Bomb Seeds - Experiences?

colocowboy

Well-Known Member
I have seen mixed reviews but the prevailing attitude is good toward them. There was a cat on here that crossed, I believe, THC bomb with a bubble gum and wound up with some amazing buds the size of a 2 liter. I am of the mind they are strong genetics. I been hesitating but would like to try the lot!
 

ilikecheetoes

Well-Known Member
i call them puffer fish. Cause they go "puff" when you break them open. lol. it really sucks. lower buds are fine and people like the smoke. I dont think its all that stoney but it tastes and smells good and has that bag appeal people want.

I have some THC bomb so I may give that a try next. Got some RD gear Im making mothers of now so it will be awhile before I get to it.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Like it or not STS/colloidal silver are in fact modifying the genetic disposition.
This is not only false, its risible. Can you explain how applying colloidal silver permanently changes a plants DNA? Which genes are altered?

Again, it only makes sense to view this through the lens of what's being worked in the majority.
You have this exactly upside down. Its like saying the only beer worth talking about is the stuff you can buy at the supermarket.

If the issue is genetic diversity the majority of beans being sold are BY DEFINITION the LEAST interesting from a perspective of genetic maintenance. . . .all those genes are being preserved! From a genetic diversity standpoint, the most interesting stuff is sold in smallest volumes, or even traded privately without ever making it to the commercial market. If you're really worried about irreversible loss to the cannabis gene pool, you need to be looking hardest at obscure landraces that AREN'T available commercially, or tiny private breeders holding genetics that nobody knows about.

Along the same lines, for those worried about gradual loss of quality in cannabis genetics, its my opinion, that the best of the modern cannabis strains have yet to be created. With legalization in CO and other places, and with the advent of cheap and readily available lab testing, I think we are actually going to see significantly better strain development over the next 10 years. Stuff that has been specifically selected for high expression of individual cannabinoid profiles, individual terpenes, etc. The "CBD" strains we have now are really just the beginning of this sort of thing.

To be fair, Mr. Nice work/s/ed lines that aren't stable because they are good/popular. Ortega, Maple Leaf, etc. I like what mandala is doing, just finished some ganesh from him. Phenos are everywhere though. Once more, to be fair mandala hardly holds the majority of the market.
Of course MNS is working with stuff that's good. . .what's the point in working lines that nobody wants? If there is really genetic traits that are negative (eg mold susceptibility, poor vigor) not only is nobody going to try to preserve those, but really, who cares if they disappear? Bad traits are SUPPOSED to be eliminated by selective breeding. . .that's one big point of it!

The fact that Mandala is a small player is neither here nor there. The questions are whether or not commercial breeders are eroding the gene pool, and whether or not feminization is contributing to this, right? So long as there are individual players like Mandala preserving diverse genetics, there is no risk of that.

I am not saying that it is a direct result, I am saying that sloppy breeding is the norm and like it or not that doesn't bode well for proper selection.
So now you're moving the goalposts. Are breeders working with feminized se-eds irreversibly damaging the cannabis gene pool or not?

Sure there are lousy breeders, but that's mostly a product of the black market nature of the se-ed business. The more legal beans become, the more scrutiny breeders will get, and the more feedback. Right now there is sort of a market "boom". I think competitive pressures are going to "weed out" (heh!) many of the smaller low-quality breeders over time. Also, again, the fact that most breeders aren't that good, or that most lines suck doesn't preclude good work from being done, nor good lines from being available. Again, the fact that most beer sold is Budweiser doesn't mean that good beer isn't being made.

again .02 and awards don't equal good practices. They are always getting caught lying, I don't believe any of them about anything. lol
See. . .we don't always disagree. . .

I am not worried either what's done is done and not worth crying over. My feeling about them is unswayed and I am entitled to my opinion that is based entirely on the facts and my perception of doing what is right, pollution is pollution. By this very definition there should be none of those guys breeding with OGs/Chems/Diesels, yet they are! They win with those very genetics! What pressure is that on the open market?!
These lines didn't become popular because they suck. . .they're popular because smokers and growers love them. The reason all the breeders offer these is because that's what the market demands right now.

Build a better "mousetrap" (ie strain) and the market will ask for it, I say. I also think that there is a small, but certainly present and knowledgable minority of growers AND breeders who don't care about OG/Chem/Cookies/Flavor of the month, know quality, and try to get it. I don't see any likelihood of these going away, either.

I'm saying that it doesn't bode well that there is a complete mish mash, or like Derry at Barney's calls it "a goulash" of genetic representation. That's all I am saying! Time under these market pressures will make sure to screw up the gene pool. There may be patches of goodness out there but they are by far the minority.
Does Derry even understand what a gene pool is? Bluntly, most of the people prattling on about it, don't even understand what the term means, let alone how these operate, and it sure sounds like this guy doesn't. For sure Arjan doesn't either.

Regardless, again, I beg to differ. It makes virtually no difference whatsoever what constitutes the genetics in the majority of beans sold. Those genetics are at zero risk of disappearing from the gene pool. What matters is the genetics that AREN'T being sold. What's happening to THOSE genes, and to the extent that genes may be disappearing, is this actually a net loss?

Remember, the nature of gene pools is ALWAYS in flux. By definition, that's what "evolution" is. The fundamental question is, do we have better genetics today, then say 15 years ago, and will it be better or worse in 15 years hence? Is there increased or decreased genetic diversity, and to the extent that there has been any change, is it meaningful? I'd argue pretty strongly that even if the genetics themselves aren't necessarily better than 15 years ago, AVAILABILITY of a huge range of genetics is FAR better today. If you're interested in preserving or acquiring rare genetics, you're in a much better place today than you were 15 years ago. I suspect the same will still be true 15 years hence. . .but we'll see.
 

colocowboy

Well-Known Member
We actually agree on nearly every point, I just don't like what's going on right now. It could always be worse, that is true.

The only point that is of any real contention is that reversing a plant constitutes genetic modification and "feminizing" by this means is by definition a modification. It probably is worth noting that og/sour d/chem are my favorites, in that vein I haven't ever found the right chem pheno that doesn't at least drop a bunch of nanners. The irony is that I think that particular set of traits only expresses with the hermaphroditic traits, ime. Also I never said irreversible damage had been done or any of those other exasperated examples of inference. Grain of salt my friend. I like where you explain what I just said about the market pressures being the reason for a lot of the issues I have outlined.

Holy shit, how long did it take you to type that up?
p.s. I love you man! lol
puff, puff, pass...... bongsmilie
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
The only point that is of any real contention is that reversing a plant constitutes genetic modification and "feminizing" by this means is by definition a modification.
Well, the term "reversing" is itself a bit misleading. Doing it to a plant doesn't actually reverse the plants genetic gender; it just activates an otherwise dormant mechanism present in every female plant to create male flowers.

Since simply feminizing plants does NOT alter their genome (ie DNA sequence), it does NOT cause heritable genetic changes in their progeny and CAN NOT be said to modify a plants genetics.

That's all I'm saying on this.

On Diesel/Chem genetics, if you haven't seen it already you may like my relatively new grow report on "Chemical Wonder" (see link in my signature); any comments there are welcome.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Your telling me that feminized seeds don't really become feminized?
http://www.cannabisgenetics.com/
That's one way to put it, I guess.

I'm telling you that other than normal heritable differences from differing parentage, so far as I know, there is no discernable genetic difference between so called "feminized" se-eds created by sexual union of two genetically female parents, and ordinary female se-eds created by genetically male and female parents.

The ceeds are "feminized" because the way they're created precludes formation of male sibling ce-eds, not because anything different happens with their own production.

Also, that so called "cannabis genetics" web page you cited is absolutely lousy. Its completely riddled with typographical, scientific, historical and other factual errors, and some of them are pretty sad.
 

colocowboy

Well-Known Member
It is a pairing of gametes that wouldn't otherwise occur under normal breeding techniques. The literal definition of GM is that. Go to a dictionary! I wouldn't shit you bro, your my favorite turd! ;)

For your science it is a paired allele that defines sex aspects and that is absolutely in it's genomic sequence.
You can verify this at many credible websites. I was giving you a specific occurrence, their statement was factual.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
It [Se-ed feminization] is a pairing of gametes that wouldn't otherwise occur under normal breeding techniques.
Contrary to what you are saying above, plenty of "normal" breeders use the feminization process to make se-eds, to the point where nowadays it probably should be considered a "normal" practice. Some of them (eg Soma) don't even use chemical agents to induce male flower production (ie "Rodelization").

More to the point, this misnamed "feminization" process not only occurs in nature, but its a common and perfectly normal method of propagation for both wild cannabis and even commercial hemp plants (where its actually considered advantageous). That this is not a conventional male/female cross doesn't matter; plants aren't mammals and its simply wrong to assume that conventional male/female crossing is the only "correct" way.

The literal definition of GM is that. Go to a dictionary! I wouldn't shit you bro, your my favorite turd! ;)
No it isn't. Where do you get this stuff?

The definition of "genetic modification" is the use of modern (ie molecular) genetic techniques to alter the genetic sequence of an organism. A simpler and also widely accepted definition is that GM is direct manipulation of an organisms genome using molecular technology.

Causing a genetically female plant to make pollen does not require any molecular technique whatsoever, and does not alter that plants DNA in any way. It also does NOT cause heritable genetic sequence changes. Again, this is a natural process that's common to all wild and some commercial hemp plants. It is emphatically NOT "genetic modification" by any commonly accepted definition of that term.

For your science it is a paired allele that defines sex aspects and that is absolutely in it's genomic sequence.
You really don't "get" it. Of course any sexual cross creates a new genetic sequence; that's the whole point of sexual reproduction.

But whether your sexual cross is a conventional male/female one a natural female/female one, or a breeder induced female/female one; you're not creating any new alleles; you're just reshuffling existing ones. There is no "genetic modification" here, period. The only difference between a male/female cross and a female/female one is that one of the parents in the latter lacks a male chromosome region (which is neither necessary NOR sufficient for a cannabis sexual cross). The underlying genetic, and chromosomal mechanisms are otherwise identical.

You can verify this at many credible websites. I was giving you a specific occurrence, their statement was factual.
Their statement is absurd, as is the entirety of that site. Bluntly, that page is an embarrassment to whomever wrote it, and personally, I'd be ashamed to even link to it, that's how god-awful it is.

That aside, if you think you have a credible website that shows how crossing two genetically female plants meets ANY definition of "genetic modification", by all means cite it.
 

colocowboy

Well-Known Member
Definitions:
Genetic Modification: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology.
Biotechnology: The use of living cells, bacteria, etc., to make useful products (such as crops that insects are less likely to destroy or new kinds of medicine)

I am sorry if you don't understand that sexual representation is in the genetic makeup of every organism and is in fact passed on as a trait in this process.

What I think is this another one of those times where your injecting your opinion on the facts to support an argument. Not the first time!

**Gene splicing is not the definition of genetic modification, they aren't mutually exlusive terms. Your just wrong here!
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/WhatIsGM.aspx
It doesn't matter what I give you, your bent on your opinion but your wrong.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Definitions:
Genetic Modification: Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology.
Thank you for re-posting the exact same definition I've already posted above. Its a pity you have a mistaken understanding of what it means, but I'll explain it to you below. I don't actually expect you to do so, but if you can put away your ego, and listen to what I'm saying, I promise you'll learn something useful. Unlike you, apparently, I've actually used these techniques and have a pretty good firsthand appreciation for what's involved here.

I am sorry if you don't understand that sexual representation is in the genetic makeup of every organism and is in fact passed on as a trait in this process
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said sex (actually gender is the better term here) wasn't a trait. In fact, it involves a number of traits, but that's WAY beside the point.

Here's the point again, by the definition you posted, "genetic modification" requires "modern biotechnology technique" that "directly manipulates the genome".

To make that clearer, the last two terms in quotes specifically refer to DNA-based technology including (but not limited to) DNA enzyme restriction and ligation and in-vitro chromosomal manipulation. Ordinary sexual crosses are deliberately excluded from this definition, because otherwise almost every higher organism on the planet would qualify as "genetically modified" (including yourself).

Oversimplifying a bit, BY DEFINITION to create a "genetically modified organism" there HAS TO be a step where you take an organisms DNA and directly alter its sequence in a test tube using chemical methods. That's what the term "directly manipulate the genome with modern biotechnology" means.

So again, just putting some pollen from one female plant onto another one doesn't come anywhere close to this. That's just an ordinary sexual cross, which not only occurs in nature all the time, but is something well within the repertoire of conventional breeders. Not incidentally, its been recognized for at least 40 years that fertilizing cannabis plants with pollen from hermaphrodite plants creates all female se-eds. Knowledge of this technique actually predates the "modern biotechnology" techniques specified in the definition of GMO.

Stimulating a genetically female plant into creating stamenate flowers with gibberelic acid or other chemical agents? Again. .nope. While here you're at least starting to get away from what happens in nature, there is still no use of modern (ie molecular) biology techniques and no direct manipulation of the plants genome. .that doesn't meet the definition either.

**Gene splicing is not the definition of genetic modification, they aren't mutually exlusive
And where did I say it was? Being precise here, conventional gene splicing constitutes the most common set of techniques used to create GM organisms, but not just any gene splicing is necessarily GM and there are other ways it could be done.

What I think is this another one of those times where your injecting your opinion on the facts to support an argument. Not the first time!
The definition of "genetic modification" isn't really a question of my opinion. I didn't invent the term, which is widely used and unfortunately, also widely misunderstood.

It doesn't matter what I give you, your bent on your opinion but your wrong.
The only mistake I made here is arguing a pretty technical matter, with someone who didn't quite get it. Hopefully you do now, but if not, that's fine by me. I can only lead your horse to water. If you want to go on thinking that every time you make a se-ed from a hermie plant you've just created a genetically modified organism, that's on you.
 

colocowboy

Well-Known Member
Dude, y-y chromasome flip... get over it!
Way to shit the thread!
BY DEFINITION to create a "genetically modified organism" there HAS TO be a step where you take an organisms DNA and directly alter its sequence in a test tube using chemical methods.
- Your absolutely wrong, while this is a means of modification it is NOT mutually exclusive except for in your opinion..... That is not the definition which we have both posted.... There is no where in the definition that says test tube only! Applying an sts to supply a yy chromasome aligned gene is modification by definition as it is biotechnology.

If anyone here "doesn't get it" it's you!
 

Eurohigh

Active Member
Just want to state my opinion on Bomb seeds.. These are grade A+ genetics.. Really easy to grow.. I grow 4 Thc bomb plants in a RDWC setup i had 3 phenos.. The one with golf balls with hair all over the place (Sativa dom?) and two indica dom and one in between.. The sativa dom. is the one to keep.. the best yielder of the 4 plants.. All produces rock hard buds covered in resin.. Really potent.. I recently tryid Dinafem's critical+.. Thats a joke compared to the bomb thats for sure.. Cant even compare it.. Im growing THC bomb again now.. I took clones from the prev. grow but due to paranoia i threw all the plants out.. DAMN.. I hope i can get that sativa dom. again.. Im also buying net gear to grow some Atomic beside the thc bomb.. Looking forward to see the results..
 

Cannasaurus Rex

Well-Known Member
Purchsed thc bomb in sept. 2013 regs came in the paper packging. Out of 6 seeds only 1 germed. Slow growing, large branched, huge internode spacing, after 8weeks vegging, only 12" or so, even querkle outgrowing this one??? Perhaps old seed stock, I believe they changed packaging recently. Oh well, wil see what comes of it anyway. Don't think my pack was stored correctly at theseedbank. BTW my 2 cents on feminizing, while hermaphroditism does happen naturally, x =x chromosomal makeup is not and wil never be stable or natural when it come to any successive generation of femmed breeding stock progeny. In essence you are polluting the mothers genetics and locking them up. Many bakcrosses are necessary to get e original mothers x+y genetic profile back. Just an opinion, but proven over time. I don't see any Columbian gold out there, but many state they using a cross, but its gone. Fems are not for real breeders.
 

miaw

New Member
Just wanted to chime in here. I have an fem ice bomb currently coming into veg. She germ'd easy and is now growing fast under 115 watts of day light cfls. Anyone notice anything other than than the above comment
ive been running ice bomb for 6 months in SOG. Its a sturdy plant. But I keep getting bud rot in colas...
about this strain as far as whether shes a heavy feeder and how early this strain likes nutes. Is she scrog friendly and what were peoples experience was with how long to flower.
 

Mr.Head

Well-Known Member
Dude, y-y chromasome flip... get over it!
Way to shit the thread!
- Your absolutely wrong, while this is a means of modification it is NOT mutually exclusive except for in your opinion..... That is not the definition which we have both posted.... There is no where in the definition that says test tube only! Applying an sts to supply a yy chromasome aligned gene is modification by definition as it is biotechnology.

If anyone here "doesn't get it" it's you!
Ok here's the deal, look at human trannies, this is fucked up I'm using this as an example but I think it's easier to grasp. I know this information because I did research about a Male to female tranny beating the shit out of women in MMA just so you know why I have it in my head lol.

Gender and sex are not the same thing, ones sex can be changed by going through horomonal drug regimes, this is much like what happens with STS. It's not that the person has changed their x to a y or vice versa it's that the hormonal balance has been completely fucked, the male starts developing female attributes dropping body hair, losing muscle mass, bone density. This all happens in humans with hormonal manipulation not genetics. You cut off the testosterone and up the estrogen and you got yourself a tranny.

Falon Fox is the trannies name, and she got her ass beat by a woman in her last fight and all was right with the world. This is after florida had licensed her to fight multiple times where she knocked girls out in the first. She lived 30 years as a man got a sex change THEN decided she wanted to fight professionally in MMA, good ol' Florida.

Whether someone wants to argue that this person has taken the steps to become a woman they are wrong, it's a man. Genetically, and that's that. The Genetics have not changed regardless of the manipulation. Now there are XX and YY females and males out there. But that's another issue we don't need to get into here.
 

FR33MASON

Active Member
I have grown out Berry Bomb, Widow Bomb, and THC Bomb. All three varieties were vigorous growers. I did a smoke report on Berry Bomb so you can look that up if you like. The THC Bomb was some sticky crystal coated greatness. The Widow Bomb was great for pain relief but nothing to write home about when it come to taste.
So far, I give Bomb Seeds 7/ 10 overall.
 
Top