking about the tendency to throw nanners? And can it really be completely bred out if it's a survival tactic and not an actual plant with both male and female genes? I guess I'm convincing myself that selective breeding can still breed out the tendency for a genetically female plant to grow nanners in an effort to self pollinate and increase chances of making seeds.
If this is the case though, it seems a bit more complex than simply male XY and female XX plants contributing a sex chromosome, and is more similar to the equivalent of breeding out girls that have green eyes or some other trait not based on the actual sex chromosome that determines whether seeds are male or female?
I've also heard the claim that environment can determine whether a plant is male or female. If this is the case it doesn't seem like there would be a gene that determines sex as it would be etched into the genetic makeup and environmental factors couldn't influence sex.
I'm not really sure where I'm trying to go with this and if I had more knowledge of genetics I could probably ask what I'm trying to get at better. Hopefully someone will understand what I'm getting at and can add something.
Thanks!
Last edited:
O
OG Tree Grower
I think we may have got some of the same seeds. I have the exact same thing happening. I hope a breeder jumps in here to school us
I worked together with and communicated with Dr Bocsa for years, he told very very clearly that he did not like monoecious varieties as they have much less vigor and yield then a dioecious variety. Because they are monoecious they self pollinate to a high degree and Cannabis is an out-crosser. All monoecious varieties are man made require yearly maintenance or they will revert to dioecious with more and more real males each generation.
-SamS
-SamS
I suppose we speak about the same thing but differently
Yes, there is a clear difference between the two. I think it's without question that monoecious hemp is XX or in other words female derived and that these varieties are human made (other varieties may be different). How the Y exactly influences the whole lot is the point I talk about but best we let that go as it's rather useless for most of us anyway.
If there is a strong and weak X and Y chromosome or at least a more or less dominant or functional allele on one or both of them or if the many observations regarding hermaphroditism, sex reversal, and monoecious populations depend on other mechanisms is way more interesting but to my knowledge still not understood.
For some of you it might be a problem that many of the old publications regarding that subject are in German... fortunately not for me and that's why I could actually read them and not just reviews which are often faulty or incomplete. The works by von Sengbusch, Hoffmann, and others show a very strong correlation between % females in monoecious populations, their "stability" to remain female/monoecious, and remoteness of the location (i.e. isolation from stray hemp pollen -> greenhouse!). I don't remember which of the hemp breeders it was (Bocsa or Bredemann?) who failed to breed/select a monoecious variety because he couldn't find a location isolated enough from all the hemp fields in the former Soviet Union (must have been Bocsa then). This was the main reason why he, Bocsa, invented the unisex varieties for which one only needs a few monoecious (female) pollen donors and not a really stable monoecious line plus a bunch of common females to obtain "feminised" seeds.
Ah, yes, what I wanted to say is that with all the evidence and proof we have (for example the difference between X and Y chromosomes), a real monoecious variety remains monoecious and does NEVER give true male offspring (at least until proven otherwise) unless pollinated by stray pollen.
PS There's that link in my signature to THE HEMP SEED HUB for a little bit more about monoecious hemp.
Last edited:
What was it like when it was @ 9 weeks?
It was just like a sweet skunk #1 loud terpenes and same Cannabinoids like a female Skunk#1, the floral from was subdued the bracts were a bit smaller and form was not as chunky as a normal girl, it had what I call a male form as compared to females which can have very dense buds. The sex was female, the form almost male, but the Cannabinoids and terpenes were right on. It is hard to rate the form, it is easy to rate the terpenes and Cannabinoids.
-SamS
-SamS
