-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Chimera on the Myth of Cubing
- Thread starter Octavian
- Start date
G
Guest
RoNdO said:
why explain or bother define what a breeder is much less correct anyone?
really..................... any of us.................
i think we all know what breeders are and whom is just making crosses
(in the loosest definition of course)
if not time will tell
Brownpants
Active member
Nice article by Chimera who obviously has a background in genetics.
IMO,
A "Breeder" is someone who has a specific goal in mind when crossing strains.
A "pollen chucker" is someone that just wants to see what happens when strains are crossed.
I think pollen chucking leads to true breeding.
-Peace-
IMO,
A "Breeder" is someone who has a specific goal in mind when crossing strains.
A "pollen chucker" is someone that just wants to see what happens when strains are crossed.
I think pollen chucking leads to true breeding.
-Peace-
High folks!1
Chimeras post are always something I have taken time to read... he is someone I have just Always seen as, RIGHT, in his thoughts on all things ~cannabis breeding~...
this is a nother of his great posts, tho Ive read it prior, its always nice to see it again! and for those who havent seen it, read it Again!
as for the "whos a breeder" conversation.. Ive come to the level of thinkin about it like this:
Could I accurately judge a doctors practice in its effect, without having a doctors knowledge myself?
No.
But I can still have an opinion..
anyone can call themselves a doctor, or breeder, but what do others of that pracice regaurd you as?
I call Chimera a breeder, an intelligent breeder.
Peace, bub.
Chimeras post are always something I have taken time to read... he is someone I have just Always seen as, RIGHT, in his thoughts on all things ~cannabis breeding~...
this is a nother of his great posts, tho Ive read it prior, its always nice to see it again! and for those who havent seen it, read it Again!
as for the "whos a breeder" conversation.. Ive come to the level of thinkin about it like this:
Could I accurately judge a doctors practice in its effect, without having a doctors knowledge myself?
No.
But I can still have an opinion..
anyone can call themselves a doctor, or breeder, but what do others of that pracice regaurd you as?
I call Chimera a breeder, an intelligent breeder.
Peace, bub.
G
Guest
well said OG bub....stay safe
Brownpants
Active member
OG bub said:
Thats a little elitist isn't it? Basically you are saying only another breeder can judge a breeder.
I am not a doctor, but I sure know a bad doctor when I look at their results.
Same with breeding, if they aren't delivering what they are claiming, then any average joe like me can tell they aren't a good breeder.
-Peace-
darthvapor
Active member
If cubing is not that great of a thing then why was cinderella 99 cubed? I think c99 is great pot. Can somebody explain this to a newbie. Im kinda confused?
Brownpants
Active member
darthvapor said:
Cindy99 was cubed to produce seeds that resembled the original clone.
They used bad logic but had good results. Others trying to use the same method will not be so lucky. It was a fluke.
I like C99 too, fluke or not it is still good pot.
-BP-
Brownpants said:
High!
mabey I should have said a bit more, or worded it different..
I certainly diddnt mean that only a nother breeder can judge one! as youve said, if anyone can see something isnt presented as claimed, anyone can call it what it is. no doubt.
but isnt it nice to have the opinion of others in a similar profession?
asto C99, Ive also enjoyed the line a bunch, even if it was cubed.
Peace, bub.
Octavian
Member
darthvapor said:
The fact that C99 is good pot is not the point of cubing. The Princess clone was cubed in an attempt to recreate it genetically in seed form. You would need the original Princess to compare to in order to see if the cube was indeed successful as stated, or not. I would bet that the differences would be profound, and if this is so, then even though C99 is inarguably good smoke (I like it too), cubing does not achieve the stated goal.
No one is stating that you can't get good smoke from a cubed plant...but does it represent the original parent, as the mathematical model of cubing states? I would say NO.
It's nice to see this thread revived along with some healthy discussion. Continue
Octavian
first high to everyone!
brownpants: i think i have a different interpretation of what OGBUB is stating, yet agree with a foundation of his idea.
It is similar to the social class in USA. Just because you have lots of money does not place you in a "wealthy" or "elite" class of people. It is the ACCEPTANCE and/or ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of that group of people that put you in that particular social class. You can be poor, but educated in a manner that the "wealthy" class of people enjoy your company and view you as one of them.
This idea can be taken further when you think about cultural groups and how one would find themselves part of a culture that accepted someone who is not really one of the group but has been acknowledged as one.
i dunno, meds are kickin' in.
one.
brownpants: i think i have a different interpretation of what OGBUB is stating, yet agree with a foundation of his idea.
It is similar to the social class in USA. Just because you have lots of money does not place you in a "wealthy" or "elite" class of people. It is the ACCEPTANCE and/or ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of that group of people that put you in that particular social class. You can be poor, but educated in a manner that the "wealthy" class of people enjoy your company and view you as one of them.
This idea can be taken further when you think about cultural groups and how one would find themselves part of a culture that accepted someone who is not really one of the group but has been acknowledged as one.
i dunno, meds are kickin' in.
one.
This alll makes perfect sense. I just figured this from logic, with out reading about it. This is like 7th grade science. I didnt know this was common confusion.
The only reason I back cross more than once is to get more seeds. the more you grow out, the more chance you get, two real good keeper parents, that you can keep cloning. There are a lot more genetic traits at play other than smell, structure, color, and potency.
Still great info though
The only reason I back cross more than once is to get more seeds. the more you grow out, the more chance you get, two real good keeper parents, that you can keep cloning. There are a lot more genetic traits at play other than smell, structure, color, and potency.
Still great info though
Hi there mate,
This is still confusing to me although I passed science at school. Please inform us about the other genetic traits that are not quite apparent to some of us (like me)here?
WR
I Loved that... I was smoking and thinking
Its call a "Weed" for a reason. That being said I think We can never go back to the beginning always going forward to something new.. Tree of knowledge
Last edited:
dirty larry
New member
I hate to bump such an old thread, but I've been seeing this cubing article on several forums, and it's somewhat misleading.
The core of the problem is here:
If the clone has a trait controlled by a co-dominant relationship- i.e. the clone is Aa we will never have ALL plants showing the trait
Phenotypes aren't nesessarily controlled by co-dominant relationships.
And when they aren't, they CAN be further stabilized through multiple back-crossing.
For example:
Suppose the clone mother is Aa- the simplest possibility is that the dad used contributes one of his alleles, let us say A. That mean the boy being use for the first backcross is either AA or Aa. We therefore have two possibilities:
1) If he is AA- we have AA X Aa- 50% of the offspring are AA, 50% are Aa. (you can do the punnett square to prove this to yourself).
In this case only 50% of the offspring show the desired phenotype (Aa genotype)!
Again, the desired phenotype is not nesessarily dependant on a particular genotype - the two terms are not interchangable.
Now, let's say for the sake of discussion that Cindy's the clone and her pineapple pheno is controlled by her dominant "A".
Then in the example it was also present in the father, and as a result, 100% of the offspring will share that dominant "A" and the pineapple pheno. (obviously this wasn't the case.)
2) If the boy being used is Aa- we have Aa X Aa (again do the punnett square) this gives a typical F2 type segregation- 25% AA, 50% Aa, and 25% aa.
This shows that a co-dominant trait can ONLY have 50% of the offspring showing the desired trait (Aa genotype) in a backcross.
Again, we aren't talking about a genotypes, we are talking pheno.
In this example, if the dominant "A" is responsible for the desired phenotype, then the AA and the Aa will all share that dominant "A" for a total of 75%.
Yes, there are phenotypes which are controlled by co-dominant relationships and cannot be isolated beyond 50% for the reasons outlined, but to say that NONE can be stabilized beyond that - "never ever ever never" - well,.... that is just plain wrong.
Punnett squares are fun, but they only work with recessive and dominant traits. When you get out of the lab and put a couple decades of breeding under your belt, other things make more sense. What Chimera is saying is that most cannabis traits that we breed for are controlled by a number of genes working together. Any gene on it's own would be said to have Incomplete Dominance for a given trait. Even the word phenotype can be misleading and open to interpretation. It suggests a certain shape or 'look' of plant, but in reality each and every plant (even in 'cubed' seedbatches) has it's own unique shape. Beginners tend to see things more 'black and white' and may only see 3 'phenos' in their grow, but if I go in there, my 42 years of observation will turn up more detail.
Cubing does reduce variation within a population, but be warned that certain plants can never (directly) 'throw' plants like themselves, no matter how many times they're backcrossed. That doesn't mean it's a dead end, just that you cant get what you want directly off that particular plant. A better plan is often to backcross once or twice and then begin inbreeding. That sorts traits in subsequent generations in a similar way that going to the F2 does.
Another thing to think on; Reduced variation is not the same thing as increased sameness!
Cubing does reduce variation within a population, but be warned that certain plants can never (directly) 'throw' plants like themselves, no matter how many times they're backcrossed. That doesn't mean it's a dead end, just that you cant get what you want directly off that particular plant. A better plan is often to backcross once or twice and then begin inbreeding. That sorts traits in subsequent generations in a similar way that going to the F2 does.
Another thing to think on; Reduced variation is not the same thing as increased sameness!
C
Cinderella99
Fantastic posts dirty larry, Mr. G!
"...but be warned that certain plants can never (directly) 'throw' plants like themselves, no matter how many times they're backcrossed..."
^But isn't replication more a function of probability and a numbers game with an unstable parent ("certain plants") though? What I mean is... of course we'll never get a 100% replication of any parent (no two organisms are exactly alike), but wouldn't "replicating" an unstable parent to an acceptable degree (ie: capturing all desirable traits in progeny) just be a function of growing out more progeny to find "the one"? In other words, the number of progeny grown out to find an acceptable representation of the parent would increase in proportion to the parent's variability, yes?
I tend to agree with "...Yes, there are phenotypes which are controlled by co-dominant relationships and cannot be isolated beyond 50% for the reasons outlined, but to say that NONE can be stabilized beyond that - "never ever ever never" - well,.... that is just plain wrong..."
I'm no expert in genetics like Chimera, but it makes sense to me that breeding true for desirable traits is a function of parent stability, dominance of desirable traits as well as number of backcrosses in reaching IBL.
Cinderella is probably AA for many of the traits that we pursue her for (with fewer possibilities of "co-dominant" relationships, if you will)...Would explain why she makes good breeding material -- that is, she remains relatively true in her subsequent generations and represents well in outcrosses.
This is what makes her a special seed line, not just a seed line based on an elite clone of Princess.
Agreed, though, that she's a freak since her lineage is polyhybrid, but, at the same time, there are a disproportionate amount of desirable and dominant traits that represent in progeny...
"...but be warned that certain plants can never (directly) 'throw' plants like themselves, no matter how many times they're backcrossed..."
^But isn't replication more a function of probability and a numbers game with an unstable parent ("certain plants") though? What I mean is... of course we'll never get a 100% replication of any parent (no two organisms are exactly alike), but wouldn't "replicating" an unstable parent to an acceptable degree (ie: capturing all desirable traits in progeny) just be a function of growing out more progeny to find "the one"? In other words, the number of progeny grown out to find an acceptable representation of the parent would increase in proportion to the parent's variability, yes?
I tend to agree with "...Yes, there are phenotypes which are controlled by co-dominant relationships and cannot be isolated beyond 50% for the reasons outlined, but to say that NONE can be stabilized beyond that - "never ever ever never" - well,.... that is just plain wrong..."
I'm no expert in genetics like Chimera, but it makes sense to me that breeding true for desirable traits is a function of parent stability, dominance of desirable traits as well as number of backcrosses in reaching IBL.
Cinderella is probably AA for many of the traits that we pursue her for (with fewer possibilities of "co-dominant" relationships, if you will)...Would explain why she makes good breeding material -- that is, she remains relatively true in her subsequent generations and represents well in outcrosses.
This is what makes her a special seed line, not just a seed line based on an elite clone of Princess.
Agreed, though, that she's a freak since her lineage is polyhybrid, but, at the same time, there are a disproportionate amount of desirable and dominant traits that represent in progeny...
Well said. Great post.
Cinderella99, your point about compensating for things like polyhybrids by growing out larger numbers to select from is correct, in a way. And of course, you're also right that no plant will really throw something truly identical to it, under any breeding plan. But, very select plants (taken from high numbers) can have their own set of problems. Those problems depend mostly on what came before, or what made that highly select plant. For example, F2's are notorious for having tremendous variation. If two lines that share very little genetic material are crossed (F1), the F2 generation will sort into a very large number of phenotypes. That can be a good thing, because simply growing out large numbers almost guarantees that you'll find a plant with the combination of traits you're looking for. F2's are great for finding a clone. Problem is, F2's often don't 'represent' much better than their moms. It's a good idea to select a number of F2's and get ready to progeny test.
The whole idea of 'stabilizing' a strain is often misunderstood. People think a plant 'is stable' or not. But, it's more realistic to think of whether the plant is stable for X trait(s). Even then, what is accomplished? If your plan is to make seeds that are similar to clones, then a very uniform seedbatch might be desirable, but I don't see why not use a clone. In reality, breeders would prefer not to have something too uniform, because decreased variation makes it tough to improve traits. And trait improvement over time is the real measure of the breeder.
The whole idea of 'stabilizing' a strain is often misunderstood. People think a plant 'is stable' or not. But, it's more realistic to think of whether the plant is stable for X trait(s). Even then, what is accomplished? If your plan is to make seeds that are similar to clones, then a very uniform seedbatch might be desirable, but I don't see why not use a clone. In reality, breeders would prefer not to have something too uniform, because decreased variation makes it tough to improve traits. And trait improvement over time is the real measure of the breeder.
