CSI humboldt thread

[outliergenetix]

If your main intention was to start a seed company. Would you be telling ppl which og is the original years before you got lisenced? It’s easy just to throw them all in the same group then the mystery is still there and ppl send more cuts. And phylos makes out like bandits

i think there is a marketing angle to support either argument there. for example if they are the ones who get to define og, because as they admit on thier own site that is the issue with the database currently(there isnt a definition), then they are the ones who get to also confirm they have it. what their goal is is to create this artifical idea strains are real things then turn these strains into IP be it their own or others in order to cement this idea which in reality is just an illusion. they are trying to attach legendary and popular monikars to something tangiible that canbe marketed. so if they are the ones ppl see as the ppl who have done this "scientific categigorization" then anything they claim is og must be og, but ppl like us know their test doesnt mean its what ppl called og in 1996 idk if we even used that term then tbh we pretty much called it all kush. the point is they would have an interest in doing what you said because in order to capitalize on the og name they need to make it something ppl see as a real thing. knowing what an og is and hoarding that does nothing for sales at all. but if you can somehow convinvce ppl you know what og is and you can prove you have it then it doesnt even need to be real. they are selling an idea based off scientific illusion because ppl don't undertsand the tool. they know this, they are being misleading. it is a much deeper rabbit hole than you think and i prolly explained it terribly jn, hope you catch some of my drif

 

[outliergenetix]

nobody sends in cuts bro.. from what I understand its a small piece of stem or leaf or some plant material, not cuts (clones)

you are correc there. i don't think he meant literally cuts despite saying exactly that. he also doesn't seem to undertsand the marketing value of making strains real. they aren't real tho that is a fact. they are labeling the unlabelable for business reasons and IP

 

[outliergenetix]

here is a better analogy to my last ramble

it's the same idea if i found a new ape and gave it a dna sequence then called it bigfoot and expected evberyone to believe this is the bigfoot of legend. it is a ridiculous claim and exactly what phylos is doin
it's actualy worse than this example tho because at least an ape is a species and classifiable. strain isnt a scientifci term for plants so it isnt even a classifcation. its all smoke and mirrors ppl

 

[blowincherrypie]

here is a better analogy to my last ramble

it's the same idea if i found a new ape and gave it a dna sequence then called it bigfoot and expected evberyone to believe this is the bigfoot of legend. it is a ridiculous claim and exactly what phylos is doin
it's actualy worse than this example tho because at least an ape is a species and classifiable. strain isnt a scientifci term for plants so it isnt even a classifcation. its all smoke and mirrors ppl

They arent naming anything.. I know you're high but please take 30 seconds to read what they say..

"What’s In a Name?
At Phylos, we provide scientific tools for the cannabis industry to become more transparent, and to provide a higher level of consistency in the marketplace. We will never change grower submitted names, even in cases where they don’t align with the most commonly occurring name in the Clone Group.

Here’s why:

Although plants may be genetically identical, the way they’re grown will always impact how they look, taste, and smell. And all of this affects how they make us feel. While the genotype determines the range of possible traits that a plant may have, growth conditions determine where they’ll be on the spectrum of possibilities.

When unique growers run clones for a long time, their cut can express a different phenotype than another grower because of epigenetic changes that take place as plants adapt to their current environment.

So, DNA isn’t destiny. At least, not completely.

As submitters begin to upload information for their samples, we will begin to better understand how the differences between samples in the same Clone Group can identify the true masters among growers.

Genotype report data determined that Yerba Buena’s recently released Corazon variety is a genetically identical cut within the AC/DC Clone Group. But their farm’s unique growing practices produced some of the highest testing CBD flower in history, with unique flavor and nose.

Their story illustrates how growers can differentiate their products while still providing transparent data about their variety’s exact genotype — a leap forward in the journey to building greater consumer trust"

This seems to answer a lot of what we have wasted our time talking about the past couple hours lol

 

[outliergenetix]

They arent naming anything.. I know you're high but please take 30 seconds to read what they say..

"What’s In a Name?
At Phylos, we provide scientific tools for the cannabis industry to become more transparent, and to provide a higher level of consistency in the marketplace. We will never change grower submitted names, even in cases where they don’t align with the most commonly occurring name in the Clone Group.

Here’s why:

Although plants may be genetically identical, the way they’re grown will always impact how they look, taste, and smell. And all of this affects how they make us feel. While the genotype determines the range of possible traits that a plant may have, growth conditions determine where they’ll be on the spectrum of possibilities.

When unique growers run clones for a long time, their cut can express a different phenotype than another grower because of epigenetic changes that take place as plants adapt to their current environment.

So, DNA isn’t destiny. At least, not completely.

As submitters begin to upload information for their samples, we will begin to better understand how the differences between samples in the same Clone Group can identify the true masters among growers.

Genotype report data determined that Yerba Buena’s recently released Corazon variety is a genetically identical cut within the AC/DC Clone Group. But their farm’s unique growing practices produced some of the highest testing CBD flower in history, with unique flavor and nose.

Their story illustrates how growers can differentiate their products while still providing transparent data about their variety’s exact genotype — a leap forward in the journey to building greater consumer trust"

This seems to answer a lot of what we have wasted our time talking about the past couple hours lol

dude i cannot get past your first line you are lost. of course they arent but they are making something like bigfoot that isnt friggin real seem to be real by using that name and assigning oit to random entries from strangers. the anolgy is 100% spot on. you are using smeantics by saying they didnt name it simply because they are using a name that exists and a random claim by ppl this is that thing
as for your copy and paste job i already adressed this with a mathmatecial formula to determine how accurate relation can be determined for various samples via genetics and it isnt that far back(in terms of gernerations of the individual test subject). so again what you copied is a marketing tool. what are they gonna do explain all the bad things in that? how good would that be for business? this isnt a research university it is an enterprise company. that slike citing donald trumps campoaign manager to show trump is a nice guy

 

[blowincherrypie]

dude i cannot get past your first line you are lost. of course they arent but they are making something like bigfoot that isnt friggin real seem to be real by using that name and assigning oit to random entries from strangers. the anolgy is 100% spot on

You chose not to read something that answers your questions? Hey, I guess ignorance really can be a choice.. More power to you

 

[outliergenetix]

before i leave work i want to clarify this maybe with chem91 as an example for those who wont understand the math a while bakc i offered. basically the only chem 91 is a clone only. strains arent real, thats a fact your gonna have to acccept. now withing two generations the ability to say that is an ancestor of chem91 is almost nill. the things the share even two generations apart genetically are not enough to definitly determine relation. they share genes, maybe even allot but after a cpl generations anything bred from it will never be conclusively decided that yes the parent from 2 generations ago was the real chem91 its literally impossible. so to think these connection are showing direct relationships or that this plant is in this other plants lineage and dna tests prove this is wrong. take your great grandfathers dna and yours and go to a lab and ask them if this is your great grandfather, they wont be able to tell you definitively yes or no

 

[outliergenetix]

You chose not to read something that answers your questions? Hey, I guess ignorance really can be a choice.. More power to you

i didnt ask a question that wasn't rhetorical. you seem not to want to accept strains arent real and that after a mere few generations relation cannot be shown which isnt addressed in your paste job and i did read it it was all stuff i know and even said. i think you didnt read my posts tbh

 

[Chronic811]

nobody sends in cuts bro.. from what I understand its a small piece of stem or leaf or some plant material, not cuts (clones)

With all the shady things phylos does I just refer to there samples as cuts because that is probably what they are once they receive them. If these guys can really map dna then they can probably tissue culture a piece of stem

 

[outliergenetix]

With all the shady things phylos does I just refer to there samples as cuts because that is probably what they are once they receive them. If these guys can really map dna then they can probably tissue culture a piece of stem

the fact is they dont need cuts today even to create full blown clones. just some leafe matierail can be turned itno a full blown clone plant now. i am not sure on this last part but i think you can even take cured bud and they can process it for dna and clone it. again not sure onthe dred and cured part but leaf amterial from a live plant they can

 

[blowincherrypie]

i didnt ask a question that wasn't rhetorical. you seem not to want to accept strains arent real and that after a mere few generations relation cannot be shown which isnt addressed in your paste job and i did read it it was all stuff i know and even said. i think you didnt read my posts tbh

before i leave work i want to clarify this maybe with chem91 as an example for those who wont understand the math a while bakc i offered. basically the only chem 91 is a clone only. strains arent real, thats a fact your gonna have to acccept. now withing two generations the ability to say that is an ancestor of chem91 is almost nill. the things the share even two generations apart genetically are not enough to definitly determine relation. they share genes, maybe even allot but after a cpl generations anything bred from it will never be conclusively decided that yes the parent from 2 generations ago was the real chem91 its literally impossible. so to think these connection are showing direct relationships or that this plant is in this other plants lineage and dna tests prove this is wrong. take your great grandfathers dna and yours and go to a lab and ask them if this is your great grandfather, they wont be able to tell you definitively yes or no

You act as though phylos is claiming to be the ancestory.com of cannabis or something? There is a difference between wanting to know (and being able to tell) if two cuts are identical and thinking you can send in a sample and them tell you what it is or what its parents are (maybe if/when the database grows)... They aren't claiming to do that.. you would know that if you actually read what I pasted directly from phylos.

 

[Chronic811]

i think there is a marketing angle to support either argument there. for example if they are the ones who get to define og, because as they admit on thier own site that is the issue with the database currently(there isnt a definition), then they are the ones who get to also confirm they have it. what their goal is is to create this artifical idea strains are real things then turn these strains into IP be it their own or others in order to cement this idea which in reality is just an illusion. they are trying to attach legendary and popular monikars to something tangiible that canbe marketed. so if they are the ones ppl see as the ppl who have done this "scientific categigorization" then anything they claim is og must be og, but ppl like us know their test doesnt mean its what ppl called og in 1996 idk if we even used that term then tbh we pretty much called it all kush. the point is they would have an interest in doing what you said because in order to capitalize on the og name they need to make it something ppl see as a real thing. knowing what an og is and hoarding that does nothing for sales at all. but if you can somehow convinvce ppl you know what og is and you can prove you have it then it doesnt even need to be real. they are selling an idea based off scientific illusion because ppl don't undertsand the tool. they know this, they are being misleading. it is a much deeper rabbit hole than you think and i prolly explained it terribly jn, hope you catch some of my drif

Og doesn’t need defined. The fact that there is like 84 samples sent in to phylos should explain how profitable it is whether we know what went into it or not. If you can put og into seed form you’ll get rich and that is what phylos is about to do

 

[Chronic811]

here is a better analogy to my last ramble

it's the same idea if i found a new ape and gave it a dna sequence then called it bigfoot and expected evberyone to believe this is the bigfoot of legend. it is a ridiculous claim and exactly what phylos is doin
it's actualy worse than this example tho because at least an ape is a species and classifiable. strain isnt a scientifci term for plants so it isnt even a classifcation. its all smoke and mirrors ppl

What if through a hair sample you realized Bigfoot was a cross between a human and a grizzly bear and there was a potential market for baby bigfoots as pets. Would you post on your website your findings years before you could start breeding Bigfoots? That is what phylos did with og

 

[outliergenetix]

You act as though phylos is claiming to be the ancestory.com of cannabis or something? There is a difference between wanting to know (and being able to tell) if two cuts are identical and thinking you can send in a sample and them tell you what it is or what its parents are (maybe if/when the database grows)... They aren't claiming to do that.. you would know that if you actually read what I pasted directly from phylos.

this ties back to what i said a while ago us, phylos and experienced ppl understand the scope of usefulness the masses think it is exactly what you said, a cannabis ancestry. that's a huge issue and the reason i siad ppl like kevin are better recorders of those thigns since this is beyond the scope of phylos. we are agreeing in many ways. you want to limit it to things we sorta agree on but it seems you dont think we agree. i just want to make known the largr picture and the issue phylos has with this wild west of an industry thats being created.

 

[OG Doge]

Can anyone tell me what's up with the ABC strain? It looks unique for sure but whats the point of breeding with it?

Stealth outdoors

 

[whytewidow]

Two different phenos of Mendo Purps. One goofy lookn ogkb shaped fans. But had fast vegging. And the other is super nice. But threw nanners.



The nice lookn pheno that hermed. She smells absolutely amazing. I have clones of both. Gonna run both again. Both are seed plants. Hopefully clone run of her she doesnt throw any nanners.

 

[wheresthekoosh]

anyone grown out his Ghost OG X Chem91?

 

[jp68]

Have 3 old moneys that will be ready in a month or so

 

[Bodyne]

phylos started their own breeding program, many are not happy with it, including the state growers they are located in.

https://cannabisnow.com/phylos-bioscience-sparks-outrage-over-new-breeding-program-announcement/

 

[Kromb]

Mendocino Menage a Trois
Triangle Kush x Mendocino Purps

Some really special plants in the gene pool, mostly smelling of creamy yogurt vanilla kush to some darker super gassy heavy kush. I like the vanilla yogurt phenos, amazing terps from the mendo purps meld nicely with the OG base. I stress my plants super hard when looking for keepers, and all phenos besides this one hermied, a sack or two down low, still able to remove the sack and grow them seedless for smoke. Finnicky gene pool but amazing stuff. My keeper stretched like 5x, a super sativa type stretch, the rest of the plants were 2-3x stretch.