Breeding discussion

[Grat3fulh3ad]

All of which raises another point...
Most specifically, any line inbred from hybrid stock is a RIL...
Recombinant populations were the basis for Mendel's first genetic experiments and continue to be key to the study of genes, heredity, and genetic variation today, and the vast majority of the breeding work done with cannabis is with recombinant populations.

So Still,
The original statement of mine which a few took exception with,
"an IBL can't be F-anything"
is 100% correct.

 

[guineapig]

Thanks guys, really i do appreciate all the info......

Keep up the flow of references and reading material......

Here is an inspirational story about breeding, against all odds.....

The Shasta Daisy Story


The Shasta daisy has been praised as one of Luther Burbank's most outstanding achievements. For him, the development of this classic garden flower was a true labor of love, a labor that took more than 15 years to complete.
As a child growing up in Massachusetts, Burbank had loved the wild oxeye daisies (Leucanthemum vulgare) that grew in fields throughout New England. This hardy little European native had been introduced accidentally by the Pilgrims and was regarded by local farmers as a pesky weed. Burbank saw the wildflower as something waiting to be made more beautiful.

In 1884, Burbank purchased 4 acres near Santa Rosa and began developing his nursery. One of his first projects was the refinement of the oxeye. Ideally, his daisy would have flowers of extreme size with beautiful broad petals of dazzling whiteness, smooth stems and good keeping quality, on sturdy plants that bloomed early and persistently. To those ends, he planted seeds from oxeyes he had selected in New England, and allowed the flowers to be pollinated freely by the local insects. After a few seasons of saving and planting the seeds from the best of these open-pollinated daisies, he still saw no significant improvement in their flowers.

Taking the best of these oxeyes, he dusted their flowers with pollen from the English field daisy (Leucanthemum maximum), a species with larger but less graceful blossoms. These new hybrids were planted at Gold Ridge Farm in Sebastopol, where they were grown ultimately in rows 700 feet or more in length. The daisies flowered in their first season (instead of requiring 2 years to reach blooming size) and bloomed earlier with larger and more abundant flowers than those of their parent species.

Seeking further improvement, Burbank dusted the best of these hybrid blossoms with pollen from the Portuguese field daisy (Leucanthemum lacustre), For the next 6 years, he selectively bred this triple hybrid, choosing from among a half million individual flower heads to find the few that most closely matched his ideal ensemble of qualities.

Eventually, his hybrid daisies produced gorgeous flowers that were far superior to those of any of their parent species. Burbank found his new daisies to be perfect in every way, except that they lacked the glistening whiteness that he idealized for them. To gain this, he dusted his best hybrids with pollen from the Japanese field daisy (Nipponanthemum nipponicum), a species with small but perfectly white flowers. Two seasons later, he had daisies with pure white flowers that were larger than the largest of any of the earlier hybrids.

In 1901, Burbank offered his new flowers as a mixed selection, the Shasta Daisy Hybrids, naming them for Northern California's great snow-covered peak. From the first, Shasta daisies were distinct from all others. Botanically speaking, they were an entirely new species, Leucanthemum x superbum and became an immediate worldwide success.

In 1904, Burbank introduced the first named varieties of Shasta daisy: 'Alaska', 'California', and 'Westralia'. As late as 1925, he continued to offer new varieties of the flower, and further development by later plant breeders continues to this day - more than 100 named varieties have been introduced since 1901. The Shasta daisy has, in fact, the longest history of continuous popularity of any hybrid American garden flower.

kind regards from guineapig

 

[Guyute54]

I have a few ?'s When you get a certain strain to an IBL will it always have the same vigour no matter how many time you cross the IBL's together? Or after each generation does it loose some of it's vigour? And if it does you could keep calling it an IBL but it's not going to be the same as the first generation IBL's made ?

 

[REZDOG]

Good question,Guy.
I have a really good example,let's use Cinderella 99.
The Parent Stock?
'Jack Herer' bagseeds from an A'Damm Coffeeshop.
The Grimms whose '3 bx's to Perfection (ie. 'cubing') Theory has been,sadly,disproven,ran The Cinderella 99 backwards into the Mother (back-crossed) five times. At BX generation four and five,if I remember correctly,they ran into larger mutant populations and also starting losing the (Target) Clone Mom's dominant,positive ('keepr') traits.
This clearly shows signs of 'inbreeding depression'.
(Of course,'Jack Herer' is a poly/polyhybrid,NOT an F1,so it skews The Charts a bit)
The 'final release' by the Grimms,of Cinderella 99,was a 3rd backcross,and it does,oddly,breed absolutely true,into itself,with no Great Loss of Anything Important,for several generations.
So,to answer your question,yes,you can fuck some lines up by interbreeding them,but if you're careful in your selections you could also improve them. The Rule of Law: The more you know about your Parent Stock,the better your results will be.



Cheers!

 

[Tom Hill]

I feel it's a half sentence that we continue to hear throughout this thread. "The plant breeds true". Well finish up, clean your plate & spit it out, breeds true for which traits? Not all traits, no way, no how, not cannabis, too complex. We are not talking about how corn grows & taste to eat. At some point it may be best to shine the comparisons, a 20cm star don't fit too well in a 18cm round hole. A plant may breed true for many traits that matter- that may be worth getting on the same page about. My favorite peer reviewed article was the one about the world being flat.

Yours Truly,

Jane the Ignorant Slut

 

[Bluebeard]

After pouring through this insanely tedious thread, that is almost exactly what I was going to post, Tom. I doubt neither Tom nor I are experts on the proper use of terminology and I suppose I should learn it. I mean allelic diversity studies which have specifically examined cannabis samples found even the most heavily inbred lines such as northern lights over a small population of 10 seeds still possessed and average allelic frequency of 67% and on average 15% of loci are heterozygous. The very old Italian staple fiber variety "carmagnola" was even more divers with an average allelic frequency of 46% and 20% of the loci were heterozygous on average. By comparison Hortapharm's high cbd variety selected from a California afghan variety, already inbred for high CBD production, then selfed for another three generations (heavily inbred and on the verge of exhibiting the serious problems associated with excessive selfing/bottlenecking) still had an average allelic frequency of 79% and 5% of the loci were heterozygous.

My point is that the term "true breeding" really depends upon how closely you look. Almost any Cannabis line which has recieved such designation, isn't true breeding for all traits. I can almost guarantee that if you took a random individual from any cannabis line which has been labelled "IL" or "IBL" and selfed it for 5 more generations it would look vastly different and you would see traits appear which you had never seen before. This IMO proves that the general phenotype of any cannabis "IBL" is not fixed, and the breeding background of any line, even after it has been labeled "stable" is still very important. This isn't to say that much can be gleaned from strictly generational numbering either. A hybrid which has been bred using single male and female incrossing with the intent of fixing traits for 4 or 5 generations will be substantially narrower than one which has used ten - 20 parents of each sex.

 

[Guest]

WELL SAID BOY'S!!!!!!!

GIVE ME ANY STRAIN THATS KNOWN AS TRUE
and ill grow out thousands and show you dozens
of pheno types!!!!!......shear BULL.
Canabis is like people every one a bit different,but thats the joy!!!
ANything can pop up as a genius or a jewel,threw inbreeding.......
THATS where you uncover all kinds and truely see whats in the family!!

HEll the skunk fields had many many many pheno types,far from true??
Just jumping in here for the last pages tip!....have not read the thread?
HAHA so dont jump on me.........its all good!!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It's obvious that this needs to be revisited...
I'm continuing to recieve harassing private messages from XyZ, trying to insult me and my wife... And the poor kid still seems to think something I said in this thread is wrong...

Once more especially for XyZ, who is blind and refuses to see...

My breeding information is 100% correct in this thread.

Anyone who still thinks I've ever once insisted on "TRUE BREEDING" as a criteria for an IBL hasn't paid attention.... XyZ, Do you not understand that I said "RELATIVELY true breeding" not ever anything that implied "clone like similarity from seed"

Anyone who thinks an ibl doesn't need to be relatively true breeding for the traits that distinguish the strain, and distributes that sort of ibl seed, is NOT doing the growing community any favors.

XyZ, are you really still unable to tell the difference in the way a small 'f' and the way a capitol 'F' are used in discussing filial generations? The general gist of your harassing private messages seem to indicate so. Study up, eh...

This discussion is re-opened to any comers who think I am wrong in this thread on any level... I can 100% back up my positions, and can 100% defend the standards and definitions I use. If you have something to say XyZ, come on and do it in public, I'm sick of your private trolling...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

And, obviously XyZ,
Simplifying a concept so that it is easy for everyone to understand sometimes causes aspects of the concept to be left out... But any information that I omitted, was information which really didn't apply to the core concepts I was communicating...

The 'breeding for dummies' which you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is 100% correct. It is not, nor has it ever claimed to be 100% of important breeding information, but the information which is there is indisputably correct and your inability to grasp the concepts or understand the correct terminology doesn't change that.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I feel it's a half sentence that we continue to hear throughout this thread. "The plant breeds true". Well finish up, clean your plate & spit it out, breeds true for which traits? Not all traits, no way, no how, not cannabis, too complex. We are not talking about how corn grows & taste to eat. At some point it may be best to shine the comparisons, a 20cm star don't fit too well in a 18cm round hole. A plant may breed true for many traits that matter- that may be worth getting on the same page about. My favorite peer reviewed article was the one about the world being flat.

Yours Truly,

Jane the Ignorant Slut

I never said 'breeds true" The important word which so many have missed is "relatively"...

You understand that that word connotes Exactly the concept you are espousing... A plant that breeds true for many traits but is wildly variant in others is still "relatively" true breeding...

relatively

adverb
in a relative manner; by comparison to something else;

So... Are you all saying that when making a comparison between any IBL and any hybrid line, any ibl line will be no more or less true breeding than any hybrid line?

Poppycock! If it is an IBL then it will breed truer than a hybrid. AND any amount of "truer breeding" constitutes " 'relatively true breeding' when compared to any non-ibl'

Now...

To be correctly called an IBL:

" An inbred line must be a relatively true breeding strain of corn resulting from at least five successive generations of controlled self-fertilization or from back crossing to a recurrent parent with selection of its equivalent."

Of course the corn reference can be replaced with Whatever species you're calling inbred...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Now XyZ,
Here's the quote from my original post, which I never titled "breeding for dummies" (that was grapepunched's title, for a portion of my post which was taken away from it's context and used in his sig line). I'll add the explanations you need to understand... Remember YOU started this by making the claim that my first statement was wrong...

An Ibl can't be F-anything, btw... that only applies to hybrids...
Ibl x Ibl = Ibl.
IblA x IblB = F1 Hybrid
HybridA x HybridA = F2 generation
HybridA x HybridB (or IblC) = polyhybrid
F2 x F2 = F3
F2 x F1 = Filial Back Cross
F1 (or F2+) x IblA = Parental Back Cross...

First statement is accurate because of the difference between an 'F' generation and an 'f' generation. An 'F' generation is very specific in it's definition in that the P1 and P2 have to had been differing inbred lines, and each Fx generation must have been the product of breeding a female from the Fx-1 generation with itself or a sibling. An 'f' generation can be used to refer to the progeny of any two specific parents, and their line bred progeny.

You can take two distinct parents from an ibl, and breed them to produce an f2 generation, which you can then breed to produce an f3 generation, and so forth... you can only call these progeny ibls or call them an 'f' generation designation, they cannot accurately be called F-anything.

Understanding that, the next three statements are no-brainers...

Keeping in mind that the rest of the statements were all made about line breeding, and that the F-generations mentioned in any equation are all line bred from the parent mentioned, those statements also fall into the no-brainer category...

Surely if you really want to understand your error, XyZ, instead of bombarding my with PM's demonstrating your lack thereof, then this will clear it up for you...

If you are just doing the PM thing to annoy me, I'm gonna stop reading them...

 

[XyZ]

dude - get a life & take it easy

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

dude - get a life & take it easy

Right back at'cha bro...

 

[swampdank]

heated discussions like this make me smile. you two have everybody wearing their thinking caps with this one. i must admit that the discussion has gotten a little hot, but damn good read anyway.

 

[Sacrimon]

You guys are debating dogshit. The notation of the filial generations can go on forever if you set them out in your project.

"When you designate something as an IBL it has been inbred for specific traits and that breed true for 4 generations proved by the 5th." This is a misinterpretation only given by Cannabis growers. Love how stoners come up with their own meanings for things, and when it pertains to cannabis its what has been accepted, or has it? It really doesn't fall in line with genetics though or classic nomenclature standards.


Say you decide not to breed true any traits though...but keep breeding kinda like how dirty humans do. But you decide to organize your project and keep track...you can have F whatever the fuck you want. F13 down the line you may realize you have some traits that have been breeding true for the past 8 generations. You may then decide to say...hey my IBL(inbred line) breeds true for "this or that".

Wow now that I've come to this homozygous trait after 13 generations. I Think I'll smoke a bowl of the shit, because it's got tri-chromes bigger than my balls.

However, I will say, the fact that cannabis cultivators put "IBL" on something trying to represent a filial generation is false, and wrong. IBL means shit to filial generation. F5 does not mean that the strain is an IBL. An inbred line is designated the first time you inbreed the fuckers. Thus bastardizing two different IBL's or hybrids to create F1's, then F2 x F2 = IBL...Fucking hippies always mixing up shit.

If you want to say something breeds true in an IBL then say that. Or say, I have an IBL that is dominantly homozygous.

I don't care if you have an IBL or not, you're still going to see a lot of different phenos, but those homozygous traits that have been bred true for will be dominant. It says nothing for the other, how many other traits you didn't even give a shit about or pay attention to because you were only breeding true for 1 or 2 traits out of how many again?


Let me just add one thing...for all you idiots that play into Rezdogs bullshit of his "Sour Diesel IBL". He played you all.

 

[Sacrimon]

I will make one comment...to head and rezdog since rezdog is just as full of shit as well as this comment.

"An Ibl can't be F-anything, that only applies to hybrids"

This statement is false..false...false..false..
EDIT: I'm editing this to clear up..
This statement is actually TRUE, because a fucking IBL isn't the same thing as a FILIAL GENERATION. But the way you are applying it as it having resemblance to a pure-bred 5th generation plant, or a specific set of plants that have bred true for a certain trait by 5th generation then inbred again within the same (IBL 5th generation or more) and saying that further generations cannot be classified by the Fx notation is FALSE. You can have F18's that are part of an IBL.

I would also like to add one more thing...

IBL says things about MANY plants, not just ONE plant. To say that "one" specific plant of x strain that produces homozygous true bred traits that are x, "is an IBL" is false classification. IBL says something about the whole line of plants, not just one end product.

You would say.

I produced an F4 generation blueberry that breeds true for x and y through an inbred line(IBL) of artificial selection.


Like I said you are all retards for trying to state that IBL denotes a specific filial generation. It's ok that it's been accepted by the cannabis community as something that breeds true for a specific trait after 5 generations of inbreeding...but classical terminology will say that's bullshit.

Fx again is not the same as IBL...they are 2 totally different classifications and have 2 separate meanings. FILIAL and INBRED LINE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME FUCKING THING, get it through your H34Ds. You can have an inbred line that's F209240584058 for all you want.

Rezdog you're a fucking idiot, h34d you're a retard...half the cannabis community are retards for believing that IBL means some "great elite" bullshit. IBL's don't even have to breed true. Look at Rezdog's Sour Dogshit. He obviously bred that true to hermie....some elite IBL there...and it's probably not even an F5. Is it still an IBL sure, thats how the fuckwad can label it as an IBL because it's still an inbred line within the F2 generation or more.

This community gets me sometimes.

My suggestion, don't believe anyone that says anything is an IBL trying to claim like its the most stable elite pile of shit strain there is. It could be the most miserable Inbred line that breeds true for hermie traits, when they were trying to breed true for potency. A lot of these breeders forget that the plant has so many traits, that if you're breeding true for one trait, often times you'll also be hitting on traits that will also breed true naturally in the process, but sometimes those traits are not desirable.
Sour diesel IBL, prime example! Stick with pure bred things that are well known to be bred true for specific traits and where less desirable traits have been woven out. DJ Short did excellent work as XYZ said and his work is WELL documented, UNLIKE some of the other hack breeders around.

 

[Sacrimon]

I hope my posts make somewhat of sense....It's really difficult trying to explain that the cannabis communities use of IBL is false when it comes to the actual meaning of inbred line.

BUT...since we are talking about cannabis here, we have obviously developed a lot of our own stoner terminology. So I try to use it to relate, even know its classically wrong.

I really do think people need to revert back to classical notation and nomenclature. It's what has been used by botanists and biologists and there is a standardization to it. I will say that the cannabis's communities use of IBL again does not fall under this standardization...there are conflicting things within published books and on the internet, including these forums all the time when it comes to this.

Grow it, smoke it, if its the chronic then you got it!

I think it will play an important part though for people that are doing breeding for medicinal marijuana and somethings do need to be cleared up.

People need to stop using the term IBL for a 5th generation inbred plant that breeds homozygous for a specific trait, it simply isn't correct.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Sacrimon...
Bullshit.
You can have f18s that are from an inbred line, but not F18s...
Why can't you guys understand the BIG difference?

You're not arguing anything I disagree with in principal... You're just saying it the wrong way... Anyone who still disagrees with me has not read my posts carefully, or does not understand them...

With your recent join date and obvious bone to pick, I wonder who's reincarnation you are....

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

People need to stop using the term IBL for a 5th generation inbred plant that breeds homozygous for a specific trait, it simply isn't correct.

This I agree with 100%... 1 trait 'stability' does not an inbred line make...

I also agree that ibl does not refer to a specific generation, but there is a minimum of number of generations required to achieve an ibl... Any subsequent generations f6, f7, f8, f9 are all still ibl... But one makes oneself look ignorant when they say F6 of F7...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I really do think people need to revert back to classical notation and nomenclature. It's what has been used by botanists and biologists and there is a standardization to it. I will say that the cannabis's communities use of IBL again does not fall under this standardization...there are conflicting things within published books and on the internet, including these forums all the time when it comes to this.

So what is wrong with the accepted set of requirements placed on the use of terms by the legitimate seed breeding industry?

I have still not heard a more useful definition of IBL to both seed buyers and seed breeders that the one used by the corn breeders...

AND anyone who scoffs at the many years of very pertinent and useful research into plant breeding done by the corn industry, and anyone who discounts the complexity of corn breeding has not got a good grasp on the subject at all... There are nearly as many traits dealt with in corn breeding as in cannabis breeding... kernel size, skin thickness, overall yield, nutritional value, color, flavor, time to maturity, etc...

How can any applicable experience, research, information, or standards be scoffed at by anyone with any real concern about using and passing along accurate information or accurately labeled seeds?