More valuable uses mean versatility. Clear to me.
-
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!
WTF is w/feminized genetics,
- Thread starter stagger lee
- Start date
LOL yea its a tough choice and I tend to agree with he seemed to be indicating versatility more than general usefulness. The reason I was saying that its subjective is .... could say that the cannabis plant can feed you as its seed is some of the most nutrient rich seed on the planet. Holding all necessary nutrients for the human body. Could say that the plant would offer clothing and housing thanks to the hemp qualities. In addition you could say that the plant would offer some sort of medicinal qualities. It definately is versatile. I think if Im stuck on a island with no escape maybe canna would work although I need some recipes for cooking cannabis seeds 
Folks, when you can come up with a plant that beats this list, then go claim the 50K
(multiple rice dishes don't count...lol)
(multiple rice dishes don't count...lol)
again ,,,all these uses are fab!!,,,,but valuabilty is subjective!!!,,,if you needed a specific herbal supliment to live,,then that would be the most valuable plant to you!!,,,,as with your orange tree,,,,,,,
dronkers cant talk for everyone,,,,,,,cannabis is a genius,,,,could i pick a kingdome and say its more valuable??,,,lol,,,,,
i hate to say it but i dont think he relizes the difference between a indervidual and a genius,,,,,,it just sounds like hes mincing his words,,,,
im sory if im wrong,,,i just call it how i see it
dronkers cant talk for everyone,,,,,,,cannabis is a genius,,,,could i pick a kingdome and say its more valuable??,,,lol,,,,,
i hate to say it but i dont think he relizes the difference between a indervidual and a genius,,,,,,it just sounds like hes mincing his words,,,,
im sory if im wrong,,,i just call it how i see it
I believe Cannabis is a species with arguably 3 subspecies that have psychoactive properties. Ruderalis, Sativa and Indica are accepted subspecies of cannabis course this is just my understanding.
Cannabis is a part of the Cannabaceae family. hops is also in this family ,,cannabis itself, is the name of the Genus,,and lastly, we have the Species ranking.
Under the cannabis genus, there are three commonly accepted species of Marijuana.
These three species are... 1) Cannabis Sativa, 2) Cannabis Indica, and 3) Cannabis Ruderalis,,,
Family: Cannabaceae
Genus: Cannabis
Species: Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis
am i wrong..??
Under the cannabis genus, there are three commonly accepted species of Marijuana.
These three species are... 1) Cannabis Sativa, 2) Cannabis Indica, and 3) Cannabis Ruderalis,,,
Family: Cannabaceae
Genus: Cannabis
Species: Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis
am i wrong..??
nope taxonomy changes often ... I must have read some old info. From what I can find thats accurate.
in the Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and Cannabinoids edited by Geoffrey Guy,,,,page 74... "the species debate"
the opening line says,,,,
"most taxaonmists considder cannabis as a one species genius,,,,C sativa L 1753,,,,,the polyspecies concept began when lamarck disscribed cannabis indica in 1785,,,,the poly species debate began 20 years later when Persoon rejected Lamarcks species and reduced it to a synonym of C.sativa ,C.indica, C.Ruderalis,,,
mc partland et al 2000a discribed four bio-types
the whole this is still up for debate,,,,,,
the opening line says,,,,
"most taxaonmists considder cannabis as a one species genius,,,,C sativa L 1753,,,,,the polyspecies concept began when lamarck disscribed cannabis indica in 1785,,,,the poly species debate began 20 years later when Persoon rejected Lamarcks species and reduced it to a synonym of C.sativa ,C.indica, C.Ruderalis,,,
mc partland et al 2000a discribed four bio-types
the whole this is still up for debate,,,,,,
yea typical taxonomy crap lol I work with live animals and scientific names change to fast to keep up with ... its annoying to say the least.. but with new species and subspecies genus and families constantly being found in the field I suppose its to be expected. Would think cannabis would be more defined though..
Rice, einkorn, barley and wheat, have been more prevalent as sustainable mono-crops,, within many different agrarian societies,, and epochs in history... as cannabis ever has. Wheat crops were traditionally utilised to the supply the 3 basic stables ; bread, beer, and meat (hay),, plus have many other uses,, from basket weaving to bedding,, to laying over the bases of strawberry plants.
There are few places on earth, with the exception of Nepal,, where cannabis is used as the main source of protein. The main reason for this is because cannabis grows wild in the region and is one of the few plants to produce nutrition at such high altitudes.
Otherwise ,, sure cannabis is a versatile plant and has many different uses... we'll have a think about which plants are as versatile..
There are few places on earth, with the exception of Nepal,, where cannabis is used as the main source of protein. The main reason for this is because cannabis grows wild in the region and is one of the few plants to produce nutrition at such high altitudes.
Otherwise ,, sure cannabis is a versatile plant and has many different uses... we'll have a think about which plants are as versatile..
From region to region and nation to nation.
The Linnaeus system was a blue-print,, not the end result.
Botany/horticulture is perhaps the most dynamic subject out there.. this is what we were taught.
As plants and knowledge about plants grows,, things may change and develop
Well normally I try to keep this on the down low but I work with exotic corals and fish for the most part and Id say they are everybit as diverse. Especially the corals I see so many similairities to cannabis. We frag (clone) corals on a regular basis.
Rice, einkorn, barley and wheat, have been more prevalent as sustainable mono-crops,, within many different agrarian societies,, and epochs in history... as cannabis ever has. Wheat crops were traditionally utilised to the supply the 3 basic stables ; bread, beer, and meat (hay),, plus have many other uses,, from basket weaving to bedding,, to laying over the bases of strawberry plants.
There are few places on earth, with the exception of Nepal,, where cannabis is used as the main source of protein. The main reason for this is because cannabis grows wild in the region and is one of the few plants to produce nutrition at such high altitudes.
Otherwise ,, sure cannabis is a versatile plant and has many different uses... we'll have a think about which plants are as versatile..
^^^^ i gota admit ,,,thats a wickid post doc!!!,,,,it got me thinkin too!!,,
C
Cinderella99
English Rick, sounds like you've really been reading up here...You've got me at a disadvantage... But the flipside is that you've got me reading up on this stuff this past hour which is good for me lol.
My take, and tell me if yours differs, is that Disruptive Selection can be utilized sometime if the Genetic Load becomes too great: By selfing, same as inbreeding depression, plant's fitness is compromised to a degree (genetic load), so benefits of outcrossing, selecting extremes to impact the curve regarding a certain trait (even if it does push your goal further down the field) or disruptive selection have to be weighed in terms of ability to maintain plant's health and stress resistance. If a seed seller tried to pass off a line as an ibl that had disruptive selection occur in the previous to market generation, I'd think that seller unethical. But on the other hand, if a breeder took a detour from his/her breeding program to exercise disruptive selection, by say selecting a generation based on herm resistance, in order to shore up goal strain against herm tendency, then I'd call that a diligent breeder. I would be in favor of it in this case. So I guess, like a lot of this stuff, the answer is it depends. Is there an ongoing debate about whether or not disruptive selection is ethical that I'm not aware of? Seems like it is one tool in a program and the decision has to be weighed in terms of what the goals and tolerances are. Which, for me, begs the question of whether or not herm tendency is increased in S1 any more than say F3 or F4 inbreeding due to less fitness/more stress vulnerability. It probably really depends on the genetic profile of the strain and what mom you chose. What do you think?
Or was your point in mentioning Disruptive Selection more to present the possibility that the plants themselves are exhibiting herm tendency in an effort to make a radical adaptation (say to create male flowers to perpetuate the species in an all Fem environment) to the grower's environment? You're not suggesting that there are somehow specie selection archetypes that are passed on from generation to generation that would warrant more herm tendency in subsequent generations regardless of that current generation's environment, are you? That'd be like creating instinct, right?
I might believe, in terms of the timelines we're talking about here, that DS plays a part in a single, given generations reaction to it's environment. But, there'd have to be a control group of similar female plants selected based on female over male rather than S1 to see if herm tendency was related to DS, S1, or parent(s). --So, then the question would be, if you were to grow a population of femmed beans mixed with males from the same mother for example, would the herm tendencies attributed to DS be diminished?--To suggest that there are archetypes or hormonal marching orders passed down from previous generations in such great spurts seems a little like Botanical Mysticism to me, a little outside the fringes -- I'd need some hard science to show me that this could occur over just a few generations. I think that fallacy would be (well, akin to but not anthropomorphism) like projecting our own understanding of specie adaptation to speed the timeline for plant adaptation. Yes, I believe in Darwinian evolution, but until I see the science I will believe that any manifestation of "DS" is "BS" if we are talking about radical specie evolution (as in 2 or 3 generations) rather than an isolated reaction to one generation's environment. Otherwise, to rule it out, you could throw a few male plants in your S1 grow room. But I can't figure out, without stirring some voodoo in, how DS would account for any more herm tendency than the same strain where males have been systematically removed from the populations. Of course, as always, this is my non-scientific opinion and I could be wrong. Especially now since I'm really on an outer loop here lol
What is your interpretation, Rick?
And here's my parrot
:Selfing
by
Vic High
As the title implies, the main drawback to selfing cannabis plants is that you loose the male portion of your population, making future crosses difficult. Some think that by selfing a plant, all the offspring will turn out just like mom. That is only true if mom is true breeding for all the traits you are interested in. Otherwise, her offspring will show two phenotypes for every trait that she is not true breeding.
There are two basic models for selfing a plant such as cannabis the first one being where the plant is homozygous for the trait in question. Let's assume again that pineapple flavour is controlled by the recessive gene pp. If we self the plant we fill get the following S1 cross.
S1 cross = pp x pp = pp + pp + pp + pp or 100% pineapple flavoured female offspring. But no matching males
The other likely possibility is that special individual heterozygous dominant for the pineapple flavour. In this case P will indicate for pineapple flavour and the S1 cross will be:
S1 cross = Pp x Pp = PP + Pp + Pp + pp, our familiar 1:2:1 mendelian ratio.
In this second example only 75% of the offspring will have pineapple flavour and the frequency of the P gene will only be 50%, a far cry from 100% or true breeding. From here on, this isn't much different from a half sib cross involving regular inbreeding or backcrossing. It will take a few generations to achieve something close to true breeding, but as with backcrossing, as long as we use the P1 mom in the crosses (selfing in this case), we will never achieve a true breeding population.
the great variation in Cannabis sativa, is because of disruptive domestication for fiber, oilseed, and narcotic resin!!,,,"disruptive selection" is where individuals of extreme trait values are favored against those with average trait values....."directional selection" is when allele frequency for a trait continuously shifts in one direction,,, "stabilizing selection" is when frequency of the alleles of lower fitness decreases until they vanish,,,
"Balancing selection" refers to a number of selective processes in which multiple alleles (different versions of a gene) are actively maintained within a gene-pool of a population at frequencies above that of gene mutation.
"Balancing selection" refers to a number of selective processes in which multiple alleles (different versions of a gene) are actively maintained within a gene-pool of a population at frequencies above that of gene mutation.
What books would you recommend? Best way to learn is to drop some seeds and grow, researching along the way. This applies to pretty much any hobby.
Nothing wrong with LEDs or fem seeds, and the newer autoflowering strains are supposedly good (heard good things about sour 60) - I don't run AF myself, but what's wrong with having options?
Nothing wrong with LEDs or fem seeds, and the newer autoflowering strains are supposedly good (heard good things about sour 60) - I don't run AF myself, but what's wrong with having options?
bicycle racer
Member
i think if from scratch you have made your own fems and grown them out you would have a different opinion on there stability or general usefulness. it seems most of the naysayers dont have much experience with fems only ones they have purchased from seedbanks which may or may not have been proper fems to begin with.
yeah, and it turns their skin blue over time. no shit, google it.
U
unthing
Dalaihempy, I think they were talking about micropropagation. Sadly it never took off..quess there were more than few difficulties..
But if it worked out on a bigger scale than hobbyist doing it, it would be great, no polys or s1s (not that those don't have much potential in them), but a microclone of clone only-(hype)strain
I naively wonder what's the catch.
But if it worked out on a bigger scale than hobbyist doing it, it would be great, no polys or s1s (not that those don't have much potential in them), but a microclone of clone only-(hype)strain
I naively wonder what's the catch.
Last edited:
