Kattepis haze

[appel 204]

Zoals die kalimist van vroegah

[Casto 316]

Kalimist

[Guest elmanito]

Western Winds (pre 98 Kali Mist)

 

[appel 204]

Is dat DE kalimist

[appel 204]

Helaas alleen fem seeds

[Guest elmanito]

Fem seeds hoeft niet persee slecht te zijn, tenslotte Cannabis is in de meeste gevallen intersex.De aantallen die gebruikt worden & selectie van die aantallen is belangrijk.Van de 100 die je uitzaait hou je na selectie er 5 over, waar je mee verder gaat.

 

Originally Posted by Chimera

 

No scientist could possibly say "there will be no negative effects of feminized breeding", but a scientist would use the available knowledge about the cannabis genome to make hypotheses and conclusions about how to go about the process in a practical and USEFUL way. This is not being done today, but that should not mean that this technique is not useful, or can be achieved in a responsible manner.

 

"Feminized" seeds are currently a destructive force to the cannabis genepool, but NOT because of the process of "feminized" matings in and of themselves. The real problem IMNSHO with "feminized" matings as available in the seed industry today is due to the low population sizes of the mating pool (ie- in almost every case N=2- a 1:1 mating scheme).

 

This FACT, combined with poor selections, and as stated $eed dollar$ as the main goal is the REAL problem with these methodologies.... and "seed releases" or hack jobs for lack of a better term. I don't see how 1:1 matings, combined with poor selection, and low numbers of mating individuals in the 'production population' (again, N=2- a 1:1 mating scheme) are ANY LESS of a problem that n the 'feminized' matings. Let's face it- there are numerous companies (read: ALMOST ALL IMO) companies who pretend to develop new varietals, but are in the business of creating seeds for profit, rather than improvement. Breeding means MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, not seed sales...

 

I should state I haven't read this thread in its entirety , but I would have to assume that it likely contains the same arguments that are posted over and over on the various cannabis discussion forums on the internet. As of yet, I've not been able to read a SINGLE scientifically sound argument against the use of responsible gynoecious matings in Cannabis. The gynoecious matings are not the problem, it's how the folks using the technique are undergoing the matings that are the problem- (ie poor selection and low numbers of mating individuals) that is leading to the poor performance of so called 'feminized' seeds.

 

Originally Posted by Chimera

 

'Feminized' is a marketing term, not a plant breeding term. To me, from my perspective of the current seed market and the so called "female" or 'Feminized' seeds that are currently available- the VAST MAJORITY of which are poor performers compared to the standard versions of these varieties. I call these 'feminized' seeds, as do most in the industry.

 

a TRUE Gynoecious population refers to a population of all females. For the most part, I don't think what is available on the market currently would qualify as Gynoecious... with the intersex problems that persist. In some cases, the practice of creating these "feminized" seeds unintentionally selects FOR these negatve intersex traits by design.

 

This methodology and others that use poor selection, bottleneck events capturing intersex alleles etc) that in turn select for intesexuality in the line are not actually working towards a true, female population without intersex traits.... a population I or any educated plant breeder could not call Gynoecious... so to me 'Feminized' and 'Feminization' are terms that reflect what is actually going on within the market. They aren't true, all female seedlines... so to me they don't qualify to receive the Gynoecious label.... and I therefor call them feminized lines, as do their marketers.

 

Is dat DE kalimist

 

Volgens kenners wel

[HollandsHope 9]

Super Silver Haze heeft meestal ook wel een lekkere zuurachtige aroma die je meestal direct herkend, vind je dat niks?