Like it or not STS/colloidal silver are in fact modifying the genetic disposition.
This is not only false, its risible. Can you explain how applying colloidal silver permanently changes a plants DNA? Which genes are altered?
Again, it only makes sense to view this through the lens of what's being worked in the majority.
You have this exactly upside down. Its like saying the only beer worth talking about is the stuff you can buy at the supermarket.
If the issue is genetic diversity the majority of beans being sold are BY DEFINITION the LEAST interesting from a perspective of genetic maintenance. . . .all those genes are being preserved! From a genetic diversity standpoint, the most interesting stuff is sold in smallest volumes, or even traded privately without ever making it to the commercial market. If you're really worried about irreversible loss to the cannabis gene pool, you need to be looking hardest at obscure landraces that AREN'T available commercially, or tiny private breeders holding genetics that nobody knows about.
Along the same lines, for those worried about gradual loss of quality in cannabis genetics, its my opinion, that the best of the modern cannabis strains have yet to be created. With legalization in CO and other places, and with the advent of cheap and readily available lab testing, I think we are actually going to see significantly better strain development over the next 10 years. Stuff that has been specifically selected for high expression of individual cannabinoid profiles, individual terpenes, etc. The "CBD" strains we have now are really just the beginning of this sort of thing.
To be fair, Mr. Nice work/s/ed lines that aren't stable because they are good/popular. Ortega, Maple Leaf, etc. I like what mandala is doing, just finished some ganesh from him. Phenos are everywhere though. Once more, to be fair mandala hardly holds the majority of the market.
Of course MNS is working with stuff that's good. . .what's the point in working lines that nobody wants? If there is really genetic traits that are negative (eg mold susceptibility, poor vigor) not only is nobody going to try to preserve those, but really, who cares if they disappear? Bad traits are SUPPOSED to be eliminated by selective breeding. . .that's one big point of it!
The fact that Mandala is a small player is neither here nor there. The questions are whether or not commercial breeders are eroding the gene pool, and whether or not feminization is contributing to this, right? So long as there are individual players like Mandala preserving diverse genetics, there is no risk of that.
I am not saying that it is a direct result, I am saying that sloppy breeding is the norm and like it or not that doesn't bode well for proper selection.
So now you're moving the goalposts. Are breeders working with feminized se-eds irreversibly damaging the cannabis gene pool or not?
Sure there are lousy breeders, but that's mostly a product of the black market nature of the se-ed business. The more legal beans become, the more scrutiny breeders will get, and the more feedback. Right now there is sort of a market "boom". I think competitive pressures are going to "weed out" (heh!) many of the smaller low-quality breeders over time. Also, again, the fact that most breeders aren't that good, or that most lines suck doesn't preclude good work from being done, nor good lines from being available. Again, the fact that most beer sold is Budweiser doesn't mean that good beer isn't being made.
again .02 and awards don't equal good practices. They are always getting caught lying, I don't believe any of them about anything. lol
See. . .we don't always disagree. . .
I am not worried either what's done is done and not worth crying over. My feeling about them is unswayed and I am entitled to my opinion that is based entirely on the facts and my perception of doing what is right, pollution is pollution. By this very definition there should be none of those guys breeding with OGs/Chems/Diesels, yet they are! They win with those very genetics! What pressure is that on the open market?!
These lines didn't become popular because they suck. . .they're popular because smokers and growers love them. The reason all the breeders offer these is because that's what the market demands right now.
Build a better "mousetrap" (ie strain) and the market will ask for it, I say. I also think that there is a small, but certainly present and knowledgable minority of growers AND breeders who don't care about OG/Chem/Cookies/Flavor of the month, know quality, and try to get it. I don't see any likelihood of these going away, either.
I'm saying that it doesn't bode well that there is a complete mish mash, or like Derry at Barney's calls it "a goulash" of genetic representation. That's all I am saying! Time under these market pressures will make sure to screw up the gene pool. There may be patches of goodness out there but they are by far the minority.
Does Derry even understand what a gene pool is? Bluntly, most of the people prattling on about it, don't even understand what the term means, let alone how these operate, and it sure sounds like this guy doesn't. For sure Arjan doesn't either.
Regardless, again, I beg to differ. It makes virtually no difference whatsoever what constitutes the genetics in the majority of beans sold. Those genetics are at zero risk of disappearing from the gene pool. What matters is the genetics that AREN'T being sold. What's happening to THOSE genes, and to the extent that genes may be disappearing, is this actually a net loss?
Remember, the nature of gene pools is ALWAYS in flux. By definition, that's what "evolution" is. The fundamental question is, do we have better genetics today, then say 15 years ago, and will it be better or worse in 15 years hence? Is there increased or decreased genetic diversity, and to the extent that there has been any change, is it meaningful? I'd argue pretty strongly that even if the genetics themselves aren't necessarily better than 15 years ago, AVAILABILITY of a huge range of genetics is FAR better today. If you're interested in preserving or acquiring rare genetics, you're in a much better place today than you were 15 years ago. I suspect the same will still be true 15 years hence. . .but we'll see.
