The offspring from F1s are actually VERY stable, that is the reason people make F1s - Uniformity. If you make F2s, you will see a wide variety of phenotypes, very few of which will be like the original uniform F1 cross.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Cannabis crosses are not F1s, so says science!
- Thread starter PerfectDay
- Start date
The offspring from F1s are actually VERY stable, that is the reason people make F1s - Uniformity. If you make F2s, you will see a wide variety of phenotypes, very few of which will be like the original uniform F1 cross.
Somatek
Active member
That's a very confusing sentence, the offspring of F1's are the F2 generation. I assume you meant that F1's are very stable and uniform. What the previous poster was saying is there's an advantage to selling F1's because they won't breed true, people will need to buy your seeds every year since like you stated if they keep seed from the F1 generation it won't grow true and they'll see all sorts of variation.
So getting back on topic, since there is so much diversity in "F1" (used very loosely to simply convey the first generation of a cross, not referring at all to true heterosis) pot seeds it shows why it's misleading to use a lot of the terms we've gotten use to. Personally I'm trying to move towards standard breeding/horticultural terms and techniques when talking about pot. For the same reason I'm trying to get away from using indica/sativa to describe plants as it's not a accurate way to think about the genepool. As much as I love the counter culture and it's past, I'm happy to move forward and embrace the science around growing, breeding or using pot.
Totally agree.
That's why I keep parents of F1 crosses I like,
to cross them in the future for seeds that are in
the same range as the original cross.
Many breeders have lost one or both parents and
spend many months working F2's and S1's to get
back the original gems.
Paradise Sensi Star to name one example.
Such a good, succinct explanation, and good posts in general.
I am reminded of posts by suzycremecheese, gone but not forgotten.
Spent two years editing F2's back crossed to a P1.
My first BC1 seedlings recently transplanted, back on track.
We'll see.
You're absolutely right, that was worded very poorly. I meant to say 'the offspring from the F1 generation'.
Hi. Please excuse me if I have been not accurate. As Somatek has said, I was talking about F2 which are the offspring from the F1.
F2 are not very uniform, unlike the F1 you supossedly buy from seedbanks. So they use that in order you must buy seeds (or keep clones) every time you wnat to grow the same phenotypes. It is like an insurance, for them, against pollen chuckers. Nowadays they have more powerful tools for hitting that target, like feminized autoflowering seeds.
That is one of the many reasons why I preffer growing and pollen chucking heirloom strains.
F1s aren't made to protect their genetics, though it's a nice side effect. F1s are valuable because they're uniform and vigorous and repeatable.
Believe me. It is the main reason. The side effect is the hybrid vigour and the F1 uniformity which they use as an excuse to sell only hybrids.
I have visited several Dutch vegetables seedbank businesses stablished in my country as most vegetables eaten in across Europe are grown here. They produce tomato, melon, eggplant, pepper and cucumber seeds. At the begining of the visit, they explain the same tale about F1, hybrid vigour, uniformity,...
Once in the greenhouse it is easy to realize that F1 tomato plants aren't better than P1 and P2 plants. So I asked "inocently" to the biologist who guided us why they bother to cross them. The answer was very sincere and clarifying: "If we sell unhybridized seeds the farmers will not buy seeds to us anymore. They would simply keep seeds from the previous harvest as they did in the past".
I'm growing my own F1's I made this season coming to have it tested for Cannabinoid content & the quality of the oilseed.. Be nice if I have something I can patent..
Wasting your time breeding stuff to sell as smoke with a name to a few thousand. The money don't even sound good.. Best to get a variety mankind needs & sit back & get you PBR's wholesale..
Wasting your time breeding stuff to sell as smoke with a name to a few thousand. The money don't even sound good.. Best to get a variety mankind needs & sit back & get you PBR's wholesale..
"Who will be the first to develop two individual and distinct homozygous varieties and cross breed them in cannabis has yet to be seen."
I won't say the original post is 100% incorrect or misleading but it sounds like a ploy for this company to set up its patenting scheme or something to that effect. Spam, propaganda, advertising, etc. I don't know if that is reasonable, or even a viable or valuable goal, to produce homozygous varieties as you define them. That would mean that you(r company) sets some arbitrary number for genetic identity or in other words 100% clone seeds. Even if 100 seeds all look the same open pollinated great plants, you will say "no they are not homozygous according to the Phylos bio patent rules. Only the ones we say are." Next, chasing that complete uniformity in plants, what will be left if and when you reach that goal? What will you sacrifice or miss on the search for completely identical every single one? What if you miss your target? What is the target? Now are you going to patent 10,000 different varieties and own all of them? It's a little more complicated than the Hardy–Weinberg ps and qs, no? In fact when someone starts talking for hours about p^2 and q^2 I view it as a distraction, upfront honestly. Do not invest resources into creating the exact equivalent of cheap hothouse tomatoes with cannabis. That is going back rather than forward.
Saying that cannabis has not been bred, using whatever terminology the poster or authors wish, is totally incorrect. That is a wildly false and bold statement. So you have a brand new genetic test and therefore declare that you own the definitions of the words for cannabis breeding. Then it's a college or grad school grant proposal looking thing. And why does the hemp farmer in OR here not communicate with Phylos? That is either a red flag or worth looking into. I've been involved in science for long enough to see a lot of these elementary looking proposals, even when they are linked to multimillion dollar studies or human trials. And the results, or the final product of that proposal you might call it, are just about nowhere to be seen. Sketchy looking grant proposal, lots of money exchanges hands, (warning political buzz words) no accountability or transparency. I'm plainly talking about Monsanto, Biotech, and Pharmaceutical companies here. No kiddie pool, more like a big collusion.
Now it is new to have more companies publishing more media about it, but that is the only way it is different from 2017, 2016 etc.
F1 in the traditional textbook sense (what is Mendel, elementary school?) is different parents, although I would not actually guess that will produce a 'uniform' F1 generation, rather varying hybrids. 10 pairs of chromosomes means it's complicated. Don't worry about it beyond that really, because people trying to use computers to figure out those odds are no further ahead than people in the field IMO. Now lots of strains are clones, mutants, chemically mutated and intersexed over countless generations, etc. That is not all cannabis but it's a subset, maybe a fairly large proportion, of cloned mutants and such. Whether that is really a benefit (highly inbred for potency, flavor, yield etc) or better off using plain old natural selection is perhaps debatable. Space and time constrains and legality may change things a bit I would think. Now if you took a sample of all of a breeder's current line or all of the strains/clones at a particular location you might find that they are nearly all the same thing or similar but that's beside the point.
I won't say the original post is 100% incorrect or misleading but it sounds like a ploy for this company to set up its patenting scheme or something to that effect. Spam, propaganda, advertising, etc. I don't know if that is reasonable, or even a viable or valuable goal, to produce homozygous varieties as you define them. That would mean that you(r company) sets some arbitrary number for genetic identity or in other words 100% clone seeds. Even if 100 seeds all look the same open pollinated great plants, you will say "no they are not homozygous according to the Phylos bio patent rules. Only the ones we say are." Next, chasing that complete uniformity in plants, what will be left if and when you reach that goal? What will you sacrifice or miss on the search for completely identical every single one? What if you miss your target? What is the target? Now are you going to patent 10,000 different varieties and own all of them? It's a little more complicated than the Hardy–Weinberg ps and qs, no? In fact when someone starts talking for hours about p^2 and q^2 I view it as a distraction, upfront honestly. Do not invest resources into creating the exact equivalent of cheap hothouse tomatoes with cannabis. That is going back rather than forward.
Saying that cannabis has not been bred, using whatever terminology the poster or authors wish, is totally incorrect. That is a wildly false and bold statement. So you have a brand new genetic test and therefore declare that you own the definitions of the words for cannabis breeding. Then it's a college or grad school grant proposal looking thing. And why does the hemp farmer in OR here not communicate with Phylos? That is either a red flag or worth looking into. I've been involved in science for long enough to see a lot of these elementary looking proposals, even when they are linked to multimillion dollar studies or human trials. And the results, or the final product of that proposal you might call it, are just about nowhere to be seen. Sketchy looking grant proposal, lots of money exchanges hands, (warning political buzz words) no accountability or transparency. I'm plainly talking about Monsanto, Biotech, and Pharmaceutical companies here. No kiddie pool, more like a big collusion.
Now it is new to have more companies publishing more media about it, but that is the only way it is different from 2017, 2016 etc.
F1 in the traditional textbook sense (what is Mendel, elementary school?) is different parents, although I would not actually guess that will produce a 'uniform' F1 generation, rather varying hybrids. 10 pairs of chromosomes means it's complicated. Don't worry about it beyond that really, because people trying to use computers to figure out those odds are no further ahead than people in the field IMO. Now lots of strains are clones, mutants, chemically mutated and intersexed over countless generations, etc. That is not all cannabis but it's a subset, maybe a fairly large proportion, of cloned mutants and such. Whether that is really a benefit (highly inbred for potency, flavor, yield etc) or better off using plain old natural selection is perhaps debatable. Space and time constrains and legality may change things a bit I would think. Now if you took a sample of all of a breeder's current line or all of the strains/clones at a particular location you might find that they are nearly all the same thing or similar but that's beside the point.
Last edited:
