My Unoriginal Ideas on Stabilizing your own Variety of Cannabis
Don Cotyle
inexpensive macro photos
Suzy? Suzy Chreamcheese? "Yea".....Whats got into you!!!!?
Just funnin a little;) Very good and interesting info in your thread, Thanks for posting!!!;)Don
Just funnin a little;) Very good and interesting info in your thread, Thanks for posting!!!;)Don
Scoobs
I am who I am
Two issues here:
1) Preservation - Yeah I'm all for it, and not just with cannabis.
2) Regulation - So a bunch of elitists want to tell everybody else what to do with their
plants? Why? Not every "LAyman" is ignorant. And not every self appointed "expert" is ethical. You know the enemy isn't the "Layman", it's hype, it's greed and it's a lack of ethics. I believe in the free market, people do not want to buy crappy seeds and if they are tricked by hype they won't buy from that breeder again. The enemy is bullshit, there is way too much of it in this industry. As long as there are a few ethical breeders with access to good genetics then the gene pool will be in good hands.
You can't tell people what to do, but you can lead them by example and inform them with knowledge.
1) Preservation - Yeah I'm all for it, and not just with cannabis.
2) Regulation - So a bunch of elitists want to tell everybody else what to do with their
plants? Why? Not every "LAyman" is ignorant. And not every self appointed "expert" is ethical. You know the enemy isn't the "Layman", it's hype, it's greed and it's a lack of ethics. I believe in the free market, people do not want to buy crappy seeds and if they are tricked by hype they won't buy from that breeder again. The enemy is bullshit, there is way too much of it in this industry. As long as there are a few ethical breeders with access to good genetics then the gene pool will be in good hands.
You can't tell people what to do, but you can lead them by example and inform them with knowledge.
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
Hi Suzy, a great thread with a wealth of knowledge. I wish more people would share what they knew with the same level of understatement and class. Many thanks compadre.
Re:
I remember this stuff creeping into various forums from various people at CW, but I still don't get it Suzy. Perhaps you can help me out?
The way I see it, all of the drug strains from which all neo-varieties have been derived were initially created by laymen. The man-made drug cultivars were inbred by genetic know-nothings to suit the selfish purpose of the cultivator.
Some of these are still the most desirable smoking strains in the world imo despite having the least sophisticated level of genetic engineering, as well as being bred with no regard for gene preservation.
This is similar to what is going on now on a globally broader, yet smaller scale in some of our closets, so although it concerns some people, it seems to me it is the natural course human beings will take.
We are breeding for what is best for us, not what is best for the species. But why wouldn't we? Each closet breeding project has a goal, and preserving alleles will never be one of them in my lifetime because we have no metrics to account for what is going on at the cellular level. Besides closet hacks are hobbyists not conservationists or professionals, so their efforts should be regarded as extraneous.
I think all of us might agree that regardless of who they are, or the level of education they have, the people who grow, smoke and breed Cannabis are the ones who love it most. And although the laymen's lack of attention to genetic diversity when 'breeding' will cause some alleles to be lost, the amount of alleles that are being preserved by these people seem to be taken for granted if not entirely dismissed.
IMHO a person whose glass is 1/2 full would be grateful to the ignorant layman closet hack for the alleles he or she preserves rather than critical for the ones he or she loses.
IMO the gene preservation philosophy would be better impressed upon the breeders who know better and should be leading by example but still share the same paternal pollen sources(we all know who they are) or the breeders who continually re-work the same old standards in Holland to enhance commercial viability of their seeds without concern that they are narrowing the gene pool.
I would argue these people are probably doing more to exacerbate the problem than all of the closet hacks in the world combined due to mass global distribution. It is these people who determine the diversity of commerically available genetics, not the people who are forced to use them. Using all of the males and females from a genetically uniform strain is not going to help preserve much.
Just sayin' ;-)
Re:
I remember this stuff creeping into various forums from various people at CW, but I still don't get it Suzy. Perhaps you can help me out?
The way I see it, all of the drug strains from which all neo-varieties have been derived were initially created by laymen. The man-made drug cultivars were inbred by genetic know-nothings to suit the selfish purpose of the cultivator.
Some of these are still the most desirable smoking strains in the world imo despite having the least sophisticated level of genetic engineering, as well as being bred with no regard for gene preservation.
This is similar to what is going on now on a globally broader, yet smaller scale in some of our closets, so although it concerns some people, it seems to me it is the natural course human beings will take.
We are breeding for what is best for us, not what is best for the species. But why wouldn't we? Each closet breeding project has a goal, and preserving alleles will never be one of them in my lifetime because we have no metrics to account for what is going on at the cellular level. Besides closet hacks are hobbyists not conservationists or professionals, so their efforts should be regarded as extraneous.
I think all of us might agree that regardless of who they are, or the level of education they have, the people who grow, smoke and breed Cannabis are the ones who love it most. And although the laymen's lack of attention to genetic diversity when 'breeding' will cause some alleles to be lost, the amount of alleles that are being preserved by these people seem to be taken for granted if not entirely dismissed.
IMHO a person whose glass is 1/2 full would be grateful to the ignorant layman closet hack for the alleles he or she preserves rather than critical for the ones he or she loses.
IMO the gene preservation philosophy would be better impressed upon the breeders who know better and should be leading by example but still share the same paternal pollen sources(we all know who they are) or the breeders who continually re-work the same old standards in Holland to enhance commercial viability of their seeds without concern that they are narrowing the gene pool.
I would argue these people are probably doing more to exacerbate the problem than all of the closet hacks in the world combined due to mass global distribution. It is these people who determine the diversity of commerically available genetics, not the people who are forced to use them. Using all of the males and females from a genetically uniform strain is not going to help preserve much.
Just sayin' ;-)
suzy cremecheese
New member
Response to Scoobs and Roz
First off they're only elitists because the majority don't like what they're saying, and second no one is passing any laws through congress so it isn't regulation. Some people that have studied genetics, horticulture, and few other plant oriented disciplines a bit more than the average cannabis grower are sharing their experience, and informed opinions, aka knowledge, and because no one likes what they're saying they're being called elitists.
We have one situation, happens to be one of the most experienced, in which the poster unfortunately lacks people skills. So, in this case, everyone focuses on the way he is saying it and ignores (deletes) what he says, because of the way he said it.
I agree with you 100%. However the majority lack any significant knowledge of genetics or other disciplines required for plant breeding while keeping the negative impact to the gene pool to a minimum... those that do have a little bit of knowledge can be the most dangerous.
Again I agree 100%. That doesn't change the message of those that actually do care about the species.
No the enemy is the war on drugs. If plant numbers weren't limited, and professional breeding/ preservation could be done on a legal level, and if there wasn't eradication efforts going on in almost every country on the planet, then the damage a layman could do would be insignificant, and their improvements would increase in value.
There is more to preservation than producing high quality genetics that don't herm. That's basically what a consumer wants. The demands of the consumer do not parallel the demands of the species and what is required to preserve its diversity.
Even ethical breeders are limited in the number plants that they can keep. Even if that number is in the thousands it is way too small. "professional" breeders, regardless of how ethical they are, need to be financially rewarded for their work in order to make the risks they take worth it.
Breeding and preservation are two very, very different things and do not resemble each other much at all. We can't depend on breeders to be the preservationists. The motivations, practices, and results run contrary to each other regardless of ethics.
***added 5/4/9***
Just because a line, variety, or plant is "crappy" or unworthy of drug cultivar aficionados doesn't mean it doesn't have some hidden gems in its DNA that are worthy of preservation. This is just one of the many ways that breeding and preservation differ.
Which leads me back to the first paragraph of this post. I feel like cutting and pasting it here... the bottom line is people are selectively looking for breeding/ seed making/ seed purchasing advice. Tell them something they don't want to hear and you are either an elitist, an asshole, ignored or some combination of the three.
Thank you Roz. I wrote this a long time ago and see room for improvement everytime I read it but have been lacking motivation in this department for some time. I guess I feel like legalization is a much more worthy cause now. It is the biggest obstacle to real preservation.
I'll do my best.
Yes, but they literally had all the diversity in the world to work with and in the process, along with the help of the war on drugs, eliminated a good deal of it.
Two points to address here, product desirability by the end user, and genetic erosion.
Product desirability is not synonymous with a healthy gene pool. The populations that buyers demand lack diversity. They want to know that they will get the products they see advertised in their 10 pack. This leads to a desire for less diversity in the populations being maintained by breeders. Which is fine in a world where we still have access to the originals.
No one said people without knowledge of genetics can't make more desirable plants. That's how we ended up with most of our food crops. The difference is that the gene pools from which all these genes were being extracted to make these foods weren't disappearing at the expense of the new varieties. They still grew wild and were there when we needed them. That isn't the case with Cannabis. That's where the genetic erosion come in.
The "natural" (easiest) course for human beings is rarely, if ever, the best course for other life forms.
As I've said in many other posts and threads, exactly. This is why the genetic diversity of the species is suffering. We don't need to measure anything to know that we are losing large numbers of allele variations at every turn. We can see it happening right before our very eyes. We created a bottleneck and we don't care enough, collectively, to try to undo it. Our goals are more important, even if they lead to a loss of things that may help us achieve future more loftier goals... even if they lead to the ultimate demise of the species.
We're loving the species to death then... These alleles are already present in the existing generations. What you're talking about is not preservation. Preservation at the expense of other alleles is just breeding.
Sure but if one day we need some of those alleles we lost to combat some mutated pathogen or some other dooms day scenario then am I a glass half full person if I just appreciate that I got to enjoy Cannabis for most of my life but too bad for my grand kids? What if some of the allele variations being lost code for cures or treatments for diseases? Am I only a glass half full person if I say "screw it! who needs those alleles? These ones I'm smoking are pretty damn good?"
No one, not I, or Hyb ever let them off the hook. I think that's one of the reasons he was always so pissed off. We could take it a step further and complain about the guys that send dutch genetics to far away lands to replace or intermingle with the native landraces. Personally I wouldn't call most of them professionals... except for the fact that they are making fortunes off of it.
I would agree but there is very little profit in preservation, and breeding and preservation are two different animals. One is much more profitable than the other and for the most part, when you're focusing on keeping numbers reasonable, they are incompatible. It would be much easier for every layman that truly "loves" Cannabis to do their part preserving. Or everyone could just stop buying their seed and eventually they will be gone.
Apparently very few people that "love" Cannabis are willing to risk their lives and freedom for it without a major financial payout or some quest for a new high being satisfied. If I was really smart I'd just shut up and figure out a way to make preservation more profitable than breeding. Then this problem would be solved... any suggestions?
Partially true. There's more than one game in town... They still have to compete with other seed makers. If their products aren't comparable they won't last long. Preservation is breeding for diversity and the end user demands uniformity for their dollars.
This is where we come full circle back to incentives for the work and risk involved in breeding vs preservation.
Not much but it will help. Most people that want to do closet breeding don't want a totally uniform strain though. They want some variability so they can actually see the difference from generation to generation. They want to feel like they are making improvements. Also we don't really need to preserve the latest uniform strain. We need to preserve the original building blocks of those strains.
scoobs said:
First off they're only elitists because the majority don't like what they're saying, and second no one is passing any laws through congress so it isn't regulation. Some people that have studied genetics, horticulture, and few other plant oriented disciplines a bit more than the average cannabis grower are sharing their experience, and informed opinions, aka knowledge, and because no one likes what they're saying they're being called elitists.
We have one situation, happens to be one of the most experienced, in which the poster unfortunately lacks people skills. So, in this case, everyone focuses on the way he is saying it and ignores (deletes) what he says, because of the way he said it.
scoobs said:
I agree with you 100%. However the majority lack any significant knowledge of genetics or other disciplines required for plant breeding while keeping the negative impact to the gene pool to a minimum... those that do have a little bit of knowledge can be the most dangerous.
scoobs said:
Again I agree 100%. That doesn't change the message of those that actually do care about the species.
No the enemy is the war on drugs. If plant numbers weren't limited, and professional breeding/ preservation could be done on a legal level, and if there wasn't eradication efforts going on in almost every country on the planet, then the damage a layman could do would be insignificant, and their improvements would increase in value.
scoobs said:
There is more to preservation than producing high quality genetics that don't herm. That's basically what a consumer wants. The demands of the consumer do not parallel the demands of the species and what is required to preserve its diversity.
Even ethical breeders are limited in the number plants that they can keep. Even if that number is in the thousands it is way too small. "professional" breeders, regardless of how ethical they are, need to be financially rewarded for their work in order to make the risks they take worth it.
Breeding and preservation are two very, very different things and do not resemble each other much at all. We can't depend on breeders to be the preservationists. The motivations, practices, and results run contrary to each other regardless of ethics.
***added 5/4/9***
Just because a line, variety, or plant is "crappy" or unworthy of drug cultivar aficionados doesn't mean it doesn't have some hidden gems in its DNA that are worthy of preservation. This is just one of the many ways that breeding and preservation differ.
scoobs said:
Which leads me back to the first paragraph of this post. I feel like cutting and pasting it here... the bottom line is people are selectively looking for breeding/ seed making/ seed purchasing advice. Tell them something they don't want to hear and you are either an elitist, an asshole, ignored or some combination of the three.
Roz said:
Thank you Roz. I wrote this a long time ago and see room for improvement everytime I read it but have been lacking motivation in this department for some time. I guess I feel like legalization is a much more worthy cause now. It is the biggest obstacle to real preservation.
you said:
I'll do my best.
Roz said:
Yes, but they literally had all the diversity in the world to work with and in the process, along with the help of the war on drugs, eliminated a good deal of it.
roz said:
Two points to address here, product desirability by the end user, and genetic erosion.
Product desirability is not synonymous with a healthy gene pool. The populations that buyers demand lack diversity. They want to know that they will get the products they see advertised in their 10 pack. This leads to a desire for less diversity in the populations being maintained by breeders. Which is fine in a world where we still have access to the originals.
No one said people without knowledge of genetics can't make more desirable plants. That's how we ended up with most of our food crops. The difference is that the gene pools from which all these genes were being extracted to make these foods weren't disappearing at the expense of the new varieties. They still grew wild and were there when we needed them. That isn't the case with Cannabis. That's where the genetic erosion come in.
Roz said:
The "natural" (easiest) course for human beings is rarely, if ever, the best course for other life forms.
As I've said in many other posts and threads, exactly. This is why the genetic diversity of the species is suffering. We don't need to measure anything to know that we are losing large numbers of allele variations at every turn. We can see it happening right before our very eyes. We created a bottleneck and we don't care enough, collectively, to try to undo it. Our goals are more important, even if they lead to a loss of things that may help us achieve future more loftier goals... even if they lead to the ultimate demise of the species.
We're loving the species to death then... These alleles are already present in the existing generations. What you're talking about is not preservation. Preservation at the expense of other alleles is just breeding.
roz said:
Sure but if one day we need some of those alleles we lost to combat some mutated pathogen or some other dooms day scenario then am I a glass half full person if I just appreciate that I got to enjoy Cannabis for most of my life but too bad for my grand kids? What if some of the allele variations being lost code for cures or treatments for diseases? Am I only a glass half full person if I say "screw it! who needs those alleles? These ones I'm smoking are pretty damn good?"
Roz said:
No one, not I, or Hyb ever let them off the hook. I think that's one of the reasons he was always so pissed off. We could take it a step further and complain about the guys that send dutch genetics to far away lands to replace or intermingle with the native landraces. Personally I wouldn't call most of them professionals... except for the fact that they are making fortunes off of it.
Roz said:
I would agree but there is very little profit in preservation, and breeding and preservation are two different animals. One is much more profitable than the other and for the most part, when you're focusing on keeping numbers reasonable, they are incompatible. It would be much easier for every layman that truly "loves" Cannabis to do their part preserving. Or everyone could just stop buying their seed and eventually they will be gone.
Apparently very few people that "love" Cannabis are willing to risk their lives and freedom for it without a major financial payout or some quest for a new high being satisfied. If I was really smart I'd just shut up and figure out a way to make preservation more profitable than breeding. Then this problem would be solved... any suggestions?
Roz said:
Partially true. There's more than one game in town... They still have to compete with other seed makers. If their products aren't comparable they won't last long. Preservation is breeding for diversity and the end user demands uniformity for their dollars.
This is where we come full circle back to incentives for the work and risk involved in breeding vs preservation.
Roz said:
Not much but it will help. Most people that want to do closet breeding don't want a totally uniform strain though. They want some variability so they can actually see the difference from generation to generation. They want to feel like they are making improvements. Also we don't really need to preserve the latest uniform strain. We need to preserve the original building blocks of those strains.
Last edited:
Hopefull Stoner
Member
dang suzy,
1st. hello how have u been. just was peeking around and saw this , so that means ur gonna make me read al thsi stuff. oh well a stoner has to do what a stoner has to do. thx. for sharing .
of course i may have questions/comments later . u were warned
1st. hello how have u been. just was peeking around and saw this , so that means ur gonna make me read al thsi stuff. oh well a stoner has to do what a stoner has to do. thx. for sharing .
of course i may have questions/comments later . u were warned
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
Hi Suzy, thank you for taking the time to respond by point. I think I understand some of the concerns a little better now, but would like to address a couple of things if I may.
We have to go where our convictions lead us.
Re:
Could you please explain how this problem is manifesting itself in terms someone like myself could easily recognize?
Re:
Perhaps we do, and just lack leadership/direction.
Re:
This may be true in the strictest sense, but teh positive externalities are being ignored imo. The huge increase in closet breeders has also resulted in hundreds if not thousands of genetic 'repositories' aka their seed collections which would otherwise not exist.
Many closet breeders have dozens of 'strains', many of which they will never breed. Is this not also preservation?
Re:
What if some of the ones which are preserved do? It seems statistically unlikely because of the wide array of genetics being used that all closet hacks would preserve or lose the same alleles.
Re:
Interesting, but is it not in these commercial people's best interest to ensure that as many strains as possible are preserved to guarantee they can always sustain a healthy seed stock for their market? Will this genetic bottleneck not effect them more than anyone else ultimately? Seems to me the onus should be on them if that is the case....passing the buck lol ;-)
Seriously though, as I mentioned last post, hobbyist's efforts should be considered an extraeneous bonus IMO, just like in any other profession that also attracts hobbyists. If they weren't doing it, there would a much smaller global germoplasm.
There are few things approached more selfishly than hobbys. That is what they are all about. All fun, all the time. When you have to start adhering to something that does not interest you, it is no longer a hobby it is a labour.
Re:
Check your inbox.
Cheers,
R
We have to go where our convictions lead us.
Re:
Could you please explain how this problem is manifesting itself in terms someone like myself could easily recognize?
Re:
Perhaps we do, and just lack leadership/direction.
Re:
This may be true in the strictest sense, but teh positive externalities are being ignored imo. The huge increase in closet breeders has also resulted in hundreds if not thousands of genetic 'repositories' aka their seed collections which would otherwise not exist.
Many closet breeders have dozens of 'strains', many of which they will never breed. Is this not also preservation?
Re:
What if some of the ones which are preserved do? It seems statistically unlikely because of the wide array of genetics being used that all closet hacks would preserve or lose the same alleles.
Re:
Interesting, but is it not in these commercial people's best interest to ensure that as many strains as possible are preserved to guarantee they can always sustain a healthy seed stock for their market? Will this genetic bottleneck not effect them more than anyone else ultimately? Seems to me the onus should be on them if that is the case....passing the buck lol ;-)
Seriously though, as I mentioned last post, hobbyist's efforts should be considered an extraeneous bonus IMO, just like in any other profession that also attracts hobbyists. If they weren't doing it, there would a much smaller global germoplasm.
There are few things approached more selfishly than hobbys. That is what they are all about. All fun, all the time. When you have to start adhering to something that does not interest you, it is no longer a hobby it is a labour.
Re:
Check your inbox.
Cheers,
R
Johnny Quest
New member
Great thread, cannabis is becoming just like other food crops, the original plants have been modified by man..................
direct comparison, grew some 1957 heirloom tomato's last year resurected by a prominant agricultural school, this heirloom was very thin skinned, not geneticlly bred or changed for thicker skin so they can ship them easier, a skin so thin that it cooked to sauce.....................
Everything we touch is being altered, I like Hyb, he is purist in the sence of his education, we shouldnt hammer him for using his beliefs and education to provide his scientific opinion.
Its about numbers.....................if we all could grow out a 1000 each, we would know more about external characteristics of each plant , even poly hybreds...........I am in favor of preservation of individual strains, can we as hobbyist breed to standards of some of the highly educated people within our plant biology community, NO we cannot, but we can try to keep what each of us have created and saved from old days for that day when we can grow out 1000 F2's.................the amazing diff of a 52 yr old heirloom tomato to todays polyhybred versions was amazing, my opinion is, this is what the point that the Plant Biologogy educated are making...........
Great thread
direct comparison, grew some 1957 heirloom tomato's last year resurected by a prominant agricultural school, this heirloom was very thin skinned, not geneticlly bred or changed for thicker skin so they can ship them easier, a skin so thin that it cooked to sauce.....................
Everything we touch is being altered, I like Hyb, he is purist in the sence of his education, we shouldnt hammer him for using his beliefs and education to provide his scientific opinion.
Its about numbers.....................if we all could grow out a 1000 each, we would know more about external characteristics of each plant , even poly hybreds...........I am in favor of preservation of individual strains, can we as hobbyist breed to standards of some of the highly educated people within our plant biology community, NO we cannot, but we can try to keep what each of us have created and saved from old days for that day when we can grow out 1000 F2's.................the amazing diff of a 52 yr old heirloom tomato to todays polyhybred versions was amazing, my opinion is, this is what the point that the Plant Biologogy educated are making...........
Great thread
suzy cremecheese
New member
Response to Hopeful Stoner
I hope you find it worth your time.
I will do my best to answer any questions that come up in this thread in a timely manner. It's been tough to get in here lately.
hopeful said:
I hope you find it worth your time.
I will do my best to answer any questions that come up in this thread in a timely manner. It's been tough to get in here lately.
Last edited:
suzy cremecheese
New member
Response to Roz post #50 part one
My convictions haven't changed. I just believe that real preservation is impossible with the current legal status of Cannabis. The war on drugs is having a significant impact on the Cannabis gene pool.
Well the cause would be all the 1x1, and other crosses from one mom, one dad or very inadequate plant numbers in general. Sure not a big deal in lines that have already had all the diversity bred out of them after years of descending from these crosses that are unrepresentative of the parent population but in general, when we deal with lines that still have a reasonable amount of diversity, it is a significant problem.
One Cannabis plant is capable of carrying 2 allele versions at every locus/gene. That's it. So at most a population descending from a 1x1 cross will have four alleles at every locus. Due to repeated breeding with inadequate populations most likely less. These lines came from populations with dozens if not hundreds of allele variations at every loci. It was this variation that allowed wild, feral and even cultivated populations to survive the harshest conditions. Repeated selection for the limited qualities that make for good smoke or cooperative indoor plants is fine for our purposes but not for the ultimate survival of the species.
***added 5/4/9Even in these populations with limited diversity it is possible that some alleles are rare and only surface in a few of the progeny. It is still possible to lose even more diversity in subsequent generations however the process slows as diversity is decreased. Eventually, theoretically, you could end up with a 100% homozygous line and it is impossible at this point to lose anymore diversity because this "population" can be represented by two plants.
I might not have answered your question. I was a little vague on it. Feel free to steer me towards what your asking.
You say in a quote later on (I qoute it in my next post) that if it's not fun it is labor and not a hobby. Well I believe that most people find what is required in preservation is much less fun that what passes for breeding. There have been a handful of people pointing out the shortcomings of cannabis breeding and the lack of preservation for as long as I can remember. Since before I had any idea what was going on. The direction and leadership has been around for quite some time I guess we're just not convincing enough in spite of our unique approaches to the problem.
These collections are probably doing as much harm, if not more, than they are good. The vast majority of them are the result of inadequate number of plants to be representative of the original population. These are passed on to other hobbyists and the diversity is reduced even further.
Sometimes, but I would blindly guess more often than not, no. MOst of these lines are the result of multiple generations of 1x1 or other unrepresentative, inadequate, plant number crosses.
I'm going to have to cut this short and come back later... sorry for the interruption.
roz said:
My convictions haven't changed. I just believe that real preservation is impossible with the current legal status of Cannabis. The war on drugs is having a significant impact on the Cannabis gene pool.
roz said:
Well the cause would be all the 1x1, and other crosses from one mom, one dad or very inadequate plant numbers in general. Sure not a big deal in lines that have already had all the diversity bred out of them after years of descending from these crosses that are unrepresentative of the parent population but in general, when we deal with lines that still have a reasonable amount of diversity, it is a significant problem.
One Cannabis plant is capable of carrying 2 allele versions at every locus/gene. That's it. So at most a population descending from a 1x1 cross will have four alleles at every locus. Due to repeated breeding with inadequate populations most likely less. These lines came from populations with dozens if not hundreds of allele variations at every loci. It was this variation that allowed wild, feral and even cultivated populations to survive the harshest conditions. Repeated selection for the limited qualities that make for good smoke or cooperative indoor plants is fine for our purposes but not for the ultimate survival of the species.
***added 5/4/9Even in these populations with limited diversity it is possible that some alleles are rare and only surface in a few of the progeny. It is still possible to lose even more diversity in subsequent generations however the process slows as diversity is decreased. Eventually, theoretically, you could end up with a 100% homozygous line and it is impossible at this point to lose anymore diversity because this "population" can be represented by two plants.
I might not have answered your question. I was a little vague on it. Feel free to steer me towards what your asking.
roz said:
You say in a quote later on (I qoute it in my next post) that if it's not fun it is labor and not a hobby. Well I believe that most people find what is required in preservation is much less fun that what passes for breeding. There have been a handful of people pointing out the shortcomings of cannabis breeding and the lack of preservation for as long as I can remember. Since before I had any idea what was going on. The direction and leadership has been around for quite some time I guess we're just not convincing enough in spite of our unique approaches to the problem.
roz said:
These collections are probably doing as much harm, if not more, than they are good. The vast majority of them are the result of inadequate number of plants to be representative of the original population. These are passed on to other hobbyists and the diversity is reduced even further.
roz said:
Sometimes, but I would blindly guess more often than not, no. MOst of these lines are the result of multiple generations of 1x1 or other unrepresentative, inadequate, plant number crosses.
I'm going to have to cut this short and come back later... sorry for the interruption.
Last edited:
suzy cremecheese
New member
reply to Roz post #50 part 2... sorry for the interruption
Let me hit this point a little bit more.
The fact that these seeds sit in storage for years is a good thing. I don't want to seem completely negative. When preservation is done a large portion of the population needs to be reproduced to save as many alleles as possible. Since seeds last, when stored well, for many years a great deal may be preserved. Considering the plant numbers that even the riskiest of us are willing to work with the best thing we can do is store the genetics for as long as possible in seed form.
This is a positive in the sense that it may be all we have... it is a negative when you consider what's been lost on the way to this point.
Well sure, some may be preserved accidentally. That doesn't erase the fact that with every generation of breeding being done by amateur breeders more diversity is being lost than is being maintained especially when a small number of plants are being selected from the original population. The exception to this would be in descendants of 1x1 crosses (or crosses where only one male or female is used). These lines have already lost so much diversity that there isn't much more to lose.
Is there really that wide an array of genetics being used? Or does just seem that way from our closet doors?
Most of the stuff we mess with today is the boiled down descendants of a few popular Dutch and American varieties that were worked intensively back in the 60s and 70s so they would work better indoors under fake lighting, yield big and knock our socks off. Don't get me wrong, the people that developed these varieties accomplished their goal. It's not their fault there is an intense war on the species going on in the meantime.
Now think about how these early breeders got us to where we are today. They took some of the best indigenous landrace varieties that they could find either via world travel or out of bagseed. They took a small number of seed that poorly represented the original population and was a small fraction of the original diversity and reduced it further by eliminating the genes that didn't suit their goals. I'm not faulting them for that, that's breeding, but there was no preservation of the original populations going on in the meantime. Everyone took for granted that they would exist in the wild or that the indigenous tribes would preserve them in their original state perpetually. Who could foresee a war of this magnitude on the species back in the 60's. Everyone thought legalization was around the corner. Then there are those that polluted the landraces ignorantly introducing the "improved varieties" to the indigenous caretakers so they could be left to compete with the originals.
Now today, 50 years and an unknown hundreds of generations later we take that same stuff and reduce it further at every turn. Sure occasionally someone will pop 20 seeds someone saved from the Vietnam war, or a bag of original Panama red and inject their favorite female or male into our gene pool and hopefully something sticks but for the most part were dealing with a finite resource and no one seems to care what could be lost every time a plant is culled.
The problem with closet hack breeding isn't so much that were doing it. The problem is that it may be the only place to save the genetics that are being eliminated around the world in eradication programs... but like you say in the quote below *** that's too much like work.
Sure but they aren't trained professionals, they're entrepreneurs. If someone hasn't studied population genetics I wouldn't expect them to realize there is a problem. Most people don't believe it in spite of a few dedicated people yelling about it on these forums since weedbase and laughing moon! It's more convenient and profitable to go on doing business as usual.
If it wasn't for the current legal status maybe the major breeders would be more interested in contributing to preservation... At least then they'd have the option of protecting their products with patents and would look to a preservation group as a source of diversity for future products. Then again diversity just makes coming up with something uniform (breeds true) more work and we all know that's what everyone wants in a 10 pack. If you're looking at about 5 females you want at least 2 or 3 of them to be as advertised.
That's debatable and I've presented my side of the argument. There is a great deal of potential with hobbyists that isn't close to being realized.
***
I reference this quote a few times throughout my last two posts.
Let me hit this point a little bit more.
Roz said:
The fact that these seeds sit in storage for years is a good thing. I don't want to seem completely negative. When preservation is done a large portion of the population needs to be reproduced to save as many alleles as possible. Since seeds last, when stored well, for many years a great deal may be preserved. Considering the plant numbers that even the riskiest of us are willing to work with the best thing we can do is store the genetics for as long as possible in seed form.
This is a positive in the sense that it may be all we have... it is a negative when you consider what's been lost on the way to this point.
roz said:
Well sure, some may be preserved accidentally. That doesn't erase the fact that with every generation of breeding being done by amateur breeders more diversity is being lost than is being maintained especially when a small number of plants are being selected from the original population. The exception to this would be in descendants of 1x1 crosses (or crosses where only one male or female is used). These lines have already lost so much diversity that there isn't much more to lose.
roz said:
Is there really that wide an array of genetics being used? Or does just seem that way from our closet doors?
Most of the stuff we mess with today is the boiled down descendants of a few popular Dutch and American varieties that were worked intensively back in the 60s and 70s so they would work better indoors under fake lighting, yield big and knock our socks off. Don't get me wrong, the people that developed these varieties accomplished their goal. It's not their fault there is an intense war on the species going on in the meantime.
Now think about how these early breeders got us to where we are today. They took some of the best indigenous landrace varieties that they could find either via world travel or out of bagseed. They took a small number of seed that poorly represented the original population and was a small fraction of the original diversity and reduced it further by eliminating the genes that didn't suit their goals. I'm not faulting them for that, that's breeding, but there was no preservation of the original populations going on in the meantime. Everyone took for granted that they would exist in the wild or that the indigenous tribes would preserve them in their original state perpetually. Who could foresee a war of this magnitude on the species back in the 60's. Everyone thought legalization was around the corner. Then there are those that polluted the landraces ignorantly introducing the "improved varieties" to the indigenous caretakers so they could be left to compete with the originals.
Now today, 50 years and an unknown hundreds of generations later we take that same stuff and reduce it further at every turn. Sure occasionally someone will pop 20 seeds someone saved from the Vietnam war, or a bag of original Panama red and inject their favorite female or male into our gene pool and hopefully something sticks but for the most part were dealing with a finite resource and no one seems to care what could be lost every time a plant is culled.
The problem with closet hack breeding isn't so much that were doing it. The problem is that it may be the only place to save the genetics that are being eliminated around the world in eradication programs... but like you say in the quote below *** that's too much like work.
Roz said:
Sure but they aren't trained professionals, they're entrepreneurs. If someone hasn't studied population genetics I wouldn't expect them to realize there is a problem. Most people don't believe it in spite of a few dedicated people yelling about it on these forums since weedbase and laughing moon! It's more convenient and profitable to go on doing business as usual.
If it wasn't for the current legal status maybe the major breeders would be more interested in contributing to preservation... At least then they'd have the option of protecting their products with patents and would look to a preservation group as a source of diversity for future products. Then again diversity just makes coming up with something uniform (breeds true) more work and we all know that's what everyone wants in a 10 pack. If you're looking at about 5 females you want at least 2 or 3 of them to be as advertised.
Roz said:
That's debatable and I've presented my side of the argument. There is a great deal of potential with hobbyists that isn't close to being realized.
***
ROz said:
I reference this quote a few times throughout my last two posts.
Last edited:
suzy cremecheese
New member
response to Johnny Quest
This is a great point that brings up something I've been reading about lately with food crops. It is a proven fact now that the more recent hybrids are about 1/2 as nutritious as they were 50 years ago! That's a huge deal! Even Oprah has discussed this with Michael Polan. That means, that in spite of increasing the yields of food crops over the last 50 years we've really lost out ultimately.
Now some may say, "Look even professional breeders have screwed up the crops they work on!" to that I reply your right! The difference is tomato growers don't have a 10 plant limit in Mendocino. They don't have eradication squads dropping from helicopters and tearing up all their hard work, or thugs kicking in their doors and ruining their lives. They're not limited by 600 watts. So almost all the heirloom varieties that were around 50 years ago still have home gardeners preserving them in their original state.
Professional breeders realized a longtime ago that it is inevitable that they will screw up and they took appropriate precautions. There is a germplasm preservation project for every major, and some minor, food crop on the planet. In most cases multiple storage facilities in case something goes wrong at one of them. These places focus on preserving a representative number of seed for every line they can find on the planet. Professionals are combing the world for undiscovered lines all the time so that teh germplasm can be stored, preserved, and reproduced before the seed is no longer good. Professional breeders and universities have access to these banks for storage and access purposes.
In defense of everyone else, they're turned off by hybs tone. I can understand that but I think I've been saying nearly the same thing for quite a while in a nice way and most people just blow that off or think it's a good read but what can they do about it? Who can blame him for getting so pissed off when you think of it in those terms? He's passionate. He should be respected for that on top of everything else but then who can respect someone when it seems like you're being disrespected by him?
Right but who can do that indoors and who wants to take that chance outdoors? Then in some cases, mostly unpolluted landraces, even 1000 properly selected seeds won't adequately represent a population.
There's no point in growing out 1000 seedlings that result from a 1x1 cross. Most likely you can maintain all the alleles within such a cross in significantly less plants.
This is a great point that brings up something I've been reading about lately with food crops. It is a proven fact now that the more recent hybrids are about 1/2 as nutritious as they were 50 years ago! That's a huge deal! Even Oprah has discussed this with Michael Polan. That means, that in spite of increasing the yields of food crops over the last 50 years we've really lost out ultimately.
Now some may say, "Look even professional breeders have screwed up the crops they work on!" to that I reply your right! The difference is tomato growers don't have a 10 plant limit in Mendocino. They don't have eradication squads dropping from helicopters and tearing up all their hard work, or thugs kicking in their doors and ruining their lives. They're not limited by 600 watts. So almost all the heirloom varieties that were around 50 years ago still have home gardeners preserving them in their original state.
Professional breeders realized a longtime ago that it is inevitable that they will screw up and they took appropriate precautions. There is a germplasm preservation project for every major, and some minor, food crop on the planet. In most cases multiple storage facilities in case something goes wrong at one of them. These places focus on preserving a representative number of seed for every line they can find on the planet. Professionals are combing the world for undiscovered lines all the time so that teh germplasm can be stored, preserved, and reproduced before the seed is no longer good. Professional breeders and universities have access to these banks for storage and access purposes.
JQ said:
In defense of everyone else, they're turned off by hybs tone. I can understand that but I think I've been saying nearly the same thing for quite a while in a nice way and most people just blow that off or think it's a good read but what can they do about it? Who can blame him for getting so pissed off when you think of it in those terms? He's passionate. He should be respected for that on top of everything else but then who can respect someone when it seems like you're being disrespected by him?
Right but who can do that indoors and who wants to take that chance outdoors? Then in some cases, mostly unpolluted landraces, even 1000 properly selected seeds won't adequately represent a population.
There's no point in growing out 1000 seedlings that result from a 1x1 cross. Most likely you can maintain all the alleles within such a cross in significantly less plants.
Last edited:
A
alimphi
Guest
Breeding was done with food long time ago and it's still going on. Hobby gardeners, big companies and so on. But as it was mentioned with toms, nutritions are gone. It's not so much about nutritions, it's about the right ratio of values that are gone and they are very important for human body and soul. Only few goals while breeding or simply making seeds, transport is a good example, is not enough. Better say it's bad, specially when it's not in harmony with nature and it's laws. Sure, they get what they want, but i repeat, the ratio of values is gone and thus value of this food for human is gone to.
What can i do? Hard to say. Imo is not so much about numbers, but about the approach of what i want or better say what nature can do for me and in what way i will achieve it. Let say i have 20 seeds of this genetic. Probably original value is long gone but still, plants are always in evolution stage, everything in nature is. I don't know much about preservation and old genetics but i'm very interested in this, specially when it comes to food. Just as with cannabis, most people don't know the importance of seeds and how, where and why were they made. Huge deal!!!
Anyway, 20 seeds. Can we even talk about preservation? Depends on what the story of these seeds is? So, my main goal is to mainly look into future and what i want out of these 20 seeds. I want offsprings that can grow wild, that can self propagate. So my first job is to grow them wild. Direct sow them, grow them in natural soil among other plants, letting them grow natural without any pesticide, nutrients and so on. Letting them have sex and self seed. Now, to me this is very important, and being a guerrilla grower a very very big benefit. But forget about me, plants can grow wild again a lot easier, isn't that right. That's what i'm into, that's what i think we lost big time. Wilderness when it comes to food and cannabis. Peace.
What can i do? Hard to say. Imo is not so much about numbers, but about the approach of what i want or better say what nature can do for me and in what way i will achieve it. Let say i have 20 seeds of this genetic. Probably original value is long gone but still, plants are always in evolution stage, everything in nature is. I don't know much about preservation and old genetics but i'm very interested in this, specially when it comes to food. Just as with cannabis, most people don't know the importance of seeds and how, where and why were they made. Huge deal!!!
Anyway, 20 seeds. Can we even talk about preservation? Depends on what the story of these seeds is? So, my main goal is to mainly look into future and what i want out of these 20 seeds. I want offsprings that can grow wild, that can self propagate. So my first job is to grow them wild. Direct sow them, grow them in natural soil among other plants, letting them grow natural without any pesticide, nutrients and so on. Letting them have sex and self seed. Now, to me this is very important, and being a guerrilla grower a very very big benefit. But forget about me, plants can grow wild again a lot easier, isn't that right. That's what i'm into, that's what i think we lost big time. Wilderness when it comes to food and cannabis. Peace.
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
HI Suzy thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It was a long journey but I think I understand the concerns more now, so you weren't wasting your time.
You seem frustrated by the fact that 'preservation is impossible' due to the war on drugs. Perhaps this frustration is why hyb is the way he is. However something just dawned on me...hyb was the eXe guy on CW...
If he is so conerned about preserving alleles, why in the world would he offer a product like eXe, which by design seems to be instrumental in narrowing the gene pool about as thin as you can slice it if you self a plant. Even if you use it to fertilize another plant, it is just another solitary pollen source. And a female pollen source at that.
To me this seems like an immense hypocrisy at worst, an acute problem of principle at best.
Thanks again for taking the time out of your busy schedule to respond. :ty:
You seem frustrated by the fact that 'preservation is impossible' due to the war on drugs. Perhaps this frustration is why hyb is the way he is. However something just dawned on me...hyb was the eXe guy on CW...
If he is so conerned about preserving alleles, why in the world would he offer a product like eXe, which by design seems to be instrumental in narrowing the gene pool about as thin as you can slice it if you self a plant. Even if you use it to fertilize another plant, it is just another solitary pollen source. And a female pollen source at that.
To me this seems like an immense hypocrisy at worst, an acute problem of principle at best.
Thanks again for taking the time out of your busy schedule to respond. :ty:
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
OK, in the spirit of pitching in, I have decided to comply with the wishes of the more learned...even though I am the laziest, most self-centred grower on earth.
Starting as of last round, I kept all of my males-even though I only wanted males from two strains. Before I let the males go I am going to do a pollen mix and systematically nano-pollinate all of the females, to preserve some of the gentic makeup available for that round. I am not going to keep these males ad infinitum however, I do not have the space. If I don't like their progeny as drug cultivars they are toast. Not sure what I am going to do with all of the seeds, but....
Additionally I am going to grow out my old landraces(that will germinate) and, bulk them up. Last night I put 10 seeds into the paper towel to germ. They are old school Kush(the landrace not Bubba, OG or any of the so-called Kush plants) x Sk#1 circa 1995.
Hope that helps the cause.
Starting as of last round, I kept all of my males-even though I only wanted males from two strains. Before I let the males go I am going to do a pollen mix and systematically nano-pollinate all of the females, to preserve some of the gentic makeup available for that round. I am not going to keep these males ad infinitum however, I do not have the space. If I don't like their progeny as drug cultivars they are toast. Not sure what I am going to do with all of the seeds, but....
Additionally I am going to grow out my old landraces(that will germinate) and, bulk them up. Last night I put 10 seeds into the paper towel to germ. They are old school Kush(the landrace not Bubba, OG or any of the so-called Kush plants) x Sk#1 circa 1995.
Hope that helps the cause.
S
Seamaiden
Guest
I need diagrams, PS. And small shiny objects to hold my fascination. :teeth: :happy:
No shit, that's along the lines of my own planning. And I just happen to have a few Skunk #1 from a 1978 run that are going to be run specifically for seeds (though I think the fellow who sent them to me already has that bit of it covered).
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
Hey PS,
Re:
Cool! When I first got into it, I got beans from older guys who made them from landraces they acquired pre-seedbanks. The Kush and Paki varieties I grew were very suited to indoor shows and extremly stable. I found some of the original beans a while back, but none would pop. I hope some of these do.
Re:
Cool! When I first got into it, I got beans from older guys who made them from landraces they acquired pre-seedbanks. The Kush and Paki varieties I grew were very suited to indoor shows and extremly stable. I found some of the original beans a while back, but none would pop. I hope some of these do.
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
Hi SM
Awesome!! Pre-1980 Skunk would be a beauty to grow out. I hope it works out well for you.
Awesome!! Pre-1980 Skunk would be a beauty to grow out. I hope it works out well for you.
Roz
Cannabis World Alumnus
Hi FOE,
Could you please explain the last sentence in more detail using examples. ie how you feel it determines what you are actually breeding. thx.
Re:
I thought the reason for bigger numbers was just to find more plants for selection to enhance the chances of finding the right plants to accomplish the goal(s) of the breeder? Not that I have to worry about it with my nano-grow room. lol
Not to mention committed. It is work for sure.
Could you please explain the last sentence in more detail using examples. ie how you feel it determines what you are actually breeding. thx.
Re:
I thought the reason for bigger numbers was just to find more plants for selection to enhance the chances of finding the right plants to accomplish the goal(s) of the breeder? Not that I have to worry about it with my nano-grow room. lol
Not to mention committed. It is work for sure.
