Potency differences between phenotypes

[Thundercat]

Wtf is “big GMO”?

I don’t want to go back to chewing on teosinte, I prefer sweet corn..

Selective breeding creates “GMO’s” through trait selection instead of gene editing, which is what most of the modern cultivars are. Heavily worked lines.

So what I THINK you’re trying to say is that you think it’s weird to insert fish genes into rice and that you don’t have any problem with the general food we eat, or with selective breeding which is just slower genetic editing.

The non GMO label in America means nothing, there is no oversight. Anyone can buy the label if they have the money. Additionally, due to our food transport and sorting systems, there is a 100% chance that you are unknowingly ingesting GMO foods.

Selective breeding does not create GMO's. It uses natures processes to isolate desired natural traits of a specific crop over multiple generations.

Real "GMO" has been altered on a genetic level, often including adding in genetic material from completely different organisms.

If you truly cat understand te difference then I'm very sorry for you.

 

[dstroy]

Selective breeding does not create GMO's. It uses natures processes to isolate desired natural traits of a specific crop over multiple generations.

Real "GMO" has been altered on a genetic level, often including adding in genetic material from completely different organisms.

If you truly cat understand te difference then I'm very sorry for you.

Hey, I said what you said in my reply.

Sorry you didn't understand.

 

[Thundercat]

Lol I understand what you said just fine:
"selective breeding creates "GMO's""

It does not so saying that is giving people that actually don't understand the wrong idea.

I'm not trying to nit pick, just want to be accurate. There is a big difference between selective breeding and GMO.

 

[dstroy]

Lol I understand what you said just fine:
"selective breeding creates "GMO's""

It does not so saying that is giving people that actually don't understand the wrong idea.

I'm not trying to nit pick, just want to be accurate. There is a big difference between selective breeding and GMO.

Wtf is “big GMO”?

I don’t want to go back to chewing on teosinte, I prefer sweet corn..

Selective breeding creates “GMO’s” through trait selection instead of gene editing, which is what most of the modern cultivars are. Heavily worked lines.

So what I THINK you’re trying to say is that you think it’s weird to insert fish genes into rice and that you don’t have any problem with the general food we eat, or with selective breeding which is just slower genetic editing.

The non GMO label in America means nothing, there is no oversight. Anyone can buy the label if they have the money. Additionally, due to our food transport and sorting systems, there is a 100% chance that you are unknowingly ingesting GMO foods.

I made it obvious.

lol

 

[Thundercat]

Lol your still using the wrong terminology. Selective breeding doesn't modified the genes dude.

That's like saying that pruning and defoliating are the same thing, when they are not.

Or like saying clones and seedlings are the same.

Whatever floats you boat though, I don't correct people when they say calyx instead of bract, or pistil instead of stigma. I used those terms wrong for years just like many of is do/did. However once I learned the difference, I always try to use the correct terminology to avoid confusing others further or perpetuating inaccurate info.

 

[dstroy]

Lol your still using the wrong terminology. Selective breeding doesn't modified the genes dude.

That's like saying that pruning and defoliating are the same thing, when they are not.

Or like saying clones and seedlings are the same.

Whatever floats you boat though, I don't correct people when they say calyx instead of bract, or pistil instead of stigma. I used those terms wrong for years just like many of is do/did. However once I learned the difference, I always try to use the correct terminology to avoid confusing others further or perpetuating inaccurate info.

No, seriously. How are you not comprehending that I am saying what you are saying?

Selective breeding through trait selection is akin to gene editing and GMO's, albeit much slower. Ok?

Selective breeding DOES modify genes through natural recombination (passing on traits).

What makes a GMO a GMO is when an outside entity purposefully alters genetics. Which we do, through selective breeding, but those aren't GMO because it involves natural recombination.

 

[Thundercat]

I understand the intent of what your saying. I'm trying to explain the correct approach because calling selective breeding the same is going to give new growers that don't know the difference the wrong idea.

You obviously don't like being corrected, and I don't have anything else to add. You are more then welcome to continue poorly expressing your thoughts with inaccurate terminology. I'm not even going to correct you once if you say calyx or pistil, I just let those go.

 

[dstroy]

I understand the intent of what your saying. I'm trying to explain the correct approach because calling selective breeding the same is going to give new growers that don't know the difference the wrong idea.

You obviously don't like being corrected, and I don't have anything else to add. You are more then welcome to continue poorly expressing your thoughts with inaccurate terminology. I'm not even going to correct you once if you say calyx or pistil, I just let those go.

Listen, I don't mind being corrected. As long as it isn't by a complete idiot.

You didn't understand the intent, you missed key words, and now you're blaming me for your OWN lack of understanding.

There is a clear difference, but it is important to understand that the processes are similar.

Great, you know plant terminology, good for you, I didn't mention any so why are you talking about it? To prove your "expertise"?

lol

quote me next time hideycat

 

[JohnDee]

Johnny,
I see your thread got highjacked. Common around here. I was thinking about your question related to potency variations. Of almost as much or more significant is the nature of the high. So my comment is that there are often fairly wide expressions of a particular genome.

I grow out some WW seeds years ago and got many with wide indica leaves and an indica high. But in that same seedpack...I got one that grew twice as tall and had skinny more sativa leaves. Still had that famous WW potency only with a more energetic sativa lean to it.
JD

 

[Thundercat]

Listen, I don't mind being corrected. As long as it isn't by a complete idiot.

You didn't understand the intent, you missed key words, and now you're blaming me for your OWN lack of understanding.

There is a clear difference, but it is important to understand that the processes are similar.

Great, you know plant terminology, good for you, I didn't mention any so why are you talking about it? To prove your "expertise"?

lol

quote me next time hideycat

Great job deflecting that pent up anger buddy. You made an inaccurate statement and got called out. You can call me names if you want but that doesn't make you any more right or myself wrong. Once again I unserstood what you typed, but don't think you should use the wrong terminology.

Your whole post was pointless and off topic in the first place. Your post was made to laugh at someone else saying "big GMO". That person was talking about actual GMOs where genes are altered and screwed with by people.

I only learned the correct terms for bracts and stigma a few months ago. I'm not trying to show of my intellect or claim I'm a super pro. I'm try to help others learn and share the most accurate info as possible.

Selective breeding does not modify the genes of the plants. It selects naturally existing options that are in the current genetic code Of those plants and it promotes those options to be dominant.

Johnny,
I see your thread got highjacked. Common around here. I was thinking about your question related to potency variations. Of almost as much or more significant is the nature of the high. So my comment is that there are often fairly wide expressions of a particular genome.

I grow out some WW seeds years ago and got many with wide indica leaves and an indica high. But in that same seedpack...I got one that grew twice as tall and had skinny more sativa leaves. Still had that famous WW potency only with a more energetic sativa lean to it.
JD

I'm sorry if I added to the high jack it was no my intent.

Personally love that sativa WW phenotype, it's the one I ran for 4ish years.

Back on topic, When I was testing seeds for Sincity seeds I was running batches of 10 seeds at a time of a couple strains. Certain strains I would get 4-5 phenos from one batch. Others I would get 2 phenos. Among the various phenotypes some were very similar with only minor difference in growth or flavor/smell. Others were much more drastic, including one freak plant that had really weird growth but the flavor, smell and potancy were amazing. Sadly the freakiness of the growth made it not worth keeping around.

I realize this is all anecdotal experience but figured I would share. I really think the biggest factor in getting consistency from seeds is finding a properly worked line that has been inbred and back crossed to stablize the specific genetics want. Sadly it does not seem like most breeders on the scene right now are doing that. Many are pumping out as many poly hybrid crosses as possible with no work, which creates massive phenotype variations.

 

[dstroy]

Great job deflecting that pent up anger buddy. You made an inaccurate statement and got called out. You can call me names if you want but that doesn't make you any more right or myself wrong. Once again I unserstood what you typed, but don't think you should use the wrong terminology.

Your whole post was pointless and off topic in the first place. Your post was made to laugh at someone else saying "big GMO". That person was talking about actual GMOs where genes are altered and screwed with by people.

I only learned the correct terms for bracts and stigma a few months ago. I'm not trying to show of my intellect or claim I'm a super pro. I'm try to help others learn and share the most accurate info as possible.

Selective breeding does not modify the genes of the plants. It selects naturally existing options that are in the current genetic code Of those plants and it promotes those options to be dominant.




I'm sorry if I added to the high jack it was no my intent.

Personally love that sativa WW phenotype, it's the one I ran for 4ish years.

Back on topic, When I was testing seeds for Sincity seeds I was running batches of 10 seeds at a time of a couple strains. Certain strains I would get 4-5 phenos from one batch. Others I would get 2 phenos. Among the various phenotypes some were very similar with only minor difference in growth or flavor/smell. Others were much more drastic, including one freak plant that had really weird growth but the flavor, smell and potancy were amazing. Sadly the freakiness of the growth made it not worth keeping around.

I realize this is all anecdotal experience but figured I would share. I really think the biggest factor in getting consistency from seeds is finding a properly worked line that has been inbred and back crossed to stablize the specific genetics want. Sadly it does not seem like most breeders on the scene right now are doing that. Many are pumping out as many poly hybrid crosses as possible with no work, which creates massive phenotype variations.

I said nothing inaccurate. Your interpretation of what I said IS incorrect. Selective breeding does modify genes, and their expression, which is how you end up with something different. Super simple concept, fun to read about.

 

[Thundercat]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/

Hopefully Harvard is a good enough source. Read the first 2 paragraphs specifically, but the rest is good too.

So to keep this on topic. Selective breeding is what will give the consistancy that the OP is looking for. You want to look for strains that are IBL for several generations. I would have to go back and brush up on my breeding info cus it's been a few years since I've read much on it. I believe getting to a stable genetic line takes 5+ generations of breeding to slowly get the plants to grow specific traits.

Now I'm off to work. Hope you guys have a great day and green gardens!

 

[dstroy]

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/

Hopefully Harvard is a good enough source. Read the first 2 paragraphs specifically, but the rest is good too.

So to keep this on topic. Selective breeding is what will give the consistancy that the OP is looking for. You want to look for strains that are IBL for several generations. I would have to go back and brush up on my breeding info cus it's been a few years since I've read much on it. I believe getting to a stable genetic line takes 5+ generations of breeding to slowly get the plants to grow specific traits.

Now I'm off to work. Hope you guys have a great day and green gardens!

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about, and I clearly already understand what an actual GMO is. So you proved your own ignorance AGAIN.

No, seriously. How are you not comprehending that I am saying what you are saying?

Selective breeding through trait selection is akin to gene editing and GMO's, albeit much slower. Ok?

Selective breeding DOES modify genes through natural recombination (passing on traits).

What makes a GMO a GMO is when an outside entity purposefully alters genetics. Which we do, through selective breeding, but those aren't GMO because it involves natural recombination.

Selective breeding IS NOT GMO. Instead of finding a trait that we desire and inserting a gene, we breed to get the plant to express what we want. Which is unequivocally a form of genetic modification distinctly separate from inserting foreign genes.

Have a good day at work. Hopefully you're not in a critical field cause you miss tons of important details in the written word.

 

[Thundercat]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about, and I clearly already understand what an actual GMO is. So you proved your own ignorance AGAIN.



Selective breeding IS NOT GMO. Instead of finding a trait that we desire and inserting a gene, we breed to get the plant to express what we want. Which is unequivocally a form of genetic modification distinctly separate from inserting foreign genes.

Have a good day at work. Hopefully you're not in a critical field cause you miss tons of important details in the written word.

Lmao so Harvard isn't a good enough source good to know. I read and understood the details. I understand just fine each time you try to say again "that selective breeding is GMO". I'm not the one with the issue understanding. Once again attacking me won't make you right, it only shows that you have no interest in learning to be right.

I've also made a point of trying to be a useful addition to this thread which you have not. This whole thing started because you were trying to laugh at another member when they even referred to GMOs.

Nice job thanks for playing but at least the scientists are Harvard think your wrong.....

 

[dstroy]

Lmao so Harvard isn't a good enough source good to know. I read and understood the details. I understand just fine each time you try to say again "that selective breeding is GMO". I'm not the one with the issue understanding. Once again attacking me won't make you right, it only shows that you have no interest in learning to be right.

I've also made a point of trying to be a useful addition to this thread which you have not. This whole thing started because you were trying to laugh at another member when they even referred to GMOs.

Nice job thanks for playing but at least the scientists are Harvard think your wrong.....

I never said that selective breeding IS "GMO", which seems to be where your hangup is. Sorry, I agree with the Harvard scientists too. Your reading comprehension sucks so bad.

You're such a good person, pat yourself on the back some more.

I'm contributing by stemming the flow of misinformation from "experts", and their ridiculous notions.

Like the one you have about identical genome from parent to offspring. Who would think that??? You apparently. When you combine two different things, you get a third new thing separate from the other things. When you are selecting things that you like in the parents, you pick the offspring that most express it and try and bring that out more, which is modifying genes (the natural way).

I don't get how you don't understand that. It's not disputable, selective breeding does modify genes. That doesn't make them "GMO".

 

[Dr. Who]

Finally, a real answer, thank you.

THAT is still a rather conservative answer!

When doing real pheno hunts for breeders.. Your talking hundreds of beans run to sort for just those few.

I know of a strain that is 1:200 - 1:250 beans to find that "holy grail" pheno of utter potency...

I got high running % pheno's from some strains that took no more then 12 beans to run through.

I just finished a long term hunt through F1 beans under the idea that something better was still out there..

I found it! I'm GEEKED! This shit knocked Gelato 33 to the curb! Tried with 4 friends and I have never felt so kicked in the head....
This is insane shit and I intend to do some S1's from a clone or 2.....She has down the road breeding appointments also..

Don;t even ask about a clone or a cut. My price will be stupid, and this does happen too... Cured (not quite finished) and jarred smells like a sewer (no shit, pun not intended) and tastes like candy...SOO sweet!

Not to long ago. I did a basic pheno hunt, starting run of 24 beans. I got 14 distinct differing pheno's, 4 copies and 8 males. The potency spread was tested and it went from low of 7% to a high of 24.8 %

There could be something bigger lurking out there but, taking into consideration of just what went into that cross.... I feel the 24+% is the near max..... It just doesn't have the props to go higher in it's breeding.....That is my opinion....


Average % spread is the math spread of the strains line, related to the laws of breeding.... Laws do get "broken" but they are few and farther between then many think...Some, closer.

POINT:
Femming a plant for female seeds (S1) makes for NO Guarantee of 100% Female seeds! Males in S1 seeds DO happens and at a rate of 1:3000
How about twin seeds? Seeds that you pop and have real twin plants happen... About 1;1200 to 1:1500, strain dependent.

 

[Dr. Who]

Selective breeding through trait selection is akin to gene editing and GMO's, albeit much slower. Ok?

Selective breeding DOES modify genes through natural recombination (passing on traits).

Your over doing the whole thing, idea wise!

"Genetic Shift" is the result of different strains being breed.

GMO modification is done by specific partial gene splicing. It is specific and caries no variable's!

They do NOT "blend" together at any point! Nor can be compared at any scientific level.
This is due to the complexities of natural, sexual recombination....

 

[Thundercat]

THAT is still a rather conservative answer!

When doing real pheno hunts for breeders.. Your talking hundreds of beans run to sort for just those few.

I know of a strain that is 1:200 - 1:250 beans to find that "holy grail" pheno of utter potency...

I got high running % pheno's from some strains that took no more then 12 beans to run through.

I just finished a long term hunt through F1 beans under the idea that something better was still out there..

I found it! I'm GEEKED! This shit knocked Gelato 33 to the curb! Tried with 4 friends and I have never felt so kicked in the head....
This is insane shit and I intend to do some S1's from a clone or 2.....She has down the road breeding appointments also..

Don;t even ask about a clone or a cut. My price will be stupid, and this does happen too... Cured (not quite finished) and jarred smells like a sewer (no shit, pun not intended) and tastes like candy...SOO sweet!

Not to long ago. I did a basic pheno hunt, starting run of 24 beans. I got 14 distinct differing pheno's, 4 copies and 8 males. The potency spread was tested and it went from low of 7% to a high of 24.8 %

There could be something bigger lurking out there but, taking into consideration of just what went into that cross.... I feel the 24+% is the near max..... It just doesn't have the props to go higher in it's breeding.....That is my opinion....


Average % spread is the math spread of the strains line, related to the laws of breeding.... Laws do get "broken" but they are few and farther between then many think...Some, closer.

POINT:
Femming a plant for female seeds (S1) makes for NO Guarantee of 100% Female seeds! Males in S1 seeds DO happens and at a rate of 1:3000
How about twin seeds? Seeds that you pop and have real twin plants happen... About 1;1200 to 1:1500, strain dependent.

Awesome info! I love that you had the test results for each of those different phenos.

 

[Dr. Who]

Awesome info! I love that you had the test results for each of those different phenos.

There is a pretty accurate hand held out there... hey come, and have a % value they are "off" from actual. You test 2-3 strains by professionals and then test those same ones by the hand held.
Average the difference (less then 2% in my case but, the over all between Gas Chrome and HH was about 20%) and add or subtract that from the future tests to get you handheld's sweet spot.

It does hold tight at that rate in a cpl of further back up testings..So worth my money.

Much cheaper to use cartridge sets at $24 -30 a pop over $100+ per Gas Chrome pro testing...In my state they have shuttered the little guys testing and you have to go to a state certified one.. Still have contact with the one I used for a long time before the state shit on him.... He will do testing for breeders but his prices reflect his need to pay the bills.

I only get the basic THC total's and no breakdowns in that or terp profiles (with hand held use).... That is for the final chosen breeder...

 

[dstroy]

Your over doing the whole thing, idea wise!

"Genetic Shift" is the result of different strains being breed.

GMO modification is done by specific partial gene splicing. It is specific and caries no variable's!

They do NOT "blend" together at any point! Nor can be compared at any scientific level.
This is due to the complexities of natural, sexual recombination....

They are both just gene modification techniques and are compared extensively. What level of evidence do you require?

That was my whole point. “Genetic drift” (not shift) is an entirely different concept that I was not discussing at any point.