2024 State of the genepool discussion.

[Mithridate]

Thnx @Bona Fortuna , referencing my lay-out comment you can see 7 rows of a dedicated system consuming about 1/4 of acre easily...maybe more (length vs width per filial gen population)..i just block out 7 rows and they each feed the next row. Selection can be described by both your pic and brianV's....but i just walk that block picking and killing off...i dont reintroduce a new line in headrow 1 and start chasing my tail...that 1/4 acre runs my work for that line and that's it for the next 9yrs...i think...i like where this is pushing me

I don't know what any of this mean but here goes

 

[kro-magnon]

I believe i had already said that --the good the bad and the ugly

It's a bit short and wrong to use this to describe S1's, you make it sound like 2/3 are not good ,when it's a lot more complex. Getting plants as good as the original or better occur more often than worst ones.

 

[mudballs]

I don't know what any of this mean but here goes
View attachment 19123556 View attachment 19123557 View attachment 19123558

That's some advanced shit holy cow

 

[Fuel]

The 2010's landraces and heirlooms were opened up to the public.

Early 2000's, actually. Maybe you're mixing the dates with the Cookie tornado.

Fake cuts are more circulated than the real thing (where's Sour D, pre98 Bubba not from s1's).

Just like seeds, the panel of the offers is saturated ... so the crooks.

What i find frightening is more the total lack of interest for the plants and also the grade of the weed you can taste on the parkings of events. It's related for me.

I remember in the early 90s there was no purple weed. There was no og kush. There was no diesel. These strain did not exist yet.

Actually ... they are litterally from the early 90's ^^

Gone ..forever.

This mantra that i read often is mostly why the transmission is broken.

Let's finish to roll and burn this another "gone forever weed", more hybridized today than Lily Phillips.
They are gone from supermarkets, simply because it were never there at any point.

They are niche weeds with high prices tags, to only find these exact buds to buy is a freaking expensive journey. So to get the genetic that produce it ... it's delusional to think that John and Jane Doe that don't know shit on the plant (cut) will access it like a breathe with a credit card.

For 2025, i wish a grand return of the high tier niche. The REAL one with stable and reliable results. And stable sexually, i'm demanding lol. Not "lines to finish" with stuff supposed to be worked "since 200 BC" without even any traceability.

As a stoner I've already accepted the high price of this personally. It's not going to be cheap in an era of stoners buying by three seeds at 30 bucks for random shit, and plants they can't even clone sometimes. I'm pragmatic, i guess.

 

[pipeline]

I don't know what any of this mean but here goes
View attachment 19123556 View attachment 19123557 View attachment 19123558

thanks for posting that! I am about to open a thread to describe how I created the Sativa Candy Chunk F15 cultivar.

A lot of breeders are doing pedigree breeding these days, but those aren't great for starting material for creating new inbred lines. I like the bulk selections which contain some natural variation but are more stable in breeding programs long term.

 

[Mithridate]

I'm all for having cannabis adapted breeding flow charts covering a few scenarios.
The current million plant, 12 years long schemes kinda rub me the wrong way.

Heck I have some free time right now, I could draw a few examples

 

[Dime]

Again, IBL does not guarantee True Breed results, but you need True Breed results to claim true uniform IBL line.
But, IBL are also F1 offspring with mother/father (BX1, 1st generation) so
it will hardly be True Breeding but still considered IBL.
It all depends on the Genetics at hand how far you need to go down the line in order to solidify your selections

Some IBLs are impossible as you need building blocks that don't exist within the genetics your working with, or you don't have enough selections to go through

But still, it has no bearing on putting what you want in seed form,
Just means you can expect to have a lot more "pure" aka the genetics you started with wise plants

"Again, IBL does not guarantee True Breed results"
They will all be like if you take them far enough,that's why you make ibl's,so you know what the results are likely to be before you plant. Maybe I misunderstood you,if so, my error.

 

[AcrylicGoblin]

I think most of us can check out for a while...ojd, trifekta, and a few others have some stuff to work out before we can hope to get back on topic.

 

[Mithridate]

"Again, IBL does not guarantee True Breed results"
They will all be like if you take them far enough,that's why you make ibl's,so you know what the results are likely to be before you plant. Maybe I misunderstood you,if so, my error.

Ibl is defined as:
Relatively homozygous line produced by
inbreeding and selection.

Another source states:
A nearly homozygous line obtained through continuous inbreeding of a cross pollinated species with selection accompanying inbreeding.

"Relatively" "nearly".. ive seen 98.6% homozygous given as a standard minimum.

Quantitative traits are usually easy to fix, seed shape and color, structure, flower color and shape, autos, cannabinoid ratio and the like.
Those imo should be close to 100%, no excuse.

Qualitative traits are polygenic and can be a pita to fix, quality of high, yield and friends. Still.. transgressive segregant traits are inheritable.

Ibl title based on number of filial generation can kick rocks.

 

[TrifektaSeeds]

You can just say you have nothing its ok.

All chatter,no splatter as usual.

Ahh I'm just trying to copy you oh great one

well i am no breeder but i guess it depends by your definition of keepers, if the seeds give uniform phenotypes then we're talking about IBLs which come with their pros and cons, biggest cons is having a really small genepool being mostly homozygous.
i believe that in the end it all comes to personal tastes, for example i've grown zkittlez years ago , many people love it, i think its a shitty plant with decent taste but the high is completely worthless to me, same thing with all the cookies drama.

Uniformity and IBL are two different things !
You don't need IBL to have uniform plants.

"Again, IBL does not guarantee True Breed results"
They will all be like if you take them far enough,that's why you make ibl's,so you know what the results are likely to be before you plant. Maybe I misunderstood you,if so, my error.

No, because when you take P1 and cross it to the offspring or self it, that's IBL, but it's not uniform.
Two different things again, you don't need to dwell in the line you hold in order to stabilize it, you can cross it to other genetics and work from there, it won't be IBL but you can reach uniform results either way.
IBLs are just genetics that had been worked on only in that genetic pool direction, no outcrossing.
That's it, if the breeder knows what he is doing, that IBL will be uniform but in today's market you see BX1 and BX2 that are all over the place, meaning they don't reach uniformity.

Ibl is defined as:
Relatively homozygous line produced by
inbreeding and selection.

Another source states:
A nearly homozygous line obtained through continuous inbreeding of a cross pollinated species with selection accompanying inbreeding.

"Relatively" "nearly".. ive seen 98.6% homozygous given as a standard minimum.

Quantitative traits are usually easy to fix, seed shape and color, structure, flower color and shape, autos, cannabinoid ratio and the like.
Those imo should be close to 100%, no excuse.

Qualitative traits are polygenic and can be a pita to fix, quality of high, yield and friends. Still.. transgressive segregant traits are inheritable.

Ibl title based on number of filial generation can kick rocks.

Yes, IBL is inbreeding, meaning you only breed with itself or offspring, no outcross.
The definition is accurate but people do not follow it through as P1 with sister is IBL too but it's only the 1st gen so very far from true breed or stability.

 

[mudballs]

P1 x offspring is a Bc/Bx...IBL is sibling x sibling

 

[TrifektaSeeds]

No, everything you cross within that family is IBLs.
BX, F1, S1, don't matter, as long as it's within that genetic.

 

[mudballs]

The definition is accurate but people do not follow it
dont call something IBL if you just backcrossed it one time...there's more involved with these words being thrown around

 

[TrifektaSeeds]

The definition is accurate but people do not follow it
dont call something IBL if you just backcrossed it one time...there's more involved with these words being thrown around

That's what I'm saying lol
Every S or F or BX is IBL if it's within that genetic.
But it doesn't mean they will be uniform or true breed after one cross or even after 5.

 

[mudballs]

It is being inline bred, it can not be called an IBL until
The term "IBL" typically stands for "inbred line," which refers to a line of organisms that have been selectively bred for several generations to be genetically uniform. Inbreeding is used to create IBLs in order to stabilize traits and ensure genetic consistency within a population

 

[TrifektaSeeds]

Yeah but "breeders" call them like that even after 1 BX haha

 

[mudballs]

Yeah well...the rabbit hole of what people want things to be is long and full of errors. 3 backcrosses is Cubing...it isn't an IBL yet

 

[cula]

There is also better individuals locked in the S1 not just worst ones, I don't know what the % will be but you'll get, worst plants, plants of equivalent quality and better ones compared to the plant selfed. I find S1 a very interesting tool to explore the genetics of a keeper. I guess the way the keeper was bred will have an influence in the genetic recombinaisons, the more the line is worked the less variations you'll have in S1's so less chance of worst plants but also less better ones.

20 chromosomes in cannabis, so 10 billion different combinations of those chromosomes are possible . Bound to find a keeper if you try enough seeds.

 

[mudballs]

So to summarize...you can do all sorts of weird selfing, backcrossing, self again,...but you have to have a brother and sister from the same filial gen mate and spit out 98% allele uniformity before you can say it is a true breeding IBL.
You can do sibling x sibling 6 times, that gets you to the 98%...also Bx gets you there faster than F6...but it has to come out of a same gen sibling mating AND have the allele 98% uniformity in offspring...filial gen count dont matter, the alleles do

 

[wisemadman]

Ahh I'm just trying to copy you oh great one

Uniformity and IBL are two different things !
You don't need IBL to have uniform plants.

No, because when you take P1 and cross it to the offspring or self it, that's IBL, but it's not uniform.
Two different things again, you don't need to dwell in the line you hold in order to stabilize it, you can cross it to other genetics and work from there, it won't be IBL but you can reach uniform results either way.
IBLs are just genetics that had been worked on only in that genetic pool direction, no outcrossing.
That's it, if the breeder knows what he is doing, that IBL will be uniform but in today's market you see BX1 and BX2 that are all over the place, meaning they don't reach uniformity.

Yes, IBL is inbreeding, meaning you only breed with itself or offspring, no outcross.
The definition is accurate but people do not follow it through as P1 with sister is IBL too but it's only the 1st gen so very far from true breed or stability.

as i said above, im not a breeder , but i've given human genetics exams in college, and i dont get what you call uniformity, because the only way to have uniformity is homozygosis which in turn means you've got a super reduced genetic pool hence you're talking about IBL. If you believe you can have uniformity and a big gene pool you're plain wrong. you can have kindah uniform ( still not uniform) offsprings by crossing homozygous plants, but still, the gene pool is super reduced and unless you're into genetic engineering using CRISPR/CAS9, reducing the genepool too much is not a great idea since you are carrying with you shitty genes together with what you're selecting in most cases, just take a look at commercial fruit plants, they are so shitty that you must graft them on semi-wild or genetically modified rootstocks . I dont want that with cannabis, do you?