Problem is jogro, that the "elite clones" that are always the preferred mothers these days are either happy accidents (herm) or if it happens to be exceptional and was from a feminized selection it may (or may not) have the recessive gene for hermaphrodism. By virtue of your claim of breeder laziness or even just the presence of these circumstances places the range of probability of gamete pairing of this trait at a more than likely probability across the range. PERIOD.
They're not, but stipulating for the sake of argument that every single "elite clone" on the planet is hermie-prone, that still doesn't affect the "gene pool". It only affects what you might term the "commercial gene pool", and even there, only part of it.
Again, it comes down to breeder diligence. *ALL* cannabis genetics ultimately derive from hermie-prone lines. Its up to the breeder to do the hard work to sort that out. If breeders aren't going to do that work starting from "elite clones", they're not going to do it starting with landraces or other lines. There is no fundamental reason why any breeder can't eliminate the hermie trait from a line started from a clone, the same as one started from a bean. ..so long as they know what they are doing and actually want to do it.
If, for whatever reason, you as a consumer don't want plants with "elite clone" genetics in your growroom, there is a very simple solution. There are still any number of breeders who don't base their commercial lines on these (off the top of my head, Mr. Nice and Mandala come to mind, but there are others), and then its up to you as a customer to select what you like from the marketplace.
Unfortunately, I think the reality is that femmed or non-femmed, landrace, or elite clone, there isn't a single breeder that puts out lines that are 100% "hermie-proof". At best you have some where most of their catalog is hermie resistant.
While I appreciate your opinion on the matter it is not prudent to appreciate the flooding of the market with genetically modified base genetics
What's "genetically modified base genetics"?
The fact is, every single cannabis plant of interest has been "modified" by human selective breeding. If you're against "modifying" the genome of the cannabis plant, then I hope you enjoy growing wild hemp plants!
So far as I know, there are ZERO plants in the commercial drug cannabis marketplace whose genetics have been modified by directed molecular techniques (ie so-called GMO plants). Every single cannabis plant in the commercial drug marketplace, as well as commercial hemp lines, have been bred using conventional sexual crosses. At "worst" some of these crosses were carried out using pollen from genetically female plants. But again, there is nothing genetically "magical" about that. . .that's what cannabis plants do in nature all the time. I hear a lot of wailing about how this is ruining the gene pool. . .have yet to see ANY actual explanation of how or why.
. . .and expect that the general pool is not affected by this
What "general pool" are you talking about? This is like saying that because McDonalds and Burger King put out low end mass produced burgers, that the "burger pool" is being diluted. The fact is, if you want to find a better hamburger elsewhere, you still can. If anything the fact that there are lots of bad ones out there actually provides a market niche for individuals to provide good ones, just by expanding the overall size of the marketplace.
Same is true with cannabis genetics. The more "Greenhouse Se-eds" there are pumping out boatloads of mediocre feminized crap, the more reason there is for Mandala to put out hand pollinated landrace based regular lines that those in the know want. And even if, for the sake of argument, Mandala and its like couldn't really compete in the marketplace (even though emprrically, they can), that still wouldn't eliminate the genetics you're after. The more interesting lines would just be cultivated, bred, and traded privately by interested individuals, the same as more interesting non-commercial heirloom variants of tomatoes and other plants are today.
Making this even more simple, the rise of feminized se-eds is because the entire cannabis se-ed marketplace has exploded. More people than ever are cultivating the plant, and interested, and I don't see how that's a bad thing from a genetics preservation standpoint.
as there are no quality controls and no market pressure to do what your saying would have to be done, which I agree with.
Why do Mr. Nice and Mandala seeds exist, then? Clearly there is a market for their product.
Ultimately, the market serves as its own quality control. . .nobody can expect to consistently put out bad genetics and survive, and those that put out high quality genetics do tend to do better.
At the end of the day there are plenty of breeders that are now even using feminized individuals in their breeding programs. Like I always say, the proof is in the progeny!
This is a pretty vague statement. If you're saying that hermie prone progeny is a direct result of using feminized genetics somewhere in the breeding chain, I disagree. Its because of sloppy breeding practice; nothing more and nothing less.
Regardless, every pro breeder I've ever heard talk about this has said explicitly that they don't and won't use fem se-eds for breeding. From their own mouths, I've heard Kyle Kushman, Don from DNA Genetics, DJ Short, Simon from Serious se-eds, and Scott from Rare Dankness all say this exact thing, and all of these individuals are well known and award winning breeders. I've also seen Subcool from TGA say it on the internet, and Reddog from Sickmeds has told me the same in personal communication. I'm pretty sure that Shantibaba of MNS also doesn't, though I can't specifically remember seeing him say so directly, and I'm sure its true of others, though
So even stipulating that using fem se-eds in breeding is necessarily "bad" (which again, I don't believe as a categorical statement), you've got a list of arguably the most popular and prominent breeders around all claiming they don't do it. With all of them saying it, I don't think you have to worry about the commercial gene pool becoming all feminized.
The form of cannabis that we enjoy would simply not exist without selective pressure. It doesn't take a botanist to realize that the pairings that are made are a result of selective pressure that has already occurred and that some undesirable traits have not been worked out. .02
There are 400+ "strains" (and I use the term loosely) available on the commercial market. You're saying NONE of these lines are free of undesirable traits? If that were really true, then the only conclusion I could draw is that its impossible for anyone to create what you're after.
In practice, I'd say that you're never going to work out ALL the "undesirable" traits from that pool, nor, in my opinion, would it even be a good idea to try. One man's unwanted trait, is another's desired one, and in some cases combinations of unwanted traits turn into interesting new ones. All strains, are, in effect compromises highlighting certain features over others.
Been doing a cherry bomb perpetual since Apr very nice results had heat troubles towards Aug shut down my 400w veg space an flowered the rest still having heat troubles but is manageable just ordered berry bomb and ice bomb and a couple others should be good to go now fall is coming
