TWO S1 LINE PRODUCES MALES

[GMT]

I love my girls, and I wouldn't want to lose them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXMx8OW32Bs
The 3 thing started out as a curiosity, and I was interested to see how hard it was to fix a specific trait into a line. That was the start for me. I have found that (grow style dependant) left single cola, the 3 will out produce the 2. I'm surprised you feel I have gained a following though, to me it doesn't feel like it. When breeding for a specific trait, you must admit that being able to see it from day one, as it pops out of the shell is a big advantage, as I can pop several hundred over a month, while keeping numbers low. That gave me a huge advantage in the early days, now I don't need to do that, as they are frequent enough now, that its purely the smoke that defines which 1 plant I use to mother the next batch of seeds. We can as we have before argue over whether OP or 1:1 is the better method. We can argue over superior genetics, but you can't say I've bred something unworthy of anyone's time until you try it for yourself.

 

[Tom Hill]

when you speak of tri's, you speak of mendelian genetics, just know that. When you speak of smoke, well now then, you are starting a new conversation. You are mixing the two up like a chocolate/banana milk shake, and it sets off all kind of alarms in my mind. I have thrown out the reality, that a skewing of selection methods is far superior to anything than anything else exiting our mouths today, certainly our egotistical phenotypic-worth- values must take a back seat. So, yes, bury that stuff deep that which you currently believe to hold value, come let's explore what really matters. (?) tehee

 

[Tom Hill]

ie, yes, our ridiculous phenotypic selection works with mendelian genetics, but, no, it's a massive fail in the realm of qtl's... get with the program daddio- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fVaP6dM1fs

 

[Tom Hill]

Ie, IngleWOOD holmes, psst, dime, dime, psst, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9hEbHE1RRM

 

[GMT]

Oh, I've learned alot in my quest. I started off with mendel yes, then I quickly realised that this alone was not sufficient. I've done a fair old amount of reading, and I still have lots to learn. I've always said that. However you must admit that what activates the lea13 genes to kick in is an increased level of auxins. Tell me how this is a bad thing then please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aODLdu8Zkq8&feature=related

 

[Tom Hill]

unless you or I can actually link it to other traits, and I think we might but know damn well you're scared to, it just remains there, alone, worthless

 

[GMT]

such as yield perhaps? Just a thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ATfo6TeTBY

 

[Tom Hill]

eg I have a hypothesis I call the red headed step child. And any plant that reacts adversely to it's environment is worth keeping our eye on. There may in fact imo be some correlation between a hair trigger for going tardo plants ala gmt stylie, and resin production. Seems to be some empirical data that may suggest as much imo, but I have not been able to put it into translucent words. And my brother, as of today, either have you.

 

[GMT]

there may be a correlation to that thought, since I am a red headed step child though I'd like a definition of "going tardo"

 

[Tom Hill]

PS, you'll not be linking it to yield on my watch. This is the jist of my gripe.

 

[Tom Hill]

cellular reproduction is just what it is, the same be it 3 or 2. But again, you have built whether you cop to it or not, some other thought, a false thought, in my not so limited experience.

so yeah, stop that shit... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GQVqafzgrU

 

[GMT]

Though this is something I guess you'd disagree with but I'm genuinely not sure, I don't equate the number trichs to the potency of the smoke. I'd be interested to see if you do.

 

[Tom Hill]

Line em up and hose them down son, dig? There are many factors that must be in place to attain the ultimate potential. Yes sir, trichome field density is the first key. There are many other factors that must fall into place after that but without that you are not flirting with the ultimate potential, no doubt a truth you set aside whilst evaluating that which surrounds you... walk down the hill, and fuck them all..

 

[GMT]

you keep making ref to cellular reproduction, surely you can agree that a wider leaved bifoliar will suffer from that problem as much if not more than a thinner leaved trifoliar? Carefull now, castles made of sand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKAVnYaDKe8

 

[Tom Hill]

ie if you can not check trichome field density off on our list then there is not much point in moving forward, triball.

 

[GMT]

Tom don't get me wrong, I do bow to your far greater experience with almost all things canna, bar one area, tri's. I'd put my exp with them against yours, sam's or anyones that I know of, (and I'm qualifying that way as I'm sure theres a boffin out there somewhere).

 

[Tom Hill]

I agree with that last (194) wholeheartedly I assure you, it's about time I had another guy thinking about things the way they are. Yes, my deep chunk is a slut who spends way too much of her time on things I do not smoke, is this what you're dancing around? yes, I agree, now what..

 

[GMT]

I disagree, in one respect and agree in another. Density is not the be all and end all, ie one hash and another hash could have an equal amount and weight of trichs within it, and yet be of diff potency. Therefore it follows that a plant with a lower count, could be a more potent smoke than one with a higher count is what I am getting at.

 

[GMT]

now we have to agree that its the advantages of those things that we don't smoke, that fuels what we do smoke. Once we manage that, I'm half way to convincing you about the tri's.

 

[Tom Hill]

you're getting at things which are attainable by peasants, lol. Listen, all the things you have in your mid that matter, are magnified by trichome field density, you need to embrace this because this bird is the word, plain and simple.