Breeding discussion

[Charles Xavier]

Greetings Grat3fulh3ad

I was (and am) not attempting to correct you; rather, I am clarifying my position by elaborating on points that I am well versed in. This is not a debate; I am not offering my point of view; relatively, I am responding to the miscomprehension of my prior posts.

So:

... Not true about the varation...Grat3fulh3ad

I would not presume to tell a Master Carpenter when it's appropriate to use a framing hammer...it's not my field.

the variation in the F2 genetation comes from recombining the heterozygous alleles....Grat3fulh3ad

Which is to say: the variation of the F2 is dependant on the genotypes of both P specimens.

The simplest example, using one allele...
Cross P1 (AA) and P2(aa) and 100% of the F1 hybrids will have (Aa).
Cross two of the (Aa) with each other and you will get a variant population with 25%(AA) 50% (Aa) and 25%(aa)....Grat3fulh3ad

Which is to say: The notion of the similarity of variation is based upon the self-pollination of a 'simple true' F1 hybrid i.e. one that is heterozygous for all traits inherited from polar P lines.

Also, f1 is a reference to the progeny of any two parents, so of course all S1s are f1s. But in all reality, ALL f1's could also be named something more specific. You yourself already said that the 'f' is only a tracking designation. In the example I gave F2 is more specific than f1, though both are accurate....Grat3fulh3ad

Which is to say:Self pollination can be made to occur at any time and so the f1 (S1) can be any generation within the population. To circumvent confusion it is generally accepted: if self-pollination was purposeful then the specimen in question is automatically considered P1 so that the ‘f’ designation can follow sequentially.

P1 x P2 = F1
F1 x F1 = F2
F2 x F2 = F3
F3 x F3 self = F4

or noted:
F3 x F3 self = F4f1 i.e. Fn x Fn self = F(n+1)f1

or informally:
F3 x F3 self = S1 (note: in this instance, ‘S1’ is neither actually nor statistically F2)

or standard:
P1 x P1= f1 (note: the inference of self pollination; less conventional but more descriptive and thus accepted is Fn x Fn = f1)

You'll have to provide me a source to prove your less stringent definition of inbred line is more accurate than the one most widely accepted in agricultural circles....Grat3fulh3ad

Like what....the peer-reviewed and recommended books I've written on the subject?

I provide sources to back up the definition I give, which most assuredly includes stability....Grat3fulh3ad

True and that definition fits for the imposed criteria and is not being disputed within that context. However, I have stated the reason for this amendment, and if nothing else, it makes perfect sense...even to the uninitiated.

"true breeding specimens when backcrossed...produce true breeding progeny"
That's been my point all along... And hybrids do not produce true breeding progeny, 'selfed' or no....Grat3fulh3ad

There is no argument here. My apology is freely offered if you feel as if I've stated or suggested anything to the contrary.

And on your last point.... Thats why the designation 'inbred line' does not apply to every line that has been inbred. That's why you don't see it outside of commerce. Things have to be sold accurately, so inbred line had to be defined. If inbred line is simply a designation of how long it has been inbred, Show me the documentation. Otherwise, I'll use the commonly accepted definition which is most applicable to what I do and maintaining integrity in the field....Grat3fulh3ad

My statement is: before the patent office (in regards to agriculture, of course) came to be, the definition of inbred was in practice, but was refined for obvious reasons.

As I've also stated: It is not my intent to correct you and if you feel chastised in anyway, for that too I submit my apology. If the persons in the field you are familiar with speak your language, then converse with them.

To follow through with the analogy: In my field, you would be understood as well, although some may be sorely tempted to ask that you repeat yourself because your accent's too thick.

Hypothetical:
I provide sources that 'substantiate' my position.
You accept or refute said sources.
If refute: my position doesn't change.
If accept...now I'm correct?

Which is to say: one does not need to be familiar with the accepted in order for it to be valid.

I can start citing papers any time you are ready...
In fact there is a paper in inheritance of chemical phenotype in cannabis, in which the botanists select hybrid specimins, self pollenate, and call the progeny the F2 generation.
They then do the same thing from the F2 generation... select females, self pollenate them, and label their offspring F3s.
I'll go dig up my citations if need be....Grat3fulh3ad

Which is to say:
P1 x P2 = F1
F1 x F1 = F2
F2 x F2 = F3
F3 x F3 self = F4

are the botanist wrong?....Grat3fulh3ad

No. Perhaps misunderstood or possibly misquoted; certainly incomplete, but definitely not wrong.

{post #128}....Grat3fulh3ad

Which is to say:The notion of the similarity of variation is based upon the self-pollination of a 'simple true' F1 hybrid i.e. one that is heterozygous for all traits inherited from polar P lines.

Statistically, the math does not hold for any other example.

Sincerely,
Charles.

p.s.

Hola Raco

If we want to learn and set a "standard",we have all to be friends here....Raco

Hear, hear!

C.X.

 

[XyZ]

Nice posts Charly!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Charles,
are you trying to tell me that self pollenating a plant with the alleles AaBbCc would produce a different offspring profile for said traits than if it was pollenated by a sibling with the alleles AaBbCc?

Of course every plant is dependent on both parents for the degree of variation in the offspring. All I'm saying is that as long as both parents are heterozygous for the same traits, it makes no difference if the 'other' parent is self or not. And the same for as long as both parents are true breeding inbred lines.

If I am wrong, I am only asking you to clearly show me why.

And yes, like the peer reviewed papers which you have rendered useless by claiming authorship of them since you can't now cite them without outing yourself.

 

[Dutchgrown]

of course. so what? crying?!? now please stop acting like a poor-head who is only hanging on the forums and with no fresh milk for the corn flakes. what about your wife, is she satisfied? (lol i got -rep from h3ads~wife

Personal attacks/flaming is simply not going to be tolerated.

If you can't discuss without taking a cheap shot/personal attack then that's your choice....keep it up...see where it gets you. Would hate to see someone who has been a good member here be the recipient of neg admin action, but be sure of this, no matter how good a member is here when they break the tou they stand to suffer the consequences.

You and GHead having a 'go' at each other here, by expressing frustration with the other is somewhat understandable....and up until now, both you and GHead have had a bit of a go at each other, but...when having that 'go' stoops to a flame like quoted above it's going too far.

Keep this thread on topic...minus personal attacks. Folks interested in this topic don't want to read this sort of crap, the number of reported posts about that quote speaks volumes.

dg

 

[XyZ]

Ok i apologize about this part & i will edit it away...actually it was really not necessary as i see now
it's a drunky night for me and i may opened my mouth to much...but h3ad is also not a virgin...
however, i agree that we should keep this house clean & civil, with peace & some fun

 

[muddy waters]

Charles,
are you trying to tell me that self pollenating a plant with the alleles AaBbCc would produce a different offspring profile for said traits than if it was pollenated by a sibling with the alleles AaBbCc?

h3ad, Charles already answered that, twice: "The notion of the similarity of variation is based upon the self-pollination of a 'simple true' F1 hybrid i.e. one that is heterozygous for all traits inherited from polar P lines."

And yes, like the peer reviewed papers which you have rendered useless by claiming authorship of them since you can't now cite them without outing yourself.

Wow h3ad, pretty low. Charles has got 160 posts of nothing but bedrock botanical scientific information about cannabis. Why wouldn't he be willing to cite information, when that is all he has done here, and generous amounts of it, h3ad? And you trying to say he has an ulterior motive? What would that be? He just trying to validate his ego? Trying to sell seeds?

You really wanna speculate on everyone's motives here, h3ad? Can we discuss yours first?

Seriously man, you're a class A contributor here but that was simply uncalled for in my opinion. Forgive me for the lecture but it seemed necessary.

 

[Raco]

I have leaf-maps...you know,I´m crazy!!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

h3ad, Charles already answered that, twice: "The notion of the similarity of variation is based upon the self-pollination of a 'simple true' F1 hybrid i.e. one that is heterozygous for all traits inherited from polar P lines."


Wow h3ad, pretty low. Charles has got 160 posts of nothing but bedrock botanical scientific information about cannabis. Why wouldn't he be willing to cite information, when that is all he has done here, and generous amounts of it, h3ad? And you trying to say he has an ulterior motive? What would that be? He just trying to validate his ego? Trying to sell seeds?

You really wanna speculate on everyone's motives here, h3ad? Can we discuss yours first?

Seriously man, you're a class A contributor here but that was simply uncalled for in my opinion. Forgive me for the lecture but it seemed necessary.

WTF are you talking about... I was referring to how unwise it would be to cite something on a cannabis cultivation site and claim to have authored it, thus exposing oneself... leave off the witch hunt, eh... I accused nobody of anything, and wad addressing charles not you. If there is any real difference in the math of selfing an F1 hybrid versus Breeding it to a sibling, I need to be shown. I'm old and set in my ways and just telling me something is a certain way doesn't really mean much when I could easily be shown.


"The notion of the similarity of variation is based upon the self-pollination of a 'simple true' F1 hybrid i.e. one that is heterozygous for all traits inherited from polar P lines."

OK... So 'the notion is based on the self pollination of a heterozygous F1 hybrid.'... I have the notion, I know what it is based on... where does this statement answer the question?

The answer is, mathematically and in practice, that S1s of an F1 hybrid are exactly like F2s made from a sibling. At least the punnett squares say so. At least my experience says so, and the experiences reported to me by others I trust say so.

For all practical purposes, selfed generations are no more uniform than properly selected sibling generations, except in rare cases.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

All this seems to make making Meds more complicated than it has to be(i know everyone wants to know whats what and get the best repersentation /sp?/as far as seeds go).I admit i dont know that much about whats being posted in this thread,but i do know,that without knowing all this,i stil grow good Meds that help the people i know who need it.I dont think certain people are totally gonna agree no matter what,thats ok,but its no reason for people who had no problem before this,to have one now because of what they think is or isnt the scientific term for what something should be called,imo,maybe im crazy ,im deffinately high though, thanks to the Deez,lol. .Peace and stay safe,PVP

I agree... In a couple of threads somewhere, I tried to lay out in simple layman's terms the way things work. I did a great job of it, but those few who are a bit more versed in the finer points of nomenclature seemed to find the need to pick apart my simple and true statements, based on minor technicalities, until it becomes very hard for the average joe to keep up...

Just know that nothing in my simple breakdown which someone used for their signature is untrue. Slightly inaccurate on a strictly technical level, perhaps, but 100% true in practice nonetheless.

 

[muddy waters]

ok h3ad, if you're gonna be coy... I thought it was pretty clear: you implied C.X. was hiding behind protecting his identity so he wouldn't have to cite anything. As if he's just intellectually lazy or protecting his own ego or something--Really I have no idea what rationale of yours would justify your suspicious and disrespectful tone to someone providing you with rock-solid information.

On the topic of discussion that led to your allegation -- and I was under the impression this was an open discussion, on an open forum, and we were all invited to contribute -- correct me if I'm wrong about that:

Original Haze is an obvious example fitting the botanical criteria for an inbred line, yet with wide phenotypic variation, yet which is still considered desirable, both for excellent individual specimens, and breeding.

(And obviously commercial agriculture and the science of botany have different ends and employ differing conventions. Apples and oranges.)

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

ok h3ad, if you're gonna be coy... I thought it was pretty clear: you implied C.X. was hiding behind protecting his identity so he wouldn't have to cite anything. As if he's just intellectually lazy or protecting his own ego or something--Really I have no idea what rationale of yours would justify your suspicious and disrespectful tone to someone providing you with rock-solid information.

On the topic of discussion that led to your allegation -- and I was under the impression this was an open discussion, on an open forum, and we were all invited to contribute -- correct me if I'm wrong about that:

Original Haze is an obvious example fitting the botanical criteria for an inbred line, yet with wide phenotypic variation, yet which is still considered desirable, both for excellent individual specimens, and breeding.

(And obviously commercial agriculture and the science of botany have different ends and employ differing conventions. Apples and oranges.)

I'm not at all being coy...I don't do coy... I was pointing out that bragging about about having authored peer reviewed work is much less effective in proving a point, than simply quoting said work without claiming authorship. The worst thing I might have intended to imply was that ego somewhat crippled his ability to effectively argue in this venue.

It's not about tone, or rock solid information... it's about Show Me why... Draw out the punnett squares to show me how selfing is different from F2ing... No disrespect.

I am sorry, though... to a degree... if I have come across as at all defensive...

Thing is, I would have never have even started commenting in this thread if I hadn't been baited into it by XyZ through PM. My statements being called untrue was the whole reason for this thread's existence... It was a line of discussion in another thread, but had to be split because it became so involved and off topic...

My last comments on the subject...

1. If seeds are going to be sold, and they are whether I do it or not, Shouldn't the more stringent commercial standard be used if one is claiming to be selling an inbred line?

2. I don't really care how you answer the first question. I'm not going to release anything as an inbred line unless it breeds true, and I'm going to snicker behind the back of anyone who bothers buying an inbred line which does not produce 'reasonably true'. The rest of you can do as you please.

 

[muddy waters]

And I do apologize h3ad if I misjudged or mischaracterized your post; but that is how I read it.

An aside (not directed at h3ad): I think we have a duty to show respect to the members of our community who have authoritative knowledge in their fields. There aren't too many. Very few, actually. I am just amazed at how much snide BS Charles Xavier's posts attract here. I just don't get it. Is that a symptom of the times we live in or what? Glitz and glam get props and respect; actual knowledge and experience, nothing but ridicule and scorn. Bizarre.

Sorry to derail the conversation anyhow... I hope class will be back in session tomorrow.

 

[muddy waters]

I hear you h3ad, I thought your words and your true intentions (quest for info, knowledge) didn't match... only called you on it because I respect ya, peace out.

edit: h3ad I agree that agricultural standards could be chosen to be followed, but I provided you the examle of the Haze to show that the botanical definition seems to incorporate that possibility (of a heterogenous, highly varied inbred line), whereas the stricter ag def doesn't... I hope others will chime in on this though I'm regurgitating what I've learned here mostly...

 

[Raco]

Good point muddy!
Even the standards for highly bred strains,say a longhair cat (persian) i.e. are open for some variation...colors mostly...but the cat still has a "pedigree",and there´s a standard for persian cats...Am I saying nonsenses?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Also, remember, the definition says 'reasonably 'true. It does not say 'No phenotypical variation"... Original haze, with all of it's variations, is still relatively true breeding for quite a few traits, no?

 

[REZDOG]

Btw,buddy,you look good in That Suit.


Ain't it Crazy? A G# and it's As Easy as That?
Fukkit,Gstaad & The Girl....fuck the VSOP....that shit's for the Lower-Middle.....rent The Shark...Buy the ticket....Where's the vicodan?? ....as we All dip to the Middle-Left....we can only have regrets....fuckin'-A....Buy the ticket...and you know what happens...rent the moment,have a birthday moment,and fuck them for their frailities...buy JagerShots....the insane....pussy....happens....Isn't It The Difference we make,that makes The Difference?

 

[kathmandu]

Raco,
sent ya a pm about something we had discussed, when you get the chance hit me up man, thanks and
sorry for the interruption....

 

[muddy waters]

good acid, Rez?

h3ad, interesting point... just examining more closely, Haze supposedly has specimens that flower from 18-26 weeks, that's a pretty large gap... many different colored phenos... some creeper plants, borderline perennials, some stockier christmas tree... not to mention that the famed purple individuals supposedly do NOT breed true in a straight-forward fashion, which i interpret to mean there is heterozygosity of alleles representing that trait... (correct me if i'm wrong) ... so... should we say it's true-breeding?

To me it seems that it's subjective, what "reasonably true-breeding" means... maybe we've hit on why botanists don't use that criteria for designating inbred lines, as it's open to interpretation... whereas 5 inbred gens as a rule is pretty black n white...

 

[XyZ]

Also, remember, the definition says 'reasonably' true. It does not say 'No phenotypical variation"... Original haze, with all of it's variations, is still relatively true breeding for quite a few traits, no?

~now look back a bit ...funny heh? you repeat something that i already told on the blueberry example. for your defense you immediately use the terms "reasonably" and "relatively" true breeding but you ignore the same words when i explain how my berry-line (the F5 generation) is giving relatively equal results in the finished product like the original bb (which is an inbred-line at F4 as far as i know directly from Red, and from the info in Dj articles & literature

Just know that nothing in my simple breakdown which someone used for their signature is untrue. Slightly inaccurate on a strictly technical level, perhaps, but 100% true in practice nonetheless.

~see what ya doin? you are trying to convince some other users that something what you believe is true... or would you not rather say relatively true? in this case, your responding was to PeavillePride, a man who says that he don't knows much about this subject... so from your eyes, he can be easy to manipulate in your way (as he will probably not look-over the thread to realize what was really goin'on here)

Your whole, from the other member so called "dummy scheme" is actually comical indeed. It's not just slightly inaccurate in a strictly technical way, but it's actually inaccurate/wrong in the first sentence and any "regular" member can see that. some points in the scheme are ok but some are also very incomplete, already on a simple practical level, which is probably clear for most ppl here (if not all . Your first sentence is saying that "an Ibl can't be F-anything" and your filial example stops at F2xF2 = F3 ...what about any further in-line breeding? where is the part about creating an inbred-line in your scheme? ...and you think you are s00 great lol... a "few" posts/pages later you realize your "mistake" but you start with corn definitions, where the word "ibl" has an official status in the commerce standards ...and i had no problems with the corn farmers... but you also started confusing the word "strain" ~ which was again lame because you can't blind someone who has a completely clear picture of the actual situation on the discussed point. it was finished for me when you made the incomplete info at least a bit more accurate. not a big deal. i still respect you in a way but i'm much done with your head here... and i hope you will simply accept and get over your mistakes in the future, rather than playing a wanna-be Mr.Perfect

I'm old and set in my ways

& that's why it's useless to discuss something with a head who is convinced that he is right and nothing else is true'

there are many good folks around and some specific things that were born in this thread have a huge potential for further discussions ...so feel free to continue... and i hope you enjoy the weekend

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

XwhyZ,

lmao @ you... so sad that you still have to follow me through this thread hunting for some way to be right...

I used relatively true in my definition from the bvery first time I posted it.
You said uniform for one or two traits in a given generation makes for a stable inbred line.

And the rest of your post continues to show your lack of comprehension.
Did you not get the difference in an F2 and an f2?

Had I said "can't be f-anything" then all of your useless railing and chasing me through the thread yelling sour milk might have meant something. As it is, you're only making yourself the butt of alot of jokes.

Now... Quit trolling me, or I will have you dealt with. Get that?