I have always thought the ego of larger seedbanks is a bit funny. Not that I doubt the influence of all them. But if some people were to find great genetics and blow up the dutch seed industry. Even if they are responsible for the majority of publicly available strains. They have to realize they are not the only world travelers, smugglers and innovators. If the haze brothers were able to acquire the seeds to start haze then someone else somewhere else also bought a bag and maybe saved some seeds. People in Florida have been smoking import for just as long as people in Holland have been breeding. Of course many of these lines are similar.
-
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.
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze
- Thread starter bigherb
- Start date
I have always thought the ego of larger seedbanks is a bit funny. Not that I doubt the influence of all them. But if some people were to find great genetics and blow up the dutch seed industry. Even if they are responsible for the majority of publicly available strains. They have to realize they are not the only world travelers, smugglers and innovators. If the haze brothers were able to acquire the seeds to start haze then someone else somewhere else also bought a bag and maybe saved some seeds. People in Florida have been smoking import for just as long as people in Holland have been breeding. Of course many of these lines are similar.
No offense to anyone that says they are growing NYC haze but nothing of what people post looks like what I used to pick up. Not saying I'm a guru or some expert either cuz I'm not. Just odd that piff went from stringy balls of nearly pure haze flowers to these dense rounded buds.
the_niño
Well-known member
not saying imma growing it... just that some cats say it smells like the piff that they knew<<<<
yes, indeed like you said. and dont forget various enthusiastic pollen chuckers. unintentional crosses and growing them can play big role too.. seedbanks are selling it, so they have to act like cool guys and they have the best gear ever
I remember like seedbanks jumped on og kush... selling jack herrer or something from Nevil before. why? or gear that Nevil got, g13, hashplant, northern lights.was it from some seedbank? no, its from people, and if those guys in USA are able to cross romulan cut(was created without seedbank assistance) with colombian gold male to create schrom without seedbank assistance, Im sure they are able to create nyc haze..
Thats not the real SSSC.
Ive been keeping track.
Dude deleted his first round of posts on IG, but those first posts showed me all I neee to know.
Some pollenchucker working out of his home closet. Nota single plant looked worth breeding.
Dont fall for the lies.
Yup.
If its was from America, it would be NL5xHaze C
But since its from
nevil, and Nevil never got the pure NL5 cut from NL G***, it would be NL5xNL2 x Haze C
risasdemaria
Member
It’s two different phenos. Fuck what Adam Dunn says. I’ve spoken to Keith who is Adam Dunn’s “secret source” for all this information. I know AJ personally. I ran his cut for a long time. It’s not like the ecsd which is Keith and the catskill boys cut. And yes it was 91x86 super skunk.
risasdemaria
Member
ofc if we were given two cuts from same mother plant to each of us with time they're gonna start showing differences for whatever the reason, but the thing is, do they have same genetic pool?
Why would two clones start showing differences? What kind of differences? Not genetic ones.
W
Water-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804212931.htm
Why plant 'clones' aren't identical
Date:
August 8, 2011
Source:
University of Oxford
Summary:
A new study of plants that are reproduced by 'cloning' has shown why cloned plants are not identical. Scientists have known for some time that 'clonal' (regenerant) organisms are not always identical.
Now researchers believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant
Scientists have known for some time that 'clonal' (regenerant) organisms are not always identical: their observable characteristics and traits can vary, and this variation can be passed on to the next generation. This is despite the fact that they are derived from genetically identical founder cells.
Now, a team from Oxford University, UK, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant.
The team report their findings in this week's Current Biology.
'Anyone who has ever taken a cutting from a parent plant and then grown a new plant from this tiny piece is actually harnessing the ability such organisms have to regenerate themselves,' said Professor Nicholas Harberd of Oxford University's Department of Plant Sciences, lead author of the paper. 'But sometimes regenerated plants are not identical, even if they come from the same parent. Our work reveals a cause of that visible variation.'
Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called 'whole genome sequencing') the researchers analysed 'clones' of the small flowering plant 'thalecress' (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant.
'Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery,' said Professor Harberd. 'They may arise during the regeneration process itself or during the cell divisions in the donor plant that gave rise to the root cells from which the regenerant plants are created. We are planning further research to find out which of these two processes is responsible for these mutations. What we can say is that Nature has safely been employing what you might call a 'cloning' process in plants for millions of years, and that there must be good evolutionary reasons why these mutations are introduced.'
The new results suggest that variation in clones of plants may have different underlying causes from that of variation in clones of animals -- where it is believed that the effect of environmental factors on how animal genes are expressed is more important and no similar high frequencies of mutations have been observed.
Professor Harberd said: 'Whilst our results highlight that cloned plants and animals are very different they may give us insights into how both bacterial and cancer cells replicate themselves, and how mutations arise during these processes which, ultimately, have an impact on human health.'
Why plant 'clones' aren't identical
Date:
August 8, 2011
Source:
University of Oxford
Summary:
A new study of plants that are reproduced by 'cloning' has shown why cloned plants are not identical. Scientists have known for some time that 'clonal' (regenerant) organisms are not always identical.
Now researchers believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant
Scientists have known for some time that 'clonal' (regenerant) organisms are not always identical: their observable characteristics and traits can vary, and this variation can be passed on to the next generation. This is despite the fact that they are derived from genetically identical founder cells.
Now, a team from Oxford University, UK, and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia, believe they have found out why this is the case in plants: the genomes of regenerant plants carry relatively high frequencies of new DNA sequence mutations that were not present in the genome of the donor plant.
The team report their findings in this week's Current Biology.
'Anyone who has ever taken a cutting from a parent plant and then grown a new plant from this tiny piece is actually harnessing the ability such organisms have to regenerate themselves,' said Professor Nicholas Harberd of Oxford University's Department of Plant Sciences, lead author of the paper. 'But sometimes regenerated plants are not identical, even if they come from the same parent. Our work reveals a cause of that visible variation.'
Using DNA sequencing techniques that can decode the complete genome of an organism in one go (so-called 'whole genome sequencing') the researchers analysed 'clones' of the small flowering plant 'thalecress' (Arabidopsis). They found that observable variations in regenerant plants are substantially due to high frequencies of mutations in the DNA sequence of these regenerants, mutations which are not contained in the genome of the parent plant.
'Where these new mutations actually come from is still a mystery,' said Professor Harberd. 'They may arise during the regeneration process itself or during the cell divisions in the donor plant that gave rise to the root cells from which the regenerant plants are created. We are planning further research to find out which of these two processes is responsible for these mutations. What we can say is that Nature has safely been employing what you might call a 'cloning' process in plants for millions of years, and that there must be good evolutionary reasons why these mutations are introduced.'
The new results suggest that variation in clones of plants may have different underlying causes from that of variation in clones of animals -- where it is believed that the effect of environmental factors on how animal genes are expressed is more important and no similar high frequencies of mutations have been observed.
Professor Harberd said: 'Whilst our results highlight that cloned plants and animals are very different they may give us insights into how both bacterial and cancer cells replicate themselves, and how mutations arise during these processes which, ultimately, have an impact on human health.'
That happened to me once. I took a few cuttings from the same plant and 2 grew out looking completely different from the others, and the mother. It was a while ago and can't remember the strain. It had to be some kind of genetic drift, and an extreme one. The 2 different ones looked identical, with quite fat leaves and a squat appearance, whereas the rest, and the mother, had much narrower leaves and were more leggy. I only had one mother, so no chance of me mixing up clones. Go figure.
G `day R
There was no Super Skunk in 85 ...
SSSC had NL / SK , but Super Skunk wasn`t until later from Sensi Seeds .
Thanks for sharin
EB .
G `day Jet
SK VA doesn`t know the difference between SSSC NL / SK and Sensi Super SK . Heard him on a Pod Cast and was getting frustrated with his mis labeling .
Super Skunk was bred later than 85 . In 85 Nevil released his 1st catalog of stuff he got from Sam . SK #1 , Durban , Orange bud , Affie #1 .
Wasn`t till a few years later circa 1990 he got seeds from Jim Ortega to cross with his SK to make Super SK .
Thanks for sharin
EB .
risasdemaria
Member
if u're interested in this I suggest u had a look into this: [YOUTUBEIF]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcTr4EAoOQs[/YOUTUBEIF]
as an introduction on who Barbara McClintock was and her work
and into this: [YOUTUBEIF]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv8D_Eq8fko[/YOUTUBEIF]
as one of the many variables can make two identical gene pool plants start to take separate paths, cuz, at the end of the day, plants are alive, and they adapt
risasdemaria
Member
dunno if the videos can be seen. The first one's title is "Cannabis Genotypes, Phenotypes & Chemotypes: A look inside Colorado’s Green Revolution" with Dr. Grant D. Orvis, and the second one is "Plant secondary metabolite diversity and inducibility: Two means to the same end" from Andre Kessler, Associate Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, at Cornell University
Indeed.
Anyone who has cloned a single plant can notice some clones from the same plant are better than others. Hence the old adage, ‘keep the strongest clones, kill the rest’
Its also why I scoff at those who add just a bit of peroxide in aerocloners or any time when cloning.
A highly reactive oxidizer (think ionizing radiation) will mutate the new, tender stem cells.
Anyone who has cloned a single plant can notice some clones from the same plant are better than others. Hence the old adage, ‘keep the strongest clones, kill the rest’
Its also why I scoff at those who add just a bit of peroxide in aerocloners or any time when cloning.
A highly reactive oxidizer (think ionizing radiation) will mutate the new, tender stem cells.
So that would mean Super Skunk is NL5xNL2 x Skunk #1, since Nevil only got hybridized NL when he triet to backdoor NLG***
