# Potency differences between phenotypes



## johnnynice (Jan 31, 2019)

Hi all, 
So I am moving back to Canada soon, which means I can start growing again (on a larger and legal scale at that). To make the weed I grow marketable, it needs to have a high testable THC percentage (on top of looking and smelling amazing). I will be growing from seed, but my experience of growing many seeds of the same strain is limited. 
How much does THC content typically vary between phenotypes of the same strain? 
So for instance, if I am growing some headband or skywalker kush, how many seeds would I need to grow in order to find one with a THC percentage over 20%? 
Any other advice on getting THC percentage up there would be appreciated. I know I need to add UV lights, any other suggestions? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Rob Roy (Feb 1, 2019)

You might consider using clones which are known to have a high thc content already if producing high thc weed is the goal.

Or use fem seed from proven stock to up your odds.

Ed Rosenthal has published info. on optimizing thc by flowering under the sun in early summer versus fall. Has to do with the quality of the light spectrum etc.


----------



## LinguaPeel (Feb 1, 2019)

No, you don't need numerics. Quit acting powerless. Name one producer website out there who teaches customers anything. You might see someone defending outdoor production, or bragging about organic pesticides, but you won't find one that says thc potency is bullshit. Why don't you be that person. The lack of information attached to sales is intentional. Every listing on Leafly/weedmaps has a descriptor box. Put the info in it. They're gonna copy a breeder pack description or Leafly description if you dont give them the extended info. Quit playing victim and find a shop worth working with, who will SELL your pot. 

Did you drop off information pamphlets with your herb? Did you drop off labels? Stickers? Do you package your own product? Do you have an Instagram? There's a lot you can do to actually sway the idiotic customer base in your favor. People LOOOVE being the dumbass with rumors that actually pan out in the end. "Did you know higher thc isn't always more potent?" that's all it takes. Most smokers aren't even getting high off Thc. I've put that to the test with cbd strains. The average person doesnt even notice a difference unless they look in the mirror and notice they aren't chink eyed.


----------



## Boatguy (Feb 1, 2019)

LinguaPeel said:


> No, you don't need numerics. Quit acting powerless. Name one producer website out there who teaches customers anything. You might see someone defending outdoor production, or bragging about organic pesticides, but you won't find one that says thc potency is bullshit. Why don't you be that person. The lack of information attached to sales is intentional. Every listing on Leafly/weedmaps has a descriptor box. Put the info in it. They're gonna copy a breeder pack description or Leafly description if you dont give them the extended info. Quit playing victim and find a shop worth working with, who will SELL your pot.
> 
> Did you drop off information pamphlets with your herb? Did you drop off labels? Stickers? Do you package your own product? Do you have an Instagram? There's a lot you can do to actually sway the idiotic customer base in your favor. People LOOOVE being the dumbass with rumors that actually pan out in the end. "Did you know higher thc isn't always more potent?" that's all it takes. Most smokers aren't even getting high off Thc. I've put that to the test with cbd strains. The average person doesnt even notice a difference unless they look in the mirror and notice they aren't chink eyed.


The 24% lemon og haze i picked up at the dispensary proves you wrong. I have smoked catatonic and it did not get me high.


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 1, 2019)

In Canada the amount of information on your packaging is extremely limited, thc% is one of the few things printed on it. Whether or not thc% is the sole indicator for how high weed gets you, I want my company to have a reputation for putting out the strongest weed, and tested numbers speak volumes. Also, yes I intend on utilizing other marketing strategies as well, I never said I was ONLY planning on using thc% to sell my weed.
Let's avoid having this thread derail into a shitty debate on the importance of thc%, let's just say I also want high thc% for personal reasons.
Also yes I can use clones, I might, but I would also like to grow strains I like from seeds in order to offer flavours that aren't currently available.
Now can anyone tell me the typical variance in potency between phenotypes?


----------



## Boatguy (Feb 1, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> In Canada the amount of information on your packaging is extremely limited, thc% is one of the few things printed on it. Whether or not thc% is the sole indicator for how high weed gets you, I want my company to have a reputation for putting out the strongest weed, and tested numbers speak volumes. Also, yes I intend on utilizing other marketing strategies as well, I never said I was ONLY planning on using thc% to sell my weed.
> Let's avoid having this thread derail into a shitty debate on the importance of thc%, let's just say I also want high thc% for personal reasons.
> 
> Now can anyone tell me the typical variance in potency between phenotypes?


I would guess it is huge. If it wasnt, people wouldnt bother keeping a mother, and you wouldnt see clone only strains.


----------



## SPLFreak808 (Feb 1, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> In Canada the amount of information on your packaging is extremely limited, thc% is one of the few things printed on it. Whether or not thc% is the sole indicator for how high weed gets you, I want my company to have a reputation for putting out the strongest weed, and tested numbers speak volumes. Also, yes I intend on utilizing other marketing strategies as well, I never said I was ONLY planning on using thc% to sell my weed.
> Let's avoid having this thread derail into a shitty debate on the importance of thc%, let's just say I also want high thc% for personal reasons.
> Also yes I can use clones, I might, but I would also like to grow strains I like from seeds in order to offer flavours that aren't currently available.
> Now can anyone tell me the typical variance in potency between phenotypes?


It can swing pretty wide with hybrids, hard to say though as most people usually pick robust phenos with bag appeal,quality high,smell and taste over the phenos with just high thc-a ratios.


----------



## YouGrowYourWay (Feb 2, 2019)

I'm sure it can vary greatly phenohunting never knowing what traits they may take after parents grandparents but how would you know the higher thc content ones from the none without flowering and harvesting said "keeper"


----------



## Khyber420 (Feb 2, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Hi all,
> So I am moving back to Canada soon, which means I can start growing again (on a larger and legal scale at that). To make the weed I grow marketable, it needs to have a high testable THC percentage (on top of looking and smelling amazing). I will be growing from seed, but my experience of growing many seeds of the same strain is limited.
> How much does THC content typically vary between phenotypes of the same strain?
> So for instance, if I am growing some headband or skywalker kush, how many seeds would I need to grow in order to find one with a THC percentage over 20%?
> Any other advice on getting THC percentage up there would be appreciated. I know I need to add UV lights, any other suggestions? Thanks in advance.


Have you applied for a license? My understanding is starting material must be purchased from a licensed producer. Black market strains can't be grown, ie it's not so simple as just sprouting a ton of internet seeds and yea health Canada inspectors check on this. It's a highly regulated market, even natural pesticides have to be on health Canadas approved list.


----------



## LinguaPeel (Feb 4, 2019)

Boatguy said:


> The 24% lemon og haze i picked up at the dispensary proves you wrong. I have smoked catatonic and it did not get me high.


Yeah because you knew it was 24%. And you knew it was cannatonic. You know they can test for the placebo gene these days. Willing to take that test? Anyone who rates 99% thc isolate higher than an African landrace of 7% has unofficially failed the placebo test. 

I get higher off lemon og too.. Because of the flavor components. But I get even higher off old school shit with 5% thc. Everyone knows this. I think the kids are SCARED of landrace pot. Cuz it disproves the thc = potency propaganda with a single joint.


----------



## Hashishh (Feb 4, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Have you applied for a license? My understanding is starting material must be purchased from a licensed producer. Black market strains can't be grown, ie it's not so simple as just sprouting a ton of internet seeds and yea health Canada inspectors check on this. It's a highly regulated market, even natural pesticides have to be on health Canadas approved list.


What I was going to ask. Is this BM or legal? You can't just grab some clones from a buddy and have at er'. Our regulations up here are tight...


----------



## BigHornBuds (Feb 4, 2019)

Unless you have a few million, I would look at other investments. 
License is 85-100k but you need an approved space that meets specs (1m plus)
You’ll need equipment, workers n a float . 

Then you need to be able to make it to harvest, then not fuck up drying it. 

You just can’t get a license n fill your basement n setup shop.
I would talk to a Canadian consultant before you get a reality check.


----------



## Rob Roy (Feb 5, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> In Canada the amount of information on your packaging is extremely limited, thc% is one of the few things printed on it. Whether or not thc% is the sole indicator for how high weed gets you, I want my company to have a reputation for putting out the strongest weed, and tested numbers speak volumes. Also, yes I intend on utilizing other marketing strategies as well, I never said I was ONLY planning on using thc% to sell my weed.
> Let's avoid having this thread derail into a shitty debate on the importance of thc%, let's just say I also want high thc% for personal reasons.
> Also yes I can use clones, I might, but I would also like to grow strains I like from seeds in order to offer flavours that aren't currently available.
> Now can anyone tell me the typical variance in potency between phenotypes?


Your question isn't a bad one, but it sounds like you are seeking a standard reply, when the answer is often, "it all depends".

While the physical presence of thc and terpenes are measurable in a bud from a given plant, sometimes "potency" is subjective depending on the person ingesting it. 

Also, a given pheno type won't always express identical results. How was it grown? When was it harvested, etc. ? Also, buds from the same plant aren't always going to measure the same, think top bud versus mid or lower level buds etc.


----------



## darkzero2 (Feb 6, 2019)

Make it easy on yourself start with clones or seeds make mother plants take clones and flower them out. Then smoke each pheno and make sure you take good notes on the outcomes from each pheno (smell, taste, structure, etc). Then from there make your selection of which is the best for your pallete or whatever traits you want to pass on and make seed.


----------



## xtsho (Feb 7, 2019)

BigHornBuds said:


> Unless you have a few million, I would look at other investments.
> License is 85-100k but you need an approved space that meets specs (1m plus)
> You’ll need equipment, workers n a float .
> 
> ...


This is the best advice in this thread. 

Reality is that if you're not already setup then by the time you are the demand is just not going to be there where cannabis has been legalized. Take Oregon for example. It's only been a few years of legalization and already the market is flooded and prices have plummeted. Many people have lost money. 

The legal market is tracked from seed to sale in Oregon. Not sure about Canada but it's probably similar. You can't just buy some seeds online, grow some plants, and then go out trying to get a dispensary to buy your weed. Too many people think they grow great weed and maybe they do but so do thousands of other people.


https://expo.oregonlive.com/news/g66l-2019/02/d05137b73d8055/marijuana-supply-far-outweighs-demand-in-oregons-legal-market-new-study-says.html

_"Oregon’s regulated cannabis industry is so overstocked with product that it could meet consumer demand for the next six and a half years

Licensed producers harvested more than 2,000 metric tons -- about 4.4 million pounds -- of unprocessed marijuana last year. If the state approves all pending producer licenses, Oregon would be on track to turn out an estimated 4,000 metric tons of cannabis."_


----------



## promedz (Feb 7, 2019)

LinguaPeel said:


> Yeah because you knew it was 24%. And you knew it was cannatonic. You know they can test for the placebo gene these days. Willing to take that test? Anyone who rates 99% thc isolate higher than an African landrace of 7% has unofficially failed the placebo test.
> 
> I get higher off lemon og too.. Because of the flavor components. But I get even higher off old school shit with 5% thc. Everyone knows this. I think the kids are SCARED of landrace pot. Cuz it disproves the thc = potency propaganda with a single joint.


I would love to be the Tester for you as I don’t think I’ve smoked land race strain In 2 decades ??? But I have smoked so many diff strains... some places lie about percentage and that might be what you mean? but I can tell if it’s high thc within the first two pulls .. anything under 19 don’t do it for me anymore yea when I was a kid and smoked landrace it got me so High but my tolerance was super low now that I smoke so much it won’t do anything! Something around 28+ hits you on the first two pulls.. I can smoke one blunt with my wife and be good.. anything under 22 and we are smoking 2 every time! Why?


----------



## promedz (Feb 7, 2019)

Get clones... I had a skywalker pheno when I first started to grow and I didn’t clone her::. For the next 4 years I tried 16 diff times to find her again and I still havnt seen her again... I will still pop a few skywalker this year to see if she comes up. It was so good took top 3 of my all time favorite spots... 3 hrs stoned!


----------



## Gquebed (Feb 7, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Have you applied for a license? My understanding is starting material must be purchased from a licensed producer. Black market strains can't be grown, ie it's not so simple as just sprouting a ton of internet seeds and yea health Canada inspectors check on this. It's a highly regulated market, even natural pesticides have to be on health Canadas approved list.


Yep. 
Even nutes have to be federally approved and so far, as of last week, only GH nutes have been approved. 

There is a push on now to license small craft growers, but even that will require close to a million for start up.


----------



## Lucky Luke (Feb 8, 2019)

Cannabis Cup winners rarely have a high THC content. Wining cups will make your product wanted.

Talk to a business consultant and also your bank manager. You will need access to allot of funds to be able to compete.
With your business plan look at realistic wholesale prices that are happening in flooded American markets. You will need to be profitable at these lower figures as that is more than likely the way prices will head.

Phenotypes vary, sometimes by a fair amount. Much better off buying clones from placers like Wonderland nursery.


----------



## bertaluchi (Feb 14, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> In Canada the amount of information on your packaging is extremely limited, thc% is one of the few things printed on it. Whether or not thc% is the sole indicator for how high weed gets you, I want my company to have a reputation for putting out the strongest weed, and tested numbers speak volumes. Also, yes I intend on utilizing other marketing strategies as well, I never said I was ONLY planning on using thc% to sell my weed.
> Let's avoid having this thread derail into a shitty debate on the importance of thc%, let's just say I also want high thc% for personal reasons.
> Also yes I can use clones, I might, but I would also like to grow strains I like from seeds in order to offer flavours that aren't currently available.
> Now can anyone tell me the typical variance in potency between phenotypes?


I work in a major medical production facility and I can tell you that finding 20%thc is not hard if you are sourcing your seeds from a reputable producer. Almost all 10 packs will have a solid 20% mother. The issue is finding one with great taste, smell, and bag appeal that also has high thc. I would suggest growing 25-35 seeds of each strain to find a real winner. Good luck dude!


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 15, 2019)

bertaluchi said:


> I work in a major medical production facility and I can tell you that finding 20%thc is not hard if you are sourcing your seeds from a reputable producer. Almost all 10 packs will have a solid 20% mother. The issue is finding one with great taste, smell, and bag appeal that also has high thc. I would suggest growing 25-35 seeds of each strain to find a real winner. Good luck dude!


Finally, a real answer, thank you.


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 15, 2019)

Wow, a lot of people on here like giving unrequested pessimistic business advice. I know the costs, and I've done the research. @BigHornBuds No, it doesn't cost 100k to get a licence if you have a brain and can write the paperwork yourself. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. 
@Khyber420 that may have been the case with medicinal cannabis, but from what I've read the new licences will allow an influx of black market genetics. 
Thanks bertaluchi, that was the info I needed.


----------



## BigHornBuds (Feb 15, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Wow, a lot of people on here like giving unrequested pessimistic business advice. I know the costs, and I've done the research. @BigHornBuds No, it doesn't cost 100k to get a licence if you have a brain and can write the paperwork yourself. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
> @Khyber420 that may have been the case with medicinal cannabis, but from what I've read the new licences will allow an influx of black market genetics.
> Thanks bertaluchi, that was the info I needed.



No, but if you hire a consultant n pay them that you’ll get your lic. 
With Your questions about pheno types , 
(Lack of grow knowledge)
I’ll give you a big heads up.

YOUR GONNA FAIL.


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 15, 2019)

BigHornBuds said:


> No, but if you hire a consultant n pay them that you’ll get your lic.
> With Your questions about pheno types ,
> (Lack of grow knowledge)
> I’ll give you a big heads up.
> ...


With your general shitty attitude, it looks like you've failed at a lot in life already. Maybe keep your toxicity to yourself and stick to answering thread questions you can actually help with, if there are any.


----------



## BigHornBuds (Feb 16, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> With your general shitty attitude, it looks like you've failed at a lot in life already. Maybe keep your toxicity to yourself and stick to answering thread questions you can actually help with, if there are any.


Listen skip, I can see I hurt your feeling , 
Sorry there snow flake .
You said you don’t live in Canada, you are so behind others with the same goal, 
Hiring a consultant would help you.

If you don’t know the answer to a simple pheno type question, you should not think you can run a commercial grow ,


Who am I? 
I cut my bud in a month , then you’ve cut in your life . 

But please, by all means , come here n throw your money away. 
Heard there’s a good deal on CFLs at Walmart. 

So I’m sorry you can’t handle a real answer 
Go back to dreaming .


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 18, 2019)

BigHornBuds said:


> Listen skip, I can see I hurt your feeling ,
> Sorry there snow flake .
> You said you don’t live in Canada, you are so behind others with the same goal,
> Hiring a consultant would help you.
> ...


Wow man, you're really a miserable guy. I feel bad for you. You can cut all the bud you want in a month, you'd still be a miserable prick. Go back and read the original post, did I ask "can I succeed as a business in Canada?". If you could have given a real answer to my question, you would have. Do you just look for threads to ruin by giving your asshole opinions? Give relevant answers or gtfo, you are contributing nothing. No need to reply, find something better to do with your time, you really had no place commenting on this thread in the first place


----------



## BigHornBuds (Feb 18, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Wow man, you're really a miserable guy. I feel bad for you. You can cut all the bud you want in a month, you'd still be a miserable prick. Go back and read the original post, did I ask "can I succeed as a business in Canada?". If you could have given a real answer to my question, you would have. Do you just look for threads to ruin by giving your asshole opinions? Give relevant answers or gtfo, you are contributing nothing. No need to reply, find something better to do with your time, you really had no place commenting on this thread in the first place


Listen to her , listen too her 
Does it itch?
All the sand in your vagina?


----------



## Sparky123 (Feb 18, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Have you applied for a license? My understanding is starting material must be purchased from a licensed producer. Black market strains can't be grown, ie it's not so simple as just sprouting a ton of internet seeds and yea health Canada inspectors check on this. It's a highly regulated market, even natural pesticides have to be on health Canadas approved list.


That’s a wrong statement you can bring in whatever genetics you want as long as they are present on day 1


----------



## Sparky123 (Feb 18, 2019)

I’m just going to chime in here, As someone going through the process. 

First off. Just popping random seeds to give customers variety is going to be a steep fall to loose a million dollars. 

You need to hunt the top genetics right off the start and have them ready day 1. Focus on 1 strain and get damn good at growing it. Lp’s Won’t want to purchase a kilo here and there of random shit every month. They want a good strain and good monthly production. Jumping around and trying to sell random shit to the Lp’s Will just annoy them. 

And with the canopy limit on the micros you won’t be producing much anyways compared to the LP’s so grow one strain and grow it well


----------



## Khyber420 (Feb 18, 2019)

Sparky123 said:


> That’s a wrong statement you can bring in whatever genetics you want as long as they are present on day 1


Are you sure about that? My understanding is that has changed.


----------



## Sparky123 (Feb 18, 2019)

You may even want to go as far as to align yourself with a Canadian breeder to supply you some stable genetics day 1. You’ll pay and pay well for it but at least it gets you operational day 1


----------



## Sparky123 (Feb 18, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Are you sure about that? My understanding is that has changed.


Very positive about that. That quote was a myth and health Canada amended the rules when cannabis became legal. It’s in the new regulations I just don’t feel like digging out the exact requirements


----------



## Khyber420 (Feb 18, 2019)

Sparky123 said:


> Very positive about that. That quote was a myth and health Canada amended the rules when cannabis became legal. It’s in the new regulations I just don’t feel like digging out the exact requirements


I hope so, last I looked at the regulations they archived the section on starting material and the one time exemption and put up a note saying "revised information is being developed and will be available shortly" (something along those lines). I read that as they are going to close that option and force micros to by shitty genetics from existing LPs. I guarantee Cannabis is going to go the way of Monsanto, genetic patents and big GMO within 20 years.


----------



## Sparky123 (Feb 18, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> I hope so, last I looked at the regulations they archived the section on starting material and the one time exemption and put up a note saying "revised information is being developed and will be available shortly" (something along those lines). I read that as they are going to close that option and force micros to by shitty genetics from existing LPs. I guarantee Cannabis is going to go the way of Monsanto, genetic patents and big GMO within 20 years.


I can’t find how to add a photo off my phone but believe me they have changed it. It’s about the only advantage any microhas over the Lp’s. proper selection is key though as it’s uniqueness that will make you stand out


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 18, 2019)

Sparky123 said:


> I’m just going to chime in here, As someone going through the process.
> 
> First off. Just popping random seeds to give customers variety is going to be a steep fall to loose a million dollars.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the advice. Thats the plan - to find a keeper while waiting for the licence application to go through. Sticking with one good strain sounds easier.


----------



## BigHornBuds (Feb 18, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Maybe you should take a break from growing and learn the difference between to/too and your/you're. Also you probably shouldn't be on this site until you turn 19


You make me smile skip .


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 18, 2019)

IF you want to see potency differences, you should visit a few cannabis test lab web sites. Many of them post listings of the various strains tested. While this will also show multiple growers, it can give you a decent idea of the range of potency that can be seen from various genetics.

I know you were specifically asking about phenotype differences, and you got several good answers about that already, so I just wanted to add another option.


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 18, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> IF you want to see potency differences, you should visit a few cannabis test lab web sites. Many of them post listings of the various strains tested. While this will also show multiple growers, it can give you a decent idea of the range of potency that can be seen from various genetics.
> 
> I know you were specifically asking about phenotype differences, and you got several good answers about that already, so I just wanted to add another option.


Any specific websites you'd recommend? I've mostly been on wikileaf to see the thc%'s of different strains


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 18, 2019)

Iron Labs is a place in Michigan I've checked out before. I would just do a google search for cannabis test labs.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 20, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> I hope so, last I looked at the regulations they archived the section on starting material and the one time exemption and put up a note saying "revised information is being developed and will be available shortly" (something along those lines). I read that as they are going to close that option and force micros to by shitty genetics from existing LPs. I guarantee Cannabis is going to go the way of Monsanto, genetic patents and big GMO within 20 years.


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.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Wtf is “big GMO”?
> 
> I don’t want to go back to chewing on teosinte, I prefer sweet corn..
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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.
> ...





dstroy said:


> Wtf is “big GMO”?
> 
> I don’t want to go back to chewing on teosinte, I prefer sweet corn..
> 
> ...


I made it obvious.

lol


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 20, 2019)

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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 20, 2019)

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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

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 (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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. 



JohnDee said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.



dstroy said:


> 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 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> Your over doing the whole thing, idea wise!
> 
> "Genetic Shift" is the result of different strains being breed.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


You didn't stem any bad information, you laughed at another poster for saying "big GMO" in reference to Monsanto. Then tryin to say that everything is GMO because ....your quote from the firs post..."selective breeding is GMO...". Which is wrong it's it not which is what that Harvard link said.

So if you agree with Harvard then you agree with me... Then you should stop trying to attack my character and intellect.

I'm not sure exactly what ideas you think I have about breeding that are wrong, but that's just another attack on me as I was trying to make my post relevant to the conversation.

Please explain to me what I said about breeding that was incorrect... Otherwise why not stop being angry and realize at most you made a wrong statement about selective breeding because you think it really is GMO or at the very least you poorly worded what you meant and got corrected so that new growers that read this didn't make the mistake of thinking that they are the same.

How do you not understand the difference between modification and selection?


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> 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.


*GOTTCHA!*

_*There is NO SUCH THING as "Genetic Drift" in the way your thinking! "*_Bottleneck effect" is a term that applies to your misused one..This is a big misconception! 
There is environmental "drift". BEST to say "Shift"....It is NOT a shifting of a plant genetically!

No, they are not in the way _you are _thinking of them!

Your mixing x's and o's or trying to put a round peg in a square hole..... I suggest you do more then read a few abstract's or news blurb's....


----------



## dstroy (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> You didn't stem any bad information, you laughed at another poster for saying "big GMO" in reference to Monsanto. Then tryin to say that everything is GMO because ....your quote from the firs post..."selective breeding is GMO...". Which is wrong it's it not which is what that Harvard link said.
> 
> So if you agree with Harvard then you agree with me... Then you should stop trying to attack my character and intellect.
> 
> ...


I thought you had to work. Sorry I made you so upset. Don’t project, I’m not angry. I just think you’re really stupid.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 20, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> *GOTTCHA!*
> 
> _*There is NO SUCH THING as "Genetic Drift" in the way your thinking! "*_Bottleneck effect" is a term that applies to your misused one..This is a big misconception!
> There is environmental "drift". BEST to say "Shift"....It is NOT a shifting of a plant genetically!
> ...


Uh I suggest you rethink what you’re saying because it makes no sense. Gotcha!


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Uh I suggest you rethink what you’re saying because it makes no sense. Gotcha!


Your lack of actual education on the subject, betray's your inability to understand....

Done here....IGNORE is on..

You should point the portal gun at your head and find a new growing universe.....C137 already has it's Rick. 
How about C132 from the last episode?


----------



## dstroy (Feb 20, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> Your lack of actual education on the subject, betray's your inability to understand....
> 
> Done here....IGNORE is on..
> 
> ...


Thanks. I mean, claim all you want but I definitely know what I’m talking about. Sorry I rustled your jimmies so much. Do you have an army of followers stroking your ego or something? Can’t handle a little opposition? 

Real cool telling me I’m on ignore. I guess you win then cause you decided you couldn’t handle being called wrong so you have to ignore.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> I thought you had to work. Sorry I made you so upset. Don’t project, I’m not angry. I just think you’re really stupid.


And once again when faced with the truth even from multiple sources you resort to childish insults to hide. I'm at work now thanks for being concerned. I've been nothing but nice to you all along simply trying to help you better understand science. However as Dr. Who has also now shown you don't have the ability to get past your own ego to understand the science. I asked you questions and tried to have a conversation but you keep getting angry and resorting to insults. 

To which I say good day sir!


----------



## dstroy (Feb 20, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> And once again when faced with the truth even from multiple sources you resort to childish insults to hide. I'm at work now thanks for being concerned. I've been nothing but nice to you all along simply trying to help you better understand science. However as Dr. Who has also now shown you don't have the ability to get past your own ego to understand the science. I asked you questions and tried to have a conversation but you keep getting angry and resorting to insults.
> 
> To which I say good day sir!


Again, don’t project. I’m not angry. I was presented with nothing, no new facts. This has nothing to do with ego, I’m wrong all the time. Just not this time. 

Good day? Guess we're done here then? 

Bless your little heart.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 20, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> *GOTTCHA!*
> 
> _*There is NO SUCH THING as "Genetic Drift" in the way your thinking! "*_Bottleneck effect" is a term that applies to your misused one..This is a big misconception!
> There is environmental "drift". BEST to say "Shift"....It is NOT a shifting of a plant genetically!
> ...


You couldn’t be more wrong.

https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/advanced/topics/PopGenetics/Pages/geneticdrift.aspx

I mean like so hilariously wrong. This is such a waste of my time.

I never mentioned anything like this either. You’re confusing topics. Selective breeding and GMO are not related to this.

The bottleneck effect isn’t what you think either, though it is related to GENETIC DRIFT (not shift).

lol


----------



## Khyber420 (Feb 20, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Wtf is “big GMO”?
> 
> I don’t want to go back to chewing on teosinte, I prefer sweet corn..
> 
> ...


Uh no that's not at all what I'm referring to at all actually. I suggest you look up Monsanto GMO Canola and Round Up if you need the prototypical definition of big dirty gmo and the impacts on small farmers.

Selective breeding is not GMO. That's like saying a Pitbull is a genetically modified organism. Good luck patenting a Pitbull, GMO Canola that is bio-engineered to be resistant to the non selective herbicide RoundUp on the other hand is patented, and it's killed oldschool landrace Canola (and small farmers) all over the world for various, mostly economic reasons.

I'm not some dumb anti vaxer who thinks GMO causes Cancer.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Uh no that's not at all what I'm referring to at all actually. I suggest you look up Monsanto GMO Canola and Round Up if you need the prototypical definition of big dirty gmo and the impacts on small farmers.
> 
> Selective breeding is not GMO. That's like saying a Pitbull is a genetically modified organism. Good luck patenting a Pitbull, GMO Canola that is bio-engineered to be resistant to the non selective herbicide RoundUp on the other hand is patented, and it's killed oldschool landrace Canola (and small farmers) all over the world for various, mostly economic reasons.
> 
> I'm not some dumb anti vaxer who thinks GMO causes Cancer.


Man, you cant read either. You understand that what comparison is no? You understand that both are gene modification techniques?

The only difference is that with one, foreign genes get inserted at a specific point, and there’s no chance involved. 

Monsanto has never ever sued a small farmer that didn’t blatantly violate their patent for “roundup ready” products. Which you would know if you did more than read conspiracy theories. They don’t sue cause some of your shit got pollenated, there are zero ways to control that effectively. What you are doing is called “fear mongering”, there is no crisis. If you want to help small farmers, vote for them to get more subsidies than large farmers to help them survive. When you buy their seeds, you sign something that says you will not make seeds from their seeds, and if you do they sue you. Small farmers can’t afford RR seeds, make their own to survive and get caught. They broke the law, that’s theft (on a grand scale). Simple. Is it right? I don’t think so, but that’s the law.

That said, glyphosphate is bad, and we shouldn’t use it anymore on food. Roundup is glyphosphate, and roundup ready products are bad news because they perpetuate its use.

I originally laughed because there is no such thing as “big gmo” because anyone who can afford to make a gmo product successfully is already an enormous company. It’s like saying RIP peace. Stupid.

They don’t patent the seed either, like some want to argue, only their RR markers. It is so easy to tell if it’s a case of cross field pollination. Farmers just need to be cautious about where they source their seeds until a legal precedent is set about buying seeds from someone and you had no idea they were RR (which is total bullshit, that dude had no idea). But hopefully RR products get pulled altogether.

If you’re going to hate on GMO seed producers, don’t forget about DuPont and Syngenta. Everyone always talks about Monsanto but those companies also exist and perform similar activities.


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> And once again when faced with the truth even from multiple sources you resort to childish insults to hide. I'm at work now thanks for being concerned. I've been nothing but nice to you all along simply trying to help you better understand science. However as Dr. Who has also now shown you don't have the ability to get past your own ego to understand the science. I asked you questions and tried to have a conversation but you keep getting angry and resorting to insults.
> 
> To which I say good day sir!



Did you read his paper he listed?

Totally off the board for what we are talking about.

Where did micro sized strain amounts come in? Allele frequency changes from drift - defined by populations of the strain at only 5 plants. Standard expected deviations of .22 or 22%..
Ok, I understand that but, Who in the world has only 5 plants, making up the whole population of the strain?

% of any kind of drift in real world populations is so small that it's not even considered as an actual drift....... "Drift" never did like that term... I had a prof that taught actual "drift" is not what anybody thinks. Mutational changes to a gene in large populations of plants tend to peter out from natural selection...In the proper clime.

Here he's pointing to whole strain representations of 50 or less plants? Why hells - bells, the paper even lines out the genetic inbreeding coefficient and asexual reproduction problems that will climb due to that very limited genetic strain representation! Not to mention that the pathogen problem can come in and totally change the whole design.

We were talking about GMO's and natural selection,,,right? 
Not to mention that came from the actual question of
*Potency differences between phenotypes*

Never did actually answer the OP's question either, did he?

Goes on to talk about self importance....FAH....Whats this about then? Use of big words and science that maybe less then 5% of those on here can understand....

He started with this shit - 


dstroy said:


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


I strongly disagree with his wording. If I were to grade that in a college setting......D at best GMO = FAIL........Natural selection is real deal genetic shift... NOT a GMO that is specifically targeted genetic manipulation!

Just can't wrap his head around that one, can he?

No more for me here.... I ain't ducking shit. Just choosing not to waste more time.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> Did you read his paper he listed?
> 
> Totally off the board for what we are talking about.
> 
> ...


Good thing you aren't in charge of grading shit.

Edit: I think you smoked too much of that super valuable super weed you keep talking up but havent sent in for testing.


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 21, 2019)

Reflection: I guess i just have a hard time with the science behind such small #'s.. Having dealt with the mass #'s in the various forms of the agricultural industry I've been a part of..

A complete strain limited to 5 plants......It's almost hard for me to wrap my head around...
I can see the actual interest in studying that type of thing but, I have a hard time applying it to anything in agriculture I am used to dealing with..

Ok @dstroy Respect for your dedication and interests....

Later...


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 21, 2019)

dstroy said:


> super valuable



You said, not me.

I gave actual working #'s to the OP's question.

GMO - Definition 

*Genetically modified organism (GMO)*, organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favour the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products. In conventional livestock production, crop farming, and even pet breeding, it has long been the practice to breed select individuals of a species in order to produce offspring that have desirable traits. In genetic modification, however, recombinant genetic technologies are employed to produce organisms whose genomes have been precisely altered at the molecular level, usually by the inclusion of genes from unrelated species of organisms that code for traits that would not be obtained easily through conventional selective breeding.

You listed what? FAIL


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

*


Dr. Who said:



Did you read his paper he listed?

Totally off the board for what we are talking about.

Where did micro sized strain amounts come in? Allele frequency changes from drift - defined by populations of the strain at only 5 plants. Standard expected deviations of .22 or 22%..
Ok, I understand that but, Who in the world has only 5 plants, making up the whole population of the strain?

% of any kind of drift in real world populations is so small that it's not even considered as an actual drift....... "Drift" never did like that term... I had a prof that taught actual "drift" is not what anybody thinks. Mutational changes to a gene in large populations of plants tend to peter out from natural selection...In the proper clime.

Here he's pointing to whole strain representations of 50 or less plants? Why hells - bells, the paper even lines out the genetic inbreeding coefficient and asexual reproduction problems that will climb due to that very limited genetic strain representation! Not to mention that the pathogen problem can come in and totally change the whole design.

We were talking about GMO's and natural selection,,,right?
Not to mention that came from the actual question of
Potency differences between phenotypes

Never did actually answer the OP's question either, did he?

Goes on to talk about self importance....FAH....Whats this about then? Use of big words and science that maybe less then 5% of those on here can understand....

He started with this shit - 


I strongly disagree with his wording. If I were to grade that in a college setting......D at best GMO = FAIL........Natural selection is real deal genetic shift... NOT a GMO that is specifically targeted genetic manipulation!

Just can't wrap his head around that one, can he?

No more for me here.... I ain't ducking shit. Just choosing not to waste more time.

Click to expand...

Honestly Dr. he seems like a troll to me. I posted a paper from Harvard clearly stateing that selective breeding is not a form of GMO. 

He can't seem to swallow the difference between the words modification which is altering the existing genes to be something different completely, and selection which simply picks which existing genes that the breeder "hopes" to isolate. 

When I realized yesterday that he had no actual rebuttal for the truth and was just going to argue and insult with no validity I got over him. I don't know if he is always like this or if getting corrected for making a stupid comment just stirred him up. Either way it's sad to see people so blinded by ego they can't accept reality.*


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

Also back on topic, @Dr. Who do you happen to have the name or a link for that hand held tester you were pleased with? Getting something like that would be pretty cool if it's actually accurate.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Man, you cant read either. You understand that what comparison is no? You understand that both are gene modification techniques?
> 
> *The only difference is that with one, foreign genes get inserted at a specific point, and there’s no chance involved. *
> 
> ...





Dr. Who said:


> You said, not me.
> 
> I gave actual working #'s to the OP's question.
> 
> ...


You've been out of school too long. I clearly know the definition and difference between the two. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. It's not up for debate. Things change.


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 21, 2019)




----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


>


Yeah I'm just as tired of you as you are of me. That doesn't make you right.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

dstroy said:


> You've been out of school too long. I clearly know the definition and difference between the two. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. It's not up for debate. Things change.


So again, you think your smarter then Harvard cool that says so much about you . Quit trolling with bad information. You've clearly been out of school too long since you seem to think you can make up your own definitions to things.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> So again, you think your smarter then Harvard cool that says so much about you . Quit trolling with bad information. You've clearly been out of school too long since you seem to think you can make up your own definitions to things.


I agree with the Harvard "article", you absolute idiot. I said that already. That's what science does, it makes up new definitions for things, like ALL THE TIME...

You're the one who just can't seem to differentiate similar things.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

Lmao you really are inca able of having an actual conversation you just like to insult others when shown your wrong. The Harvard article said " selective breeding is NOT a form I GMO". So thanks for playing you are clearly wrong here. You might have better success interacting with others if you learned to control yourself and actually communicate in an effective adult manner.

Here is another link that again says selective breeding is not GMO. 

http://2017.igem.org/wiki/images/2/21/T--SECA_NZ--PresentationGMSelectiveBreeding.pdf. 

It's even got pictures for you.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> Lmao you really are inca able of having an actual conversation you just like to insult others when shown your wrong. The Harvard article said " selective breeding is NOT a form I GMO". So thanks for playing you are clearly wrong here. You might have better success interacting with others if you learned to control yourself and actually communicate in an effective adult manner.
> 
> Here is another link that again says selective breeding is not GMO.
> 
> ...


You understand that genetic modification and a genetically modified organism aren't the same thing right? Guess not.

You are arguing about something that I was never even arguing about. That's how stupid you are.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

Very sad indeed, your ego far surpasses your knowledge and ability to comprehend the science. I wish you the best of luck, you'll need it, hell we all need it now a days.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> Very sad indeed, your ego far surpasses your knowledge and ability to comprehend the science. I wish you the best of luck, you'll need it, hell we all need it now a days.


Saying this doesn't make you right.

Genetic modification is a completely separate topic from genetically modified organisms unless you're talking about the specific modification process. Selective breeding is not natural selection, it is artificial selection which is a form of genetic modification.

Super simple. Don't know what you're not getting but you definitely should not feel confident in your stance that genetic modification = GMO.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Saying this doesn't make you right.
> 
> Genetic modification is a completely separate topic from genetically modified organisms unless you're talking about the specific modification process. Selective breeding is not natural selection, it is artificial selection which is a form of genetic modification.
> 
> Super simple. Don't know what you're not getting but you definitely should not feel confident in your stance that genetic modification = GMO.


The links I posted and the science are what make me right thanks. I don't need your approval.

You are the one that keeps altering the topic, and contradicting yourself. If you agree with the Harvard article then you would stop contradicting it and yourself by claiming you agree and then saying that selective breeding is still GMO. Maybe try emailing Harvard and explaining that the are wrong..... Explain to them they don't know the difference, please, and then post the reply for us.

No one ever mentioned natural selection. We were talking about selective breeding which does not modify any genes. It encourages the expression of specific phenological traits. No genetic modification involved.

A GMO is an organism which has had it's genes genetically modified, your right it is pretty simple. You just refuse to accept that breeding is not modifying what is already there. Breeding takes what is there and simple encourages it to show up again. 

Genetic modification alters the gene sequence of an organism to get one specific result with no variation. Often times including adding DNA from other organisms.

I clearly understand and can effectively word and communicate that understanding. You choosing to repeat the same false statements an resort to insults makes it very clear that you do not properly understand and are simply defending your erroneous opinions because your ego won't let you learn. Very sad indeed.

You have provided zero support for your incorrect beliefs. Sadly your opinion is not a source or authority. You can keep trying to justify your incorrect beliefs or you can actually choose to learn. But from most I your previous posts having witty replies like "your stupid" that you probably aren't going I learn much.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> The links I posted and the science are what make me right thanks. I don't need your approval.
> 
> You are the one that keeps altering the topic, and contradicting yourself. If you agree with the Harvard article then you would stop contradicting it and yourself by claiming you agree and then saying that selective breeding is still GMO. Maybe try emailing Harvard and explaining that the are wrong..... Explain to them they don't know the difference, please, and then post the reply for us.
> 
> ...


FTFY

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/

*Simple Selection*
The easiest method of plant genetic modification (see Operational Definitions in Chapter 1), used by our nomadic ancestors and continuing today, is simple selection. That is, a genetically heterogeneous population of plants is inspected, and “superior” individuals—plants with the most desired traits, such as improved palatability and yield—are selected for continued propagation. The others are eaten or discarded. The seeds from the superior plants are sown to produce a new generation of plants, all or most of which will carry and express the desired traits. Over a period of several years, these plants or their seeds are saved and replanted, which increases the population of superior plants and shifts the genetic population so that it is dominated by the superior genotype. This very old method of breeding has been enhanced with modern technology.

An example of modern methods of simple selection is _marker-assisted selection,_ which uses molecular analysis to detect plants likely to express desired features, such as disease resistance to one or more specific pathogens in a population. Successfully applying marker-assisted selection allows a faster, more efficient mechanism for identifying candidate individuals that may have “superior traits.”


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

Great article thanks for posting something like an adult. While that article does mention various types of breeding as "modification" it is very loosely throwing the term around. And the title better describes the intent of the article then some of the later wording. 

That was your original point wasn't it. If you use a broad enough definition you could call everything GMO. Using accurate definitions gives much better understanding to the differences between genetic engineering and selective breeding though. Which was my original point. You made a poorly worded comment that lumped everything together under an inaccurate label. 

The more precise definition provided by Harvard and many other scientists would by my preferred route of education. I try to avoid making broad generalizations that can easily confuse people like yourself into over simplifying things.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> Great article thanks for posting something like an adult. While that article does mention various types of breeding as "modification" it is very loosely throwing the term around. And the title better describes the intent of the article then some of the later wording.
> 
> That was your original point wasn't it. If you use a broad enough definition you could call everything GMO. Using accurate definitions gives much better understanding to the differences between genetic engineering and selective breeding though. Which was my original point. You made a poorly worded comment that lumped everything together under an inaccurate label.
> 
> The more precise definition provided by Harvard and many other scientists would by my preferred route of education. I try to avoid making broad generalizations that can easily confuse people like yourself into over simplifying things.


You can't use the term GMO on anything other than a GMO (unless you're using it allegorically). The definition is already broad purposefully, to encompass any organism.

I also like that you think you can refute the NCBI. "just cause".

It's a journal database man, like one of the largest most well respected on the planet, ran by the national institute of health. Ever hear of pubmed? That's them.

Harvard researchers cite pubmed all the time, they even have a procedure in place to do it:

https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/pubmed-medline

The NIH is also considered a primary source of information; the most accurate. More accurate than me or you.

Sorry.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

You are correct you wouldn't call anything other then a GMO a GMO. Which Is why you shouldn't called selectively bred plants GMOs as they have not had their genes modified in any manner. 

https://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/

The article you quoted was titled as genetic manipulation, which is a much more accurate term for selective breeding. I was surprised when they started lumping all of it together and calling it modification. 

Like I said I don't like to make generalizations that muddy the waters of a situation. Selective breeding is an extension if the natural breeding process.

GMOs didn't exist until people started directly altering the genetic code of organism. 

It's astounding that you would want to lump together two very different things.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> You are correct you wouldn't call anything other then a GMO a GMO. Which Is why you shouldn't called selectively bred plants GMOs as they have not had their genes modified in any manner.
> 
> https://www.who.int/topics/food_genetically_modified/en/
> 
> ...


Now we're right back to you didn't understand what I wrote in the first place, and think that you do. Selective breeding is like GMO foods, in that they are both forms of genetic modification (a simple allegory, that went way over your head). 

You are demonstrably wrong and continue trying to argue invalid points.

There is nothing to nitpick. Your lack of understanding isn't my problem, it's yours. 

Sorry.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Now we're right back to you didn't understand what I wrote in the first place, and think that you do. Selective breeding is like GMO foods, in that they are both forms of genetic modification (a simple allegory, that went way over your head).
> 
> You are demonstrably wrong and continue trying to argue invalid points.
> 
> ...


Sorry you can justify what you wrote however you want. I posted just as valid of a link as you, and it said the exact opposite. So I am not demonstrably wrong, and I didn't have any issue understanding you. I stated from the beginning that you were using poor terminology to make blanket statements and were not very accurate. Selective breeding does not create a GMO. Your first statement was not an allegory.

Which simply brings us full circle to you trying to defend an inaccurate opinion on what a GMO actually is. You haven't done anything other then try to expand the definition to the broadest possible terms while bypassing what the term GMO actually refers to. 

Thanks again for showing your character throughout this discussion. It will make future interactions with you very simple. You've made it very clear you have no interest in being accurate with your terminology so once again I see no point in discussing this with you. Your welcome to continue using the wrong words for things if you would like. Please keep calling bracts "calyxs" and stigma "pistils" too.

Not knowing you are wrong is one thing, choosing to knowingly use wrong terminology is a sign of your ignorance.

I still hope you have a great day though!

Hopefully the OP made use of some of the good info earlier in the thread.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

Thundercat said:


> Sorry you can justify what you wrote however you want. I posted just as valid of a link as you, and it said the exact opposite. So I am not demonstrably wrong, and I didn't have any issue understanding you. I stated from the beginning that you were using poor terminology to make blanket statements and were not very accurate. Selective breeding does not create a GMO. Your first statement was not an allegory.
> 
> Which simply brings us full circle to you trying to defend an inaccurate opinion on what a GMO actually is. You haven't done anything other then try to expand the definition to the broadest possible terms while bypassing what the term GMO actually refers to.
> 
> ...



You're right, I meant analogy not allegory. 

That's all that you're right about though. 

You can keep talking all you want, you're wrong, you argued for something that I wasn't even arguing about, and were wrong about that too.

Do the right thing, read some more about the subject instead of sticking with that one thing from Harvard that just describes what a GMO is, and that is all. 

It doesn't even describe the different types of GMO (transgenic, mutagenic, gene silencing), or why it is so hard to define what a GMO actually is.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 21, 2019)

It's not even published in a journal either, just an article with references. My source came straight from a journal.

the Harvard article cites the NCBI as well:



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

REMEMBER WHEN YOU TRIED TO SAY THAT SOURCE WAS INVALID?

pepperidge farm remembers...


Stop trying to argue with me.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

Lmao I never was argueing . I was correcting you because you are wrong. 

I never said your source was invalid so obviously your reading comprehension sucks. 

You obviously have Zero interest in learning and only wish to try to fight and troll. Good luck to you, you've officially become only the 4th person to reach my ignore list in the last 11 years on this site .


----------



## thenotsoesoteric (Feb 21, 2019)

Selective breeding creates genetically modified organism. Are people really arguing over this? 

Good lord


----------



## thenotsoesoteric (Feb 21, 2019)

So is Neal D. Tyson an idiot because he says gmo's are created by selective breeding. You can google it and watch a video of him saying such.


----------



## Thundercat (Feb 21, 2019)

thenotsoesoteric said:


> So is Neal D. Tyson an idiot because he says gmo's are created by selective breeding. You can google it and watch a video of him saying such.


I never called anyone an idiot, or tried to argue. I was never rude or insulted anyone either. I'm sorry if it came off that way at all. I've been researching this all heavily the last few days because of this discussion, and frankly it really seems like one of those things that it highly depends on who you ask. I have no problem agreeing to disagree and moving on, I've tried a couple times, but allowed myself to be pulled back in. I can find just as many links that say breeding is not GMO, as there are that say it is. It basically comes down to how broadly you want to blanket the definition of that terminology. 

Back on topic again, I would love to talk to a full-time breeder that actually runs large batches of seed stock about the OP question. I'm certain they don't test all the phenotypes they get, but of anyone, they should have the greatest population of each strain to show variations.


----------



## thenotsoesoteric (Feb 21, 2019)




----------



## Khyber420 (Feb 22, 2019)

dstroy said:


> You've been out of school too long. I clearly know the definition and difference between the two. Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification. It's not up for debate. Things change.


Selective breeding is not a meaningful use of the term bio engineered aka genetically modified orgamism. You cannot combine genetic material from different species via breeding. Full stop. You're arguing semantics simply to play devil's advocate. Put your strawman down and look for a fight elsewhere?



thenotsoesoteric said:


> So is Neal D. Tyson an idiot because he says gmo's are created by selective breeding. You can google it and watch a video of him saying such.


Hes not an idiot, but his definition of GMO in that context totally differs from this one. Yes in a very basic, non meaningful use of the word, selective breeding creates a new organism as a result of shared genetics from its parents. But who cares, that's meaningless. What we are taking about here is bioengineering in the lab that has the capability to combine genetic material from totally different species. For example bio engineered silk worms that produce spiders silk.

The point is if some dude in an expensive suit has enough money he can probably pay some dude in a white lab coat to engineer a strain of weed with specific characteristics, patent it, sell it to big agriculture and slowly kill off the small growers. Especially if bureaucracy and regulations favor the large scale grower, and I can tell you right now here in Canada THEY DO. Pretty standard market economics that has happened in plenty places world wide. Have people already forgot about Percy Schmeiser?


----------



## dstroy (Feb 22, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Selective breeding is not a meaningful use of the term bio engineered aka genetically modified orgamism. You cannot combine genetic material from different species via breeding. Full stop. You're arguing semantics simply to play devil's advocate. Put your strawman down and look for a fight elsewhere?


Simple selection and genetic engineering are both forms of genetic modification. Don’t know what your problem is.


----------



## Spazz24 (Feb 22, 2019)

Man why all the big headed cockiness in some of this thread. We’re all here because we love the same thing at the end of the day. Whether you’re cutting 50 plants a month or 1 we still share the passion. Some people need to humble themselves and relax. There’s doctors and medications for that too btw.


----------



## Spazz24 (Feb 22, 2019)

You can agree to disagree on things or if you know someone is 100% wrong about something and there is only one way to do something, educate not humiliate and act like a dickhead. Not a good look.


----------



## GreenHighlander (Feb 22, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Wow, a lot of people on here like giving unrequested pessimistic business advice. I know the costs, and I've done the research. @BigHornBuds No, it doesn't cost 100k to get a licence if you have a brain and can write the paperwork yourself. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
> @Khyber420 that may have been the case with medicinal cannabis, but from what I've read the new licences will allow an influx of black market genetics.
> Thanks bertaluchi, that was the info I needed.


Seeing as how you have to have your facility fully built and ready to go before even applying, I would say you are actually going to need far more then 100k. 
You might have a great mind for business.Who knows. But based on your first post you have nowhere near the grow knowledge you need to have. 
I say all of this because it is quite obvious you do not know all the costs and haven't done all the research.
@BigHornBuds actually gave you the best advice. You are obviously no expert in the field so your only hope is to hire one.

Cheers


----------



## thenotsoesoteric (Feb 22, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Selective breeding is not a meaningful use of the term bio engineered aka genetically modified orgamism. You cannot combine genetic material from different species via breeding. Full stop. You're arguing semantics simply to play devil's advocate. Put your strawman down and look for a fight elsewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The comments I responded to were definitely saying selective breeding wasn't gmo, it is. Bio engineering is just a different kind of modification. 

Besides everyone knows pig dna and elephant dna just wont splice.


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 23, 2019)

GreenHighlander said:


> Seeing as how you have to have your facility fully built and ready to go before even applying, I would say you are actually going to need far more then 100k.
> You might have a great mind for business.Who knows. But based on your first post you have nowhere near the grow knowledge you need to have.
> I say all of this because it is quite obvious you do not know all the costs and haven't done all the research.
> @BigHornBuds actually gave you the best advice. You are obviously no expert in the field so your only hope is to hire one.
> ...


Off topic, I never asked for misguided business advice.


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 23, 2019)

Dr. Who said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


This was relevant, thank you. 7%-24% is a huge spread, looks likes I have some hunting to look forward to.


----------



## GreenHighlander (Feb 23, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Off topic, I never asked for misguided business advice.


Actually you did ask for advice because you don't have a clue. Enjoy crashing and burning with your bullshit pipe dream ya fucking goof hahahahahaha

Cheers


----------



## GreenHighlander (Feb 23, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Hi all,
> So I am moving back to Canada soon, which means I can start growing again (on a larger and legal scale at that). To make the weed I grow marketable, it needs to have a high testable THC percentage (on top of looking and smelling amazing). I will be growing from seed, but my experience of growing many seeds of the same strain is limited.
> How much does THC content typically vary between phenotypes of the same strain?
> So for instance, if I am growing some headband or skywalker kush, how many seeds would I need to grow in order to find one with a THC percentage over 20%?
> Any other advice on getting THC percentage up there would be appreciated. I know I need to add UV lights, any other suggestions? Thanks in advance.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hilarious!!!

Cheers


----------



## johnnynice (Feb 23, 2019)

GreenHighlander said:


> Actually you did ask for advice because you don't have a clue. Enjoy crashing and burning with your bullshit pipe dream ya fucking goof hahahahahaha
> 
> Cheers


Man, a lot of miserable cunts on this site


----------



## Dr. Who (Feb 23, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Man, a lot of miserable cunts on this site


Just learn to ignore them....

There are plenty


----------



## Aussieaceae (Feb 23, 2019)

johnnynice,

I wish you all the success in your endeavour. Definitely gonna be hard, especially from seed only, but i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. You may be searching for a needle in a hay stack, but if you have money, space and time you can afford to lose, then give em hell.

Best of luck.

To the thread,

I want to chime in a little in regards to GMO. Also i want to reserve my opinion on whether GMO is good or bad.
But reading a few pages in this thread, i can't help but feel the need to ask a few questions for my own understanding.
I'm a chucker, mostly outdoor grower and know a little, but always willing to learn more.
Argument is not what i'm after here, but information.

If we forget about other genetic characteristics for a second to simplify what i'm asking, it may be simpler for myself to explain the questions i have.

So......lets say we wanted female plants only in our seed? We can now make feminized seeds right.
For the sake of the question, assume females only is the main trait we're after.

Take Strain A, Strain B, and Strain C.
All three strains genetically very different, thousands and thousands of generations apart, and all three regular seed.
So we make a stable Feminized Strain A (FSA), Feminized Strain B (FSB) and Feminized Strain C (FSC).

Now let's say we like the growth structure of FSA, the potency of FSB, and the resistance to pests and disease of FSC.
We decide to crossbreed the three, and create a feminized hybrid.
We hit the jackpot and work this hybrid into a stable feminized strain.

Without the presence of any males, or hermaphrodites in our crops, at which point does our strain become GMO?
It would have to be considered GMO at some point, would it not?

Apologies to the OP, if this is off topic, just had to ask.


----------



## dstroy (Feb 23, 2019)

Aussieaceae said:


> johnnynice,
> 
> I wish you all the success in your endeavour. Definitely gonna be hard, especially from seed only, but i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. You may be searching for a needle in a hay stack, but if you have money, space and time you can afford to lose, then give em hell.
> 
> ...


Cannabis is dioecious.

Mendel's laws of inheritance:

Law of segregation: During gamete formation, the alleles for each gene segregate from each other so that each gamete carries only one allele for each gene.
Law of independent assortment: Genes for different traits can segregate independently during the formation of gametes.
Law of dominance: Some alleles are dominant while others are recessive; an organism with at least one dominant allele will display the effect of the dominant allele 

It is always a random half of genes, it does not matter the process we use to reverse plants. (Lamarckism hasn't been proven)

If you don't insert any foreign genes into the plant then it is not considered to be "engineered".

Simple selection is a form of genetic modification, we are artificially selecting for desirable traits. This is not the same as an engineered plant, but is still a modified plant.

Colloquially, the term GMO refers to transgenic plants or plants with qualities unattainable through traditional means of breeding and selection. 

This is where a lot of people get confused. Your description fits.


----------



## Aussieaceae (Feb 23, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Cannabis is dioecious.
> 
> Mendel's laws of inheritance:
> 
> ...


dstroy,

Thanks for the info, i'd like your comment if i could, but i can't yet.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, what i'm referring to is genetic engineering?
But if we were able to introduce genes from an entirely different plant in the Cannabaceae family, such as hops or hackberry, this would be considered genetic modification?


----------



## dstroy (Feb 23, 2019)

Aussieaceae said:


> dstroy,
> 
> Thanks for the info, i'd like your comment if i could, but i can't yet.
> 
> ...


Engineering is inserting genes, directly manipulating genes

Simple selection is selecting desirable traits, and breeding for those traits

Both genetic engineering and simple selection are forms of genetic modification

All that genetic modification means is that someone has intervened, and then you can break it down into how they intervened, by what process they achieved their result. Was it through a lab? Or was it through plant selection?


----------



## Aussieaceae (Feb 23, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Engineering is inserting genes, directly manipulating genes
> 
> Simple selection is selecting desirable traits, and breeding for those traits
> 
> ...


Thanks dude I understand now. Makes sense.


----------



## Khyber420 (Feb 24, 2019)

dstroy said:


> Colloquially, the term GMO refers to transgenic plants or plants with qualities unattainable through traditional means of breeding and selection.
> 
> This is where a lot of people get confused. Your description fits.


Agreed with everything you said except the "colloquially" part, your definition of GMO seems more colloquial vs scientific / regulatory consensus. But to each their own  to me (and the USDA) engineered and GMO are synonyms:

"However, the scientific community and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use a stricter definition for a GMO: an animal or plant that has been created through genetic engineering [1]. "

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

No need to continue the argument though, we'll just agree to disagree


----------



## dstroy (Feb 24, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Agreed with everything you said except the "colloquially" part, your definition of GMO seems more colloquial vs scientific / regulatory consensus. But to each their own  to me (and the USDA) engineered and GMO are synonyms:
> 
> "However, the scientific community and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) use a stricter definition for a GMO: an animal or plant that has been created through genetic engineering [1]. "
> 
> ...


Yeah, you’re not right. Agree to disagree is what people who can’t argue say. 

Check your sources, and make sure you understand the topic.

According to the USDA’s Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms, a GMO is “an organism produced through genetic modification.”

*Genetically modified organism (GMO):* An organism produced through genetic modification.

https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary

lol

The usda definitely agrees with me.


----------



## Booyah! (Mar 5, 2019)

GMO regardless of whether or not you agree with the term Modification or not means changing the genetics at a genetic level in a lab (ie splicing) and not through selection.


----------



## Booyah! (Mar 5, 2019)

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

You are wrong. 

GMO is not selective breeding. Read the article above. It clearly states that GMO is not selective breeding.


----------



## dstroy (Mar 5, 2019)

Booyah! said:


> http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> GMO is not selective breeding. Read the article above. It clearly states that GMO is not selective breeding.


*Techniques Other than Genetic Engineering*
*Simple Selection*
The easiest method of plant genetic modification

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/

You are wrong.


----------



## Booyah! (Mar 6, 2019)

Um yeah of course you can breed towards certain traits, but that don't make it GMO.


----------



## dstroy (Mar 6, 2019)

Booyah! said:


> Um yeah of course you can breed towards certain traits, but that don't make it GMO.


It does. There's more than one way to make a GMO.

You're wrong again.

Simple selection and genetic engineering both _modify _genes. Both are artificial.

The differences between genetic engineering and simple selection aren't subtle, but you can't seem to grasp that they belong to the same subset.


----------



## OldMedUser (Mar 6, 2019)

With selective breeding you are NOT modifying any genes so they are NOT a GMO. None of the genes get modified in any way but the expression of those genes is selected for to get plants/animals that have the particular traits you want. At the end of many selected generations you will have a plant/animal that has all the traits you want and still has the exact same genes as the plants/animals you started with.

Flogging a dead horse here @dstroy


----------



## dstroy (Mar 6, 2019)

OldMedUser said:


> With selective breeding you are NOT modifying any genes so they are NOT a GMO. None of the genes get modified in any way but the expression of those genes is selected for to get plants/animals that have the particular traits you want. At the end of many selected generations you will have a plant/animal that has all the traits you want and still has the exact same genes as the plants/animals you started with.
> 
> Flogging a dead horse here @dstroy


Hey man, your opinion is wrong. You are misinformed.


"
Modification to produce desired traits in plants, animals, and microbes used for food began about 10,000 years ago. These changes, along with natural evolutionary changes, have resulted in common food species that are now genetically different from their ancestors.

Advantageous outcomes of these genetic modifications include increased food production, reliability, and yields; enhanced taste and nutritional value; and decreased losses due to various biotic and abiotic stresses, such as fungal and bacterial pathogens. These objectives continue to motivate modern breeders and food scientists, who have designed newer genetic modification methods for identifying, selecting, and analyzing individual organisms that possess genetically enhanced features

*PLANT GENETIC MODIFICATION*
*Techniques Other than Genetic Engineering*
*Simple Selection*
The easiest method of plant genetic modification

"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/


I'm right.


----------



## Booyah! (Mar 6, 2019)

Maybe they should have called it something different like GSO (Genetically Spliced Organism) because you're getting tripped up by the verbage. 

There's only 10 GMO crops out there. 

https://gmoanswers.com/current-gmo-crops


----------



## dstroy (Mar 6, 2019)

Booyah! said:


> Maybe they should have called it something different like GSO (Genetically Spliced Organism) because you're getting tripped up by the verbage.
> 
> There's only 10 GMO crops out there.
> 
> https://gmoanswers.com/current-gmo-crops


No, I'm not getting tripped up. You are.

There's more than one type of GMO. You think it's the colloquial definition, you are wrong.

GMO doesn't refer to engineered plants only. 

You are wrong.

That is an outdated list of _approved_ GM crops, go to the USDA website for a current list.

My information comes from a more reputable source than "gmoanswers.com" (the national institute of health and the USDA is where I'm pulling this from).

hey, speaking of the USDA, here's how they define it:

*
Genetic modification: The production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods. Some countries other than the United States use this term to refer specifically to genetic engineering.

Genetically modified organism (GMO):* An organism produced through genetic modification.

*Genetically engineered organism (GEO):* An organism produced through genetic engineering.

https://www.usda.gov/topics/biotechnology/biotechnology-glossary



lol


----------



## Thundercat (Mar 6, 2019)

All I see is you guys making one side of this arguement, I can only imagine that Dstroy is on the other side making the same statements he was before. You guys are really wasting your time. He obviously has a very broad definition of something that others have a more specific definition of. You will find both definitions used throughout the research. I have no problem with other people having different opinions, I am very accepting of others rights even if I don't agree. So I suggest choosing not to fight with a person who clearly finds entertainment in fighting for no reason :facepalm: .


----------



## YouGrowYourWay (Mar 6, 2019)

He most certainly does love an argument, told someone straight up agreeing to disagree is because you can't argue lmao if only OP could get some answers


----------



## dstroy (Mar 6, 2019)

YouGrowYourWay said:


> He most certainly does love an argument, told someone straight up agreeing to disagree is because you can't argue lmao


It’s true. That’s not why I’m doing this though.


----------



## YouGrowYourWay (Mar 6, 2019)

Ask me if I care?


----------



## Lucky Luke (Mar 6, 2019)

dstroy said:


> No, I'm not getting tripped up. You are.
> 
> There's more than one type of GMO. You think it's the colloquial definition, you are wrong.
> 
> ...


I didn't know there was a difference. Cheers. 
Makes sense as, as soon as a land race strain is cultivated it stops being a land race strain. With cultivation comes selection.​


----------



## GreeneryBob (Mar 7, 2019)

dstroy is correct.. If you modify genes of an organism, you can call it a genetically modified organism. The organism doesn't care what techniques you used, finding 'naturally' occurring mutations to breed with, using markers, or crispr splicing as they all modify the gene line. You still end up with a deliberately genetically modified organism, or GMO.


----------



## Booyah! (Mar 7, 2019)

Y'all are describing every crop on Earth. Why even give it a name? And what do you think countries that banned GMOs are eating? I guess they have all gone back to hunting and gathering obviously. Well wait a second, aren't they GMO too? Of course! 

You all must be wondering why GMOs even make the news. I bet you really thought the strain GMO was exactly that and can't get the humor. 

What about animal selected fruits? Guess they fit the bill too. Why stop at human selection if selection is all it takes to be a GMO? Weather selected? Why not? In fact everything that has genetics has changed in some way or another just from being on this Earth, so what's the point? Might as well just say Organism and drop the first part since it's kinda redundant.


----------



## GreeneryBob (Mar 7, 2019)

Exactly Booyah. That term being used as a buzzword to vilify certain advanced breeding techniques does nobody any good. I prefer the term "Domesticated organism".


----------



## Booyah! (Mar 8, 2019)

I think you missed my sarcasm.


----------



## GreeneryBob (Mar 8, 2019)

No. I saw the attempt


----------



## dstroy (Mar 8, 2019)

Booyah! said:


> Y'all are describing every crop on Earth. Why even give it a name? And what do you think countries that banned GMOs are eating? I guess they have all gone back to hunting and gathering obviously. Well wait a second, aren't they GMO too? Of course!
> 
> You all must be wondering why GMOs even make the news. I bet you really thought the strain GMO was exactly that and can't get the humor.
> 
> What about animal selected fruits? Guess they fit the bill too. Why stop at human selection if selection is all it takes to be a GMO? Weather selected? Why not? In fact everything that has genetics has changed in some way or another just from being on this Earth, so what's the point? Might as well just say Organism and drop the first part since it's kinda redundant.



Animals don’t have free will, humans breed plants with intention. That’s the difference.

Got any more brain busters?

I get that you want me to be wrong cause I’m a total dickhead, but I’m right.


----------



## JayBio420 (Mar 14, 2019)

You should all be mature enough to realize you’re splitting hairs. The exact terminology can be defined in one field, and different in another. People often use words with varying accuracy in various contexts. You’ve all contributed to a ruined thread, and that’s unfortunate...

Argue in private messages, nobody is interested in stubborn people ruining our forum time.


----------



## GreeneryBob (Mar 14, 2019)

It's really a political statement, when you vilify a term like GMO, people start to avoid thinking and see the scary term as some sort of enemy


----------



## dstroy (Mar 16, 2019)

GreeneryBob said:


> It's really a political statement, when you vilify a term like GMO, people start to avoid thinking and see the scary term as some sort of enemy


Yes. People are apprehensive of what they don't understand, which can then turn into baseless opinions much like what we've seen here.


----------



## GreeneryBob (Mar 16, 2019)

On the topic of potency, I've gotta chime in that as a legal grower with zero interest in selling anything, potency really takes a back seat to flavour. Phenotypes will vary drastically with unstable genetics. Want something stable? Go with something inbred like Bubblegum, Durban poison, etc. All of the new hybrids will give you variation with everything....lots of potential to find gems, very little reliability.


----------



## Actuosity (Mar 19, 2019)

johnnynice said:


> Hi all,
> So I am moving back to Canada soon, which means I can start growing again (on a larger and legal scale at that). To make the weed I grow marketable, it needs to have a high testable THC percentage.


I would advise avoiding the use of the work marketable unless you're going to become a LP, If you are then you're in luck the 20%+ TC law doesn't apply to them in the same way. If they produce 20%+ THC pot it can be used in batches to make THC oil at a lower %. If you're a home grower and avoid anything questionable your pot will never be tested and you can enjoy to your hearts content. If you plan to sell on the black market or through "Medical Dispensary" then you don't need to worry about THC % either, as its completely illegal and someone testing your THC% will be the least of your worries if someone starts looking at you. 

When it comes to THC % it really depends on brand and reputation. Most reputable brands will have a small range which is the average that they've tested. Some will put the highest THC% that they've obtained from a seed and others will just put out a random % they've tested without actually doing an average or growing more than a few from that seed run. 

hope this helps. 

Have a great day


----------



## Actuosity (Mar 19, 2019)

Khyber420 said:


> Have you applied for a license? My understanding is starting material must be purchased from a licensed producer. Black market strains can't be grown, ie it's not so simple as just sprouting a ton of internet seeds and yea health Canada inspectors check on this. It's a highly regulated market, even natural pesticides have to be on health Canadas approved list.


See thats one of the things they really butchered in Canada speaking as a Canadian. They legal pot is combinations of random strains and hidden behind LP doors, They renamed all strain names so essentially there is no GG#4, GDP, BubbaKush and to produce legally you have to go through an LP. Most LP's require proof of growing and that you already have the space / equipment to grow. Then you have to buy these shitty seeds that come from the LP's with names like "Artisan Number 4" or "*Company name* CBD Blend" "*Company name relax blend"


----------

