A Better Explanation of Why Breeding Cannabis Does Not Follow Mendel's Law Very Well

[Douglas.Curtis]

Over the last few decades I've watched breeders struggle with predicting outcomes, and discussing reasons their work does not follow Mendel's results so well. Turns out the landscape of genetics is much more complicated than we originally thought, going way past the dominant/recessive trait relationship.

Mendel spent 2 years breeding specifically stable plants, BEFORE he ran his experiments and created the Punnett square. Without working with purebreds, you can expect much different, and random results in your lines.

 

[Nannymouse]

Thanks for that!

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

Rabbit breeding results are VERY much like cannabis breeding results. The more purebred the lines, the less frequent the strange outliers are. Hybridized rabbit breeds can throw the strangest things at times, yet you can (with the right documentation) trace these quirks to genetics included in their distant past.

 

[Ganoderma]

I tried to watch that video.... I couldn't even finish watching it, it felt like you where having a melt down and doing some head banging to get the crap sounds to stop. Dude refereed to "maleness" as a problem, sounded like wokeness trying to forcefully explain spoon fulls of force feed crap into something where it's not needed...

Dude tries explaining human eye color traits while using a single trait (aa x aa) and goes down some other road. You add in other trait factor/genes that may add to and you could have 5 or more other traits added in making a larger square from 4 squares to 16, 32, 64, ect. and it then works. But humans are far from pure breeds, except for some inbreed nobles. Humans are more like res dogs.

Try breeding res dogs and see how long it takes to get to a pure breed and what it looks like in the end compared to where/how they all looked like in the first generations.

 

[Normannen]

I tried to watch that video.... I couldn't even finish watching it, it felt like you where having a melt down and doing some head banging to get the crap sounds to stop. Dude refereed to "maleness" as a problem, sounded like wokeness trying to forcefully explain spoon fulls of force feed crap into something where it's not needed...

Dude tries explaining human eye color traits while using a single trait (aa x aa) and goes down some other road. You add in other trait factor/genes that may add to and you could have 5 or more other traits added in making a larger square from 4 squares to 16, 32, 64, ect. and it then works. But humans are far from pure breeds, except for some inbreed nobles. Humans are more like res dogs.

Try breeding res dogs and see how long it takes to get to a pure breed and what it looks like in the end compared to where/how they all looked like in the first generations.

You should have finished watching the video, it's crap anyways, but you are basically saying the same thing.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

The main point was to not look at dna as a direct blueprint, realizing it really is more like a 'landscape' you're rolling marbles along. The rest of the crud I didn't care for either, just the visual explanation of what's most likely happening.

 

[Piff_cat]

Breeding for secondary metabolites like in cannabis most important traits are polymorphic not dom/recessive. Meaning the results are tied to pre cursor levels effecting downstream results.

 

[Bro.]

Hi, in fact Mendel's laws work verry well for cannabis breeding, but only with highly inbreed line as parents, and for single genes transmission, or qualitatifs phenotypes that are governed by 1 genes..

 

[Rgd]

imho scientific "breeding” is a crapshoot...

just DO IT and hope you end up with what you want..32 is a good bunch

don't take it personally....or expect some formula to be the deal..

 

[Normannen]

imho scientific "breeding” is a crapshoot...

just DO IT and hope you end up with what you want..32 is a good bunch

don't take it personally....or expect some formula to be the deal..

It is a crapshoot, but it's gonna cost you less in resources and therefore finances if you do follow a formula, why the fuck would we all be here looking at how others are growing indoors? if you're jerking off to this You're the one with issues, I'm here to do science.

 

[goingrey]

Scientific breeding is indeed like gambling in the sense that they both are very much applied probability and statistics. Therefore the comparison to a crapshoot has some merit, but not in the sense of making an individual bet as a punter.

 

[Rgd]

why the fuck would we all be here looking at how others are growing indoors?

not to hear people talk “science” or talk about jerking off




germ seeds…more to choose from helps

grow them

try them out

then go from there

science can not tell me what i like

it has done little for weed

people making choices have

 

[Normannen]

not to hear people talk “science”
science can not tell me what i like

 

[Rgd]

just do it and don’t get rude

 

[Rgd]

just do it and don’t get rude or frustrated

 

[Normannen]

on a more constructive note:

DJ Short articles

Hey guys,here's some links to some of DJ's articles about breeding and susch. Thanks to Red and Auquaman. JLP Article on mutants: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=41880 Articles on breeding: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=9786 Articles from DJ's book...

www.icmag.com

I know, I know, it's outdated and mendelian as fuck...but it's good advice imo even if a bit too scientific

EDIT: more stuff you might be interested in

 

[Rgd]

yeh i am fine with it bro …thanks

 

[Rgd]

on a more constructive note:

DJ Short articles

Hey guys,here's some links to some of DJ's articles about breeding and susch. Thanks to Red and Auquaman. JLP Article on mutants: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=41880 Articles on breeding: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=9786 Articles from DJ's book...

www.icmag.com

I know, I know, it's outdated and mendelian as fuck...but it's good advice imo even if a bit too scientific

EDIT: more stuff you might be interested in

i thank you bro

i love you science guys

one funny thing i hear (not directed at you)

is stabilizing a variety..science can help here yes

by the time that has happened the variety

does not have what made it what it was

examples (pretty well every glory variety of cannabis)

lets say

1989

hz x nl5

or

kali mist

science can help us make it purple or fatter
or earlier

and punnet does mean use 32 which should be better than 10

 

[Verdant Whisperer]

Curiously question has anyone crossed a pure purple plant iblbwith pure green? I'm curious what the recessive trait is? Environment may play a factor but I'm curious about people's experiences? I would like to get some highland Thai from trsc. I'm wondering how many beans I'll need to get to find the purple mango carrot phenotype. This is my long-term goal that is why I'm asking. I only have 2/5 on the list ATM planning on getting the bribri in a couple months.

 

[aliceklar]

Curiously question has anyone crossed a pure purple plant iblbwith pure green? I'm curious what the recessive trait is? Environment may play a factor but I'm curious about people's experiences? I would like to get some highland Thai from trsc. I'm wondering how many beans I'll need to get to find the purple mango carrot phenotype. This is my long-term goal that is why I'm asking. I only have 2/5 on the list ATM planning on getting the bribri in a couple months.

Not sure if this is standard, but I got 1 purple pheno out of 5 Highland Thai seeds. And it was a monster