Do breeders even IBL anymore?

[zif]

I think the resistance to IL probably comes from (US) Midwesterners as much as anything, for whom IL is a state, not a breeding term of art.

Academics are just as haphazard as the rest of us with whether and which acronyms to use, too.

To the OPs question, if you forced me to guess, I’d bet more inbred lines exist today than at any point in the past. They rarely see the open market. They probably preserve far fewer genes than you might hope. But they’re definitely out there.

 

[Happy Times]

Take a look at what S....ANNIE did with his Jack. He may one of the very few dudes working lines the old fashioned way.

Yeah the S*nn1e Jack and what Bros Grimm did back in the day cubing Princess came to mind for this topic

Seems like maybe Dynasty doing similar with their Huckleberry?

 

[GMT]

I was just quoting what the article said. Those are not my words.

I also told you: "That's the title of the article. Ask the scientists who wrote it."

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=9002928&postcount=10

I know, I posted that link myself for you. The point was that you yourself didn't know, you read it and assumed it was correct. That's always playing with fire. I don't want to derail the thread any further.

Nice post zif

 

[Happy Times]

There are other reasons very good IBLS are hard to find.

Imagine if you spent 10 generations of breeding doing all the right things and released it to the public.
How long would it be before the seed hacks take it and make money from your hard work? It could be
why they would rather only sell F1's or even feminized versions so you can't steal their hard work.
Real breeding isn't easy to do.

Agree

 

[troutman]

I've never read a book on this stuff mate.

Exhibit A:

Later, I got other things to read about.

 

[JetLife175]

Exhibit A:

Later, I got other things to read about.

Taken so out of context and just a sliver of the actual post that I find it complete bullshit for you to pull something like that. Grow the fuck up.

 

[GMT]

Cheap shot taking a quote out of context. Quote the whole sentence or none. Just because I was taught to read the peer reviewed scientific papers, rather than someone's interpretation of their own experience, hardly makes me a chump.

 

[eyesdownchronic]

Back to the point.

One of the reasons that we might not have many well bred lines today is that in the past, a lot of the people who were doing the breeding didnt know actual breeding practices or have access to that information (understandably). This should change now that there is such free access to knowledege (hopefully) .why we have the concept of polyhybridization, ie hit this good shit with that good shit and we'll have some super good shit. But that doesnt work. With hybrids, the phenotypic expression isnt necessarily a good indicator of the plants combining ability. Its also worth noting that from a producer standpoint using an ibl / il whatever is less favorable than a true f1 with heterozyogotic vigor.

 

[GMT]

Its also down to numbers. Switzerland used to have fields of it being grown, so selections could be made. When they changed the laws, people had a hard time running the numbers. I know reeferman is doing numbers in south america, I guess others too, but not many can. The indoor operations now are geared to bud production, which is largely clone based, so breeding is taking a back seat.

 

[troutman]

Ok here we go. Here's the quote from the article again.

The tetraploid (4x) meiotic chromosome count of 2n=40 in Cannabis sativa L. from cold desert area of Lahul-Spiti is reported here for the first time.

Ok, let me break it down for you real slow and see if you can follow along. It's a fact that Cannabis has 10 pairs of chromosomes.
You can Google that if you don't believe me. A pair is made up of 2 parts. So a normal diploid Cannabis plant would have how many
chromosomes again? If you said 20 chromosomes you are correct. So how many chromosomes would a tetraploid have? If you
said 2X the number (N) that a diploid has for a total of 40 chromosomes you would be correct.

Hence why they said the tetraploid (4x) meiotic chromosome count of 2n=40.

You should read up on Mitosis and Polyploidy to understand more on what goes on in cell divisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

 

[GMT]

So condescending, so annoying. Clearly everyone knows the basics. A pair is two of something, wow, who would have guessed. Cannabis has 10 pairs of chromosomes? Well diploid cannabis does, yes, but not all cannabis, I think what you meant to say is that a single gamete strand of cannabis DNA has 10 chromosomes, a diploid cell has 20 chromosomes in total.
You then make a mistake. In fact I can't knock you for one half of that mistake, as its in fact the same mistake that I myself made.
You say if you double the N number you would be right, that's both what I did, and where we have both gone wrong in different ways. I considered the N number to be ploidy number, you considered it to be the total chromosome count. Neither is correct.
N= count of each unique chromosome in a diploid, so 2 . (2n)20 rather than 2(n20). I still can't find why they use diploid count of each chromosome everywhere, it makes no sense, but they do.
Now to the topic at hand, where I wrongly concluded that the correct nomenclature was 4n20 and you copied without knowing why 2n40, the correct version should be 2n4x40. 2n being the diploid standard, 4x being the ploidy count, 40 being the total chromosomal count.

All species of the section Petota have the same basic chromosome number (x = 12). Of the potato species with known chromosome number, 73% are classified as diploid (2n = 2x = 24), 4% triploid (2n = 3x = 36), 15% tetraploid (2n = 4x = 48), 2% pentaploid (2n = 5x = 60) and 6% hexaploid (2n = 6x = 72) (Hawkes, 1990).

However this is not a meiotic count, it is an at rest count. Meiosis is the production of gamete or sex cells. These would have a lower chromosome count, not the same as a parental cell. I don't know the count, it would depend on whether a tetraploid had gametes of 1x or 2x. Perhaps I should read up on that more, I could explain that to you too then.

Rather than wiki, try a decent source

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/chromosome-number

https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/chiwonlee/plsc210/topics/chap6-reproduction/reproduction.html

 

[mexweed]

while inbreeding might eventually produce super uniform plants, I think it makes the flavor dull, case in point skunk#1

the white widow with dull flavor...inbred, the c99 with that awful thin herbal edge almost like apple that ruins any tropical flavors...inbred

why are some of the more worked chem lines all nose...

 

[JetLife175]

while inbreeding might eventually produce super uniform plants, I think it makes the flavor dull, case in point skunk#1

the white widow with dull flavor...inbred, the c99 with that awful thin herbal edge almost like apple that ruins any tropical flavors...inbred

why are some of the more worked chem lines all nose...

What do you consider a worked Chem line?

 

[Greatdalas]

while inbreeding might eventually produce super uniform plants, I think it makes the flavor dull, case in point skunk#1

the white widow with dull flavor...inbred, the c99 with that awful thin herbal edge almost like apple that ruins any tropical flavors...inbred

why are some of the more worked chem lines all nose...

The actual fake lines and all unworked, open pollination, no selection and you have this bad actual and hermies strains. The old skunk, c99 and other are good but actually isn't easy to catch one of this real strains

 

[CaptainDankness]

while inbreeding might eventually produce super uniform plants, I think it makes the flavor dull, case in point skunk#1

the white widow with dull flavor...inbred, the c99 with that awful thin herbal edge almost like apple that ruins any tropical flavors...inbred

why are some of the more worked chem lines all nose...

By bottle necking the funk, lots of incest going on in them chem lines. Pretty sure Widow is just a hybrid too kind of dull I guess, when compared to a plant with those funky terps. Strangely enough they are not any more potent THC wise but they definitely do stink more.

My problem is I kind of like the milder flavors after I have been smoking the funky shit all day. I do like that leather flavor from Haze occasionally too, all day, I get bored of it just like everything else. A lot of times I won't reach for the same jar twice in one day.

I definitely wouldn't say the older lines are not good, I still like them, the terpines can definitely be improved, but the last thing I would want is nothing but OG, Chem and Diesel terpines.

Life would be boring with nothing but the same terpines. Variety is the true spice of life.

 

[VerdantGreen]

Cannabis has evolved to be a natural outcrosser, so inbreeding is not advantageous in some ways and can lead to a loss of vigor.
In order to inbreed cannabis and not lose genetic diversity, you need to use 100+ plants.
Skunk1 is probably the only inbred cannabis line that has been made properly from scratch.


If you are looking for inbred lines so that you can make seeds and not have to buy it again.. then you have answered your own question about why they aren't released.
If you are looking for uniformity, then F1 hybrids (made properly by crossing two true breeding lines) are good and have the added benefit of hybrid vigor.
Also consider S1s - selfing (crossing a plant to itself) is the ultimate form of inbreeding and will lead to a greater proportion of true-breeding traits more quickly than regular m/f inbreeding of siblings in the plant population.

The resistance to feminised seeds is largely 'faith' based rather than science based.... and any real objection you have to selfing can also be applied to regular inbreeding. (unless you just want to make your own seeds for free as mentioned above, which you can't so easily do with feminised)


as always, the success of any breeding will rely on the good selection of parent stock.



VG

 

[mexweed]

I made that statement mostly in regards to the chemdog sour diesel I've had, the sour in it is inbred, smelled amazing but didn't stick to the palate like it should have

it's not just about chem/og/sour lines, everyone misses the truly raunchy and loud widow, ak47, skunk, loss of vigor is because of degeneration of the genes which can also cause flavor to fade, when some of those strains won cups they were still relatively fresh f1

 

[Tonygreen]

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=369627

If you inbreed right you don't have to lose vigor.

 

[JetLife175]

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=369627

If you inbreed right you don't have to lose vigor.

Man I’ve been eyeing your shit for the longest. Might just have to take a crack. You know what the fuck you are doing for sure.

 

[Tynehead Tom]

IBL was common on overgrow, then got misused here too. It sounds right, but technically its not. So many learned from online forums that it got grandfathered into common language in our world, but it is incorrect.

if over generations of illegal underground cannabis growers, a breeding terminology evolved..... how can it possibly be incorrect?

I think that we need to communicate in Common Canna Language as very few breeders or growers get thier PHD's in plant sciences and breeding. Very few if any of us are writing peer reviewed papers on breeding legal cannabis. For those folks maybe it matters but for us internet folks..... if the canna community accepts a breeding language that has developed since the 60's that everyone else should accept it too and not try and alter it or correct folks with terminology/language that is "foreign" to the canna breeding community.

anyhow..... I have released some work over the last few years but recently came to the decision that I want to select a smaller group of plants to work into stable lines. I won't be scolded for using a term or abreviation that doesn't fit the peer reviewed breeding practices of people who have been breeding Legal plants.
Cannabis has it's own language and culture. Why must we conform to the mold of others?