Understood.
Read further. Testing 1 variety at a time.
if you have 32 varieties to try that would help majorly! I have 10-12 usually in vegtent.
Last time I made out with 7 female 4 male had to give one away and kill one lol
1 Like
This is a perfect example of sample points potentially leading to contradiction. Such things should be included in any sample set, FWIW to avoid confirmation bias.
2 Likes
Also I just had a funny swirl in my brain -
“Dear seedbank X, please send me only seeds with a perfect divot.”
7 Likes
This is the difference between scientists and the rest of us. lol. People who seek answers start with the optimistic idea then try to make it fail over and over and over again assuming it will eventually. The rest of us just celebrate when we get the results we want then assume it’s a fact instead of a fluke. That said, there’s something to be said for staying sane by going through routines, no matter how ridiculous(Like not washing socks that you wore when your team won a big game). If it keeps one mentally in it and the results are positive, even if its due to something else and not the routine, then let it ride!
3 Likes
I’ve actually got a couple hundred cultivars to pick through but my indoor space I’m firing back up maxes out at around 30 plants. I’m just waiting on a couple more in the mail from ogers this week and gonna be taking pics and planting my round of 32 seeds again picking from these guidelines and excited to see and share the results
2 Likes
That’s why I want CLEAR SHOT pics of the volcano so if we expected it to be a female and ended up a male we can look at the seed pics again to see if it was a bad perception of the trait or the trait was spot on and didn’t match the results. Can’t stress it enough, document document document! Seeds are all gonna have a similar shape but it’s an EXACT shape were looking for
This comment right here!
Really got me thinking 
I think that’s how I’m gonna amend my experiment, instead of planting 1 seed looking for the female per cultivar, I’ll be doing 2 seeds each intentionally aiming for 1 male and 1 female and labeling em as what I believe them to be based off seed appearance so we get results from both sides of the fence
5 Likes
I find the same as you Eagles009. But its only really visible when your popping lager numbers of seeds. I usually find roughly about 30% are male (sometimes frustratingly even less), an 70% are female. I wonder if as a community we might be affecting this further by having such a large use for females an in some gene pools completely trying to eliminate males an obviously selecting an breeding for years mostly for female traits. We may unknowingly be tipping the balance further. I certainly find it more an more difficult to find males as time has gone on.
1 Like
From a design of experiments perspective, you may wish to consider a blind selection, randomly drawing seeds out of a non-select group, photographing them, and then sexing. Afterwards do an analysis. Otherwise, you risk inserting an unknown bias into the experiment. FWIW.
4 Likes
Comes down to space being the ultimate factor without completely throwing a wrench in my grow plan for personal smoke so I have to have a target in mind, I’m confident with what I expect to have in my findings. I run my plants in 3 gallon till they reveal themselves then up pot to a 10 gallon so I would have the space during that month till they reveal themselves to run 60 plants expecting I’ll likely be culling half the garden expecting half to be targeted males and will land at my 30 plant space constraints. Blindly pulling and I could easily end up with 50 lady’s on a 60 seed toss or try to just do the usual 30 and I’m left with half males.
I totally get where your coming from on not adding in an unknown bias into the experiment but the purpose of the experiment is to be able to TARGET male vs female and put a valid truth or not to the information provided in the pic on main posting. in my opinion it’s like going to the shooting range, your aiming at a target and collecting data on accuracy, well would u put a blindfold on to shoot? I’m looking for how many times we hit our mark aiming for the gender target to give a statistical percentage of accuracy, if I throw 30 seeds of what I believe to be each and each side gives me 27 males and 27 females then it’s prob safe to say the method is 90% accurate. I’m not here to study seed shape I’m here to study if we can pick em out
Something everyone can do now is go and check your female beans. Have a look at the volcano and let us know your results.
We have enough successful growers on here that the results should give us an idea. Of course there are lots of variables involved, but I have confidence in you master growers out there that your overall grow is similar.
You and others here too 
There is already a closed and locked thread
2 Likes
Depends on what you are trying to accomplish in the end-goal. Using the target shooting analogy:
If, for instance, I wanted to prove that my rifle is perfectly tuned and it’s had nothing to do with any other mechanical factors, I’d have to first have statistical confidence and data on the ES of the ammo, bench rest it, controlled conditions, and electronically trigger it. Could be blindfolded for that.
If on the otherhand I wanted to show that the combination of the person, the ammo selection, the sling, the wind, the distance, N/S/E/W direction, humidity, etc leads to an accurate rifle, a blindfold is not required. However, I’ve inserted a lot of variables into that system. Any of which could have an affect on the outcome. Say I start shooting in a different direction on a different day, suddenly the data no longer seems to match. One day was sunny and cool but humid, another day it was hot and raining. Am I able to clean the data of the whys to obtain the same results? Yes, but it’s not going to be as easy.
If you are able to get a large number of individuals doing the same things producing the same results, I can see the merit towards calling it strong evidence. Data and experience is valuable.
Not trying to rain on anything, just pointing out things that I think about, oddly.
4 Likes
Naw I def appreciate what your bringing to the table cuz it’s making me consider all the variables around it.
Just a fun experiment at the end of the day since we all love to pop beans anyways 
3 Likes
Checked out that thread, didn’t see anything more than people talking crap on the approach than actually doing any testing with it, don’t see how that was useful and “already been done before”
Of course it’s easy to say something doesn’t work if u have never tried it for yourself which just makes it opinions
1 Like
That’s cool. As do I.
- gonna be posting and editing as I go for more pics so I don’t lose my work*
First up will be what I suspect to be ladies
Blue monsta holk x vanapple sour
Drunken watermelon from @NugLifeFarms420
Candy cake punch from @NugLifeFarms420
Rainbird F5
Wonderdawg from @THCeed Kilauea kookyz
Lava cake
Watermelon x love shake from @highminwin Afficianado royal salute
Purple Mexican heirloom x purple secret from @Bobgrows
Big bud x big kahuna
California valley pie blueberry diesel x blue moonshine
Alien cookies#5 f2 x starfighter IX2
Critical eagle charlie
Gdp from @Hydro921
For the suspect males
Rainbird f5
Lava cake
Purple Mexican heirloom x purple secret from @Bobgrows
Drama queen x bye ya from GLG
Alien cookies #5 f2 x starfighter IX2
Blue monsta holk x vanapple sour
Death star x runaway bride from GLG
Critical eagle charlie
California valley pie
Wonderdawg from @THCeed
Gdp from @Hydro921
Candy cake punch from @nuglifefarms420
14 Likes
Interesting thread… I’d like to see the results on a very large scale
1 Like
yea i’ll be down to test this theory out for my next seed pop, maybe in two months or so. best of luck, AzSea!
edit to add: damn u got some fat fingers dude! you ever go climbing?
1 Like