genetic differnces between an IBL and S1
- Thread starter kathmandu
- Start date
highclasscandy
Active member
interesting and good read charles 
Thank You!!!
Thank You!!!
Charles Xavier
Member
Greetings
kathmandu: Thank you for starting the thread, and also for your effective role of moderator in bringing the focus back on topic. As I've said before: I'm a two fingered typist (and not a very good one at that), so I greatly appreciate your appreciation of the time taken in response. I am pleased that you appear to be satisfied with the rejoinder offered; you're welcome.
Time2Unite: You're welcome. Asking questions is a demonstration of passion. Wanting to know the answers is testament of commitment. Accepting the answers (the ability to discern) broadens expertise. You’ve displayed all three:
Passion, commitment, expertise....now we're getting somewhere.
(Cannabis Cultivator Movement, 2007....still growing strong)
highclasscandy: You're welcome; I'm gratified that someone other than the question askers took the time to read all that.
If there are any points of elaboration or clarification that need be made then....
Sincerely,
Charles.
kathmandu: Thank you for starting the thread, and also for your effective role of moderator in bringing the focus back on topic. As I've said before: I'm a two fingered typist (and not a very good one at that), so I greatly appreciate your appreciation of the time taken in response. I am pleased that you appear to be satisfied with the rejoinder offered; you're welcome.
Time2Unite: You're welcome. Asking questions is a demonstration of passion. Wanting to know the answers is testament of commitment. Accepting the answers (the ability to discern) broadens expertise. You’ve displayed all three:
Passion, commitment, expertise....now we're getting somewhere.
(Cannabis Cultivator Movement, 2007....still growing strong)
highclasscandy: You're welcome; I'm gratified that someone other than the question askers took the time to read all that.
If there are any points of elaboration or clarification that need be made then....
Sincerely,
Charles.
Charles Xavier,
"Note: S1 is a colloquialism; the true designation is F1. There is no difference between self-pollination and cross-pollination as far as the filial generation's designation is concerned. "
I use the term S1 because I want to keep track of the selfed generations, after a few selfings the plant may become very homogenous, but have serious problems due to being inbred. An S1 is not the same as an F1, or an S5 not the same as an F5, not if you are selfing for 4-5 generations. Charles do you ever self plants? How do you keep track of the different generations of selfing? If you do not self plants I can understand your opinion. I have been selfing plants for more then a decade, it is a very useful tool. Developing single Cannabinoid plants with only one Cannabinoid would of been near impossible without selfing.
-SamS
Selfed family selection
The plants in the original base population are selfed to produce S1 progenies, which are evaluated in the next season in replicated multi-environmental trials to identify promising S1 families. Later afer several more selfed generations several different lines of S3-S5 selfed individuals can then be combined to restore vigor. Hence, the units of selection and recombination are selfed progenies.
Some of the reasons why a self fertilizing method of reproduction is so effective are the efficacy of reproduction, as well as decreasing genetic variation and thus the fixation of highly adapted genotypes. Most of the loci get fixed at a high rate; this can be ascribed to the fact that with each generation of self fertilization the rate of heterozygotes decreases by 50%. Homozygosity will thus be obtained in 5-8 generations. The 3rd reason for the efficacy of self fertilization is that in mixed stands of self and cross pollinating crops, the self fertilizing plants can donate pollen to both plant types, where the cross fertilizing plants are restricted concerning the contribution it can make to the population with regard to pollen donation.
"Note: S1 is a colloquialism; the true designation is F1. There is no difference between self-pollination and cross-pollination as far as the filial generation's designation is concerned. "
I use the term S1 because I want to keep track of the selfed generations, after a few selfings the plant may become very homogenous, but have serious problems due to being inbred. An S1 is not the same as an F1, or an S5 not the same as an F5, not if you are selfing for 4-5 generations. Charles do you ever self plants? How do you keep track of the different generations of selfing? If you do not self plants I can understand your opinion. I have been selfing plants for more then a decade, it is a very useful tool. Developing single Cannabinoid plants with only one Cannabinoid would of been near impossible without selfing.
-SamS
Selfed family selection
The plants in the original base population are selfed to produce S1 progenies, which are evaluated in the next season in replicated multi-environmental trials to identify promising S1 families. Later afer several more selfed generations several different lines of S3-S5 selfed individuals can then be combined to restore vigor. Hence, the units of selection and recombination are selfed progenies.
Some of the reasons why a self fertilizing method of reproduction is so effective are the efficacy of reproduction, as well as decreasing genetic variation and thus the fixation of highly adapted genotypes. Most of the loci get fixed at a high rate; this can be ascribed to the fact that with each generation of self fertilization the rate of heterozygotes decreases by 50%. Homozygosity will thus be obtained in 5-8 generations. The 3rd reason for the efficacy of self fertilization is that in mixed stands of self and cross pollinating crops, the self fertilizing plants can donate pollen to both plant types, where the cross fertilizing plants are restricted concerning the contribution it can make to the population with regard to pollen donation.
Last edited:
Charles Xavier
Member
Greetings Sam Skunkman.
I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.
I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later; I wish that it was less confrontational and I would have much preferred that you contacted me privately. Alas.
You've been afforded quite the degree of respect from the community; respect earned and that is something to be admired; that is something to be proud of. However, the problem with pride is that it is the antithesis of humility. If humility is equated with: to listen, then pride means not to listen.
Listen.
That's a very good reason for using the term, but that still does not make it a scientifically legitimate one. As far as the community is concerned, we are entitled to use our own language, this is indisputable, but we should also be aware of the informal nature of certain terminology and of the equivalent terminology employed by the scientific community (if we wish to converse scientifically).
That is a problem that can potentially manifest in any closed population. It is not even accurate to claim that definitively a population derived from self-pollination would encounter this problem before a standard IBL population would.
Actually it is. In a population of plants that display genetically controlled intersex traits (hermaphrodites: in this context, another colloquialism), the progeny that are the result of self-pollination, as well as, the progeny resulting from cross-pollination are collectively termed the next generation (F[?]). If an individual from that population is selected, and is termed P1, then the offspring resulting from its natural ability to reproduce is termed F1. The F1 generation will display the intersex trait as well, to produce the F2.
Here's the hypothetical: Only one (1) individual of the F1 generation survives to maturity and is able to reproduce; the same happens in every subsequent generation...one (1) plant survives to reproduce….
Genetically speaking S5 is the same as F5...it is five generations removed from the original parental genes. The type of pollination has no bearing on the designation. The same generation is being discussed.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do; any botanist will state that self pollination is an indispensable method of tracking and fixing genetic traits within a population.
I keep track very carefully...with detailed notes of observations, colour coded pots and labels, genetic samples taken and catalogued corresponding with Spreadsheets and graphs, that track polyphenetic traits.
It's not an opinion: The S1 designation is not generally recognized.
I am not speculating whether it's a 'good' or a 'bad' thing, or if the community should use the designation, or if the term will gain acceptance in the scientific community; those are opinions.
An aside: On these boards I rarely offer my opinion.
In an attempt to keep the discussion civil, I shall disregard the rest of your post as irrelevant. Now you may retort: That's not a very civil thing to say at all.
My riposte: Better I say that than something that may affect the credibility you've worked so hard to cultivate.
Thank you for your role in furthering this dialogue; I believe your experience and insights are invaluable to the members of this community, but as I have stated in my post prior to this (another thread): the true mark of a master is the ability to divine whom they can still learn from.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. I implore the other members of this community, to not 'take sides' in this matter. Sam Skunkman and I are both adults, this is not a schoolyard and no word of mine is designed nor intended to ferment harmony.
C.X.
I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.
I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later; I wish that it was less confrontational and I would have much preferred that you contacted me privately. Alas.
You've been afforded quite the degree of respect from the community; respect earned and that is something to be admired; that is something to be proud of. However, the problem with pride is that it is the antithesis of humility. If humility is equated with: to listen, then pride means not to listen.
Listen.
That's a very good reason for using the term, but that still does not make it a scientifically legitimate one. As far as the community is concerned, we are entitled to use our own language, this is indisputable, but we should also be aware of the informal nature of certain terminology and of the equivalent terminology employed by the scientific community (if we wish to converse scientifically).
That is a problem that can potentially manifest in any closed population. It is not even accurate to claim that definitively a population derived from self-pollination would encounter this problem before a standard IBL population would.
Actually it is. In a population of plants that display genetically controlled intersex traits (hermaphrodites: in this context, another colloquialism), the progeny that are the result of self-pollination, as well as, the progeny resulting from cross-pollination are collectively termed the next generation (F[?]). If an individual from that population is selected, and is termed P1, then the offspring resulting from its natural ability to reproduce is termed F1. The F1 generation will display the intersex trait as well, to produce the F2.
Here's the hypothetical: Only one (1) individual of the F1 generation survives to maturity and is able to reproduce; the same happens in every subsequent generation...one (1) plant survives to reproduce….
Genetically speaking S5 is the same as F5...it is five generations removed from the original parental genes. The type of pollination has no bearing on the designation. The same generation is being discussed.
Yes, as a matter of fact I do; any botanist will state that self pollination is an indispensable method of tracking and fixing genetic traits within a population.
I keep track very carefully...with detailed notes of observations, colour coded pots and labels, genetic samples taken and catalogued corresponding with Spreadsheets and graphs, that track polyphenetic traits.
It's not an opinion: The S1 designation is not generally recognized.
I am not speculating whether it's a 'good' or a 'bad' thing, or if the community should use the designation, or if the term will gain acceptance in the scientific community; those are opinions.
An aside: On these boards I rarely offer my opinion.
In an attempt to keep the discussion civil, I shall disregard the rest of your post as irrelevant. Now you may retort: That's not a very civil thing to say at all.
My riposte: Better I say that than something that may affect the credibility you've worked so hard to cultivate.
Thank you for your role in furthering this dialogue; I believe your experience and insights are invaluable to the members of this community, but as I have stated in my post prior to this (another thread): the true mark of a master is the ability to divine whom they can still learn from.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. I implore the other members of this community, to not 'take sides' in this matter. Sam Skunkman and I are both adults, this is not a schoolyard and no word of mine is designed nor intended to ferment harmony.
C.X.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Mendel championed the "particulate hypothesis" of inheritance, and demonstrated that parents pass on "discrete heritable units" to offspring. We now call these heritable units as "genes". Gene pairs are located at an equivelant postion aka locus on homologous chromosones. Mutations lead t different versions of a gene, which are called alleles. Homozygous means that both alleles are the same, heterozygous means that the two alleles re dfferent. The simplest way for two alleles to interact is complete dominance, one allele is dominant and theother is recessive, this formed the basis of alot of Mendals main studies.
A hybrid strain is the progeny of a cross fertilization between two true breeding strains with different traits, for example purple or red flowers. Linked genes are expect to be inherited together, but some recombination occurs due to crossing over. The further apart the gene are on the chromosone, the more likely they are to be seperated crossing over.
A hybrid strain is the progeny of a cross fertilization between two true breeding strains with different traits, for example purple or red flowers. Linked genes are expect to be inherited together, but some recombination occurs due to crossing over. The further apart the gene are on the chromosone, the more likely they are to be seperated crossing over.
Last edited:
Charles Xavier
Member
Greetings ograskal
It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, as well.
Allow me these points of clarification: I was responding to questions asked; the responses required technical information...I provided it.
When I am here, I use the term S1... I think it is simply ingenious to officially differentiate between self-pollination and cross-pollination.
I think that genetics can be confusing and so in an attempt to fully communicate the ideas of genetics, I try to disclose relevant information such as the point of topic between Sam Skunkman and I.
I fully endorse and support the 'S' designation and its widespread usage, but I also encourage those who care (and it's perfectly fine, not to care) to understand traditional genetic nomenclature.
I trust that you now possess a clearer understanding of my perspective.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. I hope your foray into the realm of commercial breeding yields the quality of success you (may) desire.
C.X.
It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, as well.
Absolutely correct; I concur wholeheartedly.
Allow me these points of clarification: I was responding to questions asked; the responses required technical information...I provided it.
When I am here, I use the term S1... I think it is simply ingenious to officially differentiate between self-pollination and cross-pollination.
I think that genetics can be confusing and so in an attempt to fully communicate the ideas of genetics, I try to disclose relevant information such as the point of topic between Sam Skunkman and I.
I fully endorse and support the 'S' designation and its widespread usage, but I also encourage those who care (and it's perfectly fine, not to care) to understand traditional genetic nomenclature.
I trust that you now possess a clearer understanding of my perspective.
Sincerely,
Charles.
p.s. I hope your foray into the realm of commercial breeding yields the quality of success you (may) desire.
C.X.
Hello Charles Xavier,
Most of the science journals I read use the term S1, check out "Genetics":
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/335
First of all you do not know me, or you would not talk to me of humility, while I am proud of my work I am a very humble guy and I am happy to learn from anyone.
That said, about your comments:
"That is a problem that can potentially manifest in any closed population. It is not even accurate to claim that definitively a population derived from self-pollination would encounter this problem before a standard IBL population would."
Well my experience is quite different. You take an Afghani IBL population of imported seeds and self the plants, let all the males pollinate all the females and then do this for 5 generations, even if you only use one female and one male each generation, and then do the same with a single female clone, selfed then grow out the seeds and pick one the most like what you are after and self again, 5 times and you will find the sexual reproductive organs of the transformed males are either functionaly sterile or in fact sterile, but not so with the IBL. Why if they are in fact the same?
Anyway, have you personaly selfed Cannabis clones 5 generations or more? Were the S5 females transformed to male fertile?
I have many times and they all have problems.
"Here's the hypothetical: Only one (1) individual of the F1 generation survives to maturity and is able to reproduce; the same happens in every subsequent generation...one (1) plant survives to reproduce….
Genetically speaking S5 is the same as F5...it is five generations removed from the original parental genes. The type of pollination has no bearing on the designation. The same generation is being discussed."
You may designate them as the same but they are not because the S5's and above are not even able to be bred in a normal manner compared to F5's.
Euphytica and other plant journals use the term S1.
Anyway enough about S1, I will continue to use it to describe selfed plants, if it was good enough for Euphytica and Genetics, it is good enough for me. I do consider your post about it your opinion, and my use mine. That is fine with me...
It is obvious you have a strong plant backround, maybe even with Cannabis?
-SamS
Most of the science journals I read use the term S1, check out "Genetics":
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/335
First of all you do not know me, or you would not talk to me of humility, while I am proud of my work I am a very humble guy and I am happy to learn from anyone.
That said, about your comments:
"That is a problem that can potentially manifest in any closed population. It is not even accurate to claim that definitively a population derived from self-pollination would encounter this problem before a standard IBL population would."
Well my experience is quite different. You take an Afghani IBL population of imported seeds and self the plants, let all the males pollinate all the females and then do this for 5 generations, even if you only use one female and one male each generation, and then do the same with a single female clone, selfed then grow out the seeds and pick one the most like what you are after and self again, 5 times and you will find the sexual reproductive organs of the transformed males are either functionaly sterile or in fact sterile, but not so with the IBL. Why if they are in fact the same?
Anyway, have you personaly selfed Cannabis clones 5 generations or more? Were the S5 females transformed to male fertile?
I have many times and they all have problems.
"Here's the hypothetical: Only one (1) individual of the F1 generation survives to maturity and is able to reproduce; the same happens in every subsequent generation...one (1) plant survives to reproduce….
Genetically speaking S5 is the same as F5...it is five generations removed from the original parental genes. The type of pollination has no bearing on the designation. The same generation is being discussed."
You may designate them as the same but they are not because the S5's and above are not even able to be bred in a normal manner compared to F5's.
Euphytica and other plant journals use the term S1.
Anyway enough about S1, I will continue to use it to describe selfed plants, if it was good enough for Euphytica and Genetics, it is good enough for me. I do consider your post about it your opinion, and my use mine. That is fine with me...
It is obvious you have a strong plant backround, maybe even with Cannabis?
-SamS
Last edited:
Charles Xavier
Member
Greetings Sam Skunkman
Well responded. I was anticipating your reply and I am not disappointed by its content or its tone.
In response: Let me state clearly: I am not saying the 'S' designation is not valid; I am saying that it's an informal term. I am pleased that its usage is gaining ground. (I am one of the pioneers of using the term in an 'official' capacity; back then I had to annotate its meaning; now not as much....less typing for me- I like very well)
Perhaps I don't know you, nonetheless, I wasn't making a personal observation; I was commentating on the contents and perceived tone of your posts and the general impression that they leave me with. I should have been firmer about making that distinction...Mea culpa.
I am pleased that no undue offense was taken; I can assure you that none was meant.
It should be stated: Where genetic statistics are concerned, there oft times appear to be discrepancy between theory and practice. Theory does not exactly apply to every specific case, it is an umbrella that specifics fall under, however the sum of all the specifics equals the theory.
In other words theory is a superset.
Definition: A set (S1) is a superset of another set (S2) if every element in S2 is in S1. S1 may have elements which are not in S2.
(Incidentally, this is why 'S1' is an informal term. If you use it in the scientific community, they first assume you're speaking finite mathematics.)
The Afghan IBL example you provided is a subset of the theory. You should very well know that the scenario described will not hold true for every individual. The fault is in the selection process, not the determining theory. The fact remains: the filial generation's designation is still apt; in our example it is still the fifth (5th) generation.
There is some confusion. I am not commenting on breeding practices or what generational self-pollination to the power of five (5) will accomplish; it's irrelevant as it does not relate to what was stated. That is: S5 is the same as F5 in the sense that they both represent the generation five times removed from the P1. Furthermore, F5 is the correct terminology as far as the general scientific community is concerned.
Personally I have access to self-pollinated specimens twelve (12) generations removed from the P1 (forced), and specimens beyond fifteen (15) generations from the P1 (genetic). Some are problematic, others are not.
The dissection of the hypothetical entered bears no weight behind the scalpel. You made comments on breeding and selection; I am under the impression that the topic being discussed pertains to the formal designation of a filial generation.
I am pleased that plant journals are beginning to use the S1 designate, as I feel partially responsible for that practice.
You see, this section is simply disingenuous. You know very well that there isn't anything to challenge. You know very well that I support and champion the use of the S1 designation. You know very well that I was not offering opinion; and you know very well that a dismissive at the end of such a statement serves to maintain the illusion of authority when in actuality the case you put forth is lacking. Again, I am not making a personal comment, I am giving my impression of this part of the post.
Thank you for your note of validation; your closing comment is greatly appreciated. As I've heard said:
Game, recognize Game!
Meaning any individual with a "strong plant background" recognizes others of the same;
and yes my experience does extend heavily into Cannabis.
For being a gentleman, you've earned my gratitude.
Sincerely,
Charles.
Well responded. I was anticipating your reply and I am not disappointed by its content or its tone.
In response: Let me state clearly: I am not saying the 'S' designation is not valid; I am saying that it's an informal term. I am pleased that its usage is gaining ground. (I am one of the pioneers of using the term in an 'official' capacity; back then I had to annotate its meaning; now not as much....less typing for me- I like very well)
Perhaps I don't know you, nonetheless, I wasn't making a personal observation; I was commentating on the contents and perceived tone of your posts and the general impression that they leave me with. I should have been firmer about making that distinction...Mea culpa.
I am pleased that no undue offense was taken; I can assure you that none was meant.
It should be stated: Where genetic statistics are concerned, there oft times appear to be discrepancy between theory and practice. Theory does not exactly apply to every specific case, it is an umbrella that specifics fall under, however the sum of all the specifics equals the theory.
In other words theory is a superset.
Definition: A set (S1) is a superset of another set (S2) if every element in S2 is in S1. S1 may have elements which are not in S2.
(Incidentally, this is why 'S1' is an informal term. If you use it in the scientific community, they first assume you're speaking finite mathematics.)
The Afghan IBL example you provided is a subset of the theory. You should very well know that the scenario described will not hold true for every individual. The fault is in the selection process, not the determining theory. The fact remains: the filial generation's designation is still apt; in our example it is still the fifth (5th) generation.
There is some confusion. I am not commenting on breeding practices or what generational self-pollination to the power of five (5) will accomplish; it's irrelevant as it does not relate to what was stated. That is: S5 is the same as F5 in the sense that they both represent the generation five times removed from the P1. Furthermore, F5 is the correct terminology as far as the general scientific community is concerned.
Personally I have access to self-pollinated specimens twelve (12) generations removed from the P1 (forced), and specimens beyond fifteen (15) generations from the P1 (genetic). Some are problematic, others are not.
The dissection of the hypothetical entered bears no weight behind the scalpel. You made comments on breeding and selection; I am under the impression that the topic being discussed pertains to the formal designation of a filial generation.
I am pleased that plant journals are beginning to use the S1 designate, as I feel partially responsible for that practice.
You see, this section is simply disingenuous. You know very well that there isn't anything to challenge. You know very well that I support and champion the use of the S1 designation. You know very well that I was not offering opinion; and you know very well that a dismissive at the end of such a statement serves to maintain the illusion of authority when in actuality the case you put forth is lacking. Again, I am not making a personal comment, I am giving my impression of this part of the post.
Thank you for your note of validation; your closing comment is greatly appreciated. As I've heard said:
Game, recognize Game!
Meaning any individual with a "strong plant background" recognizes others of the same;
and yes my experience does extend heavily into Cannabis.
For being a gentleman, you've earned my gratitude.
Sincerely,
Charles.
Last edited:
B
Bluebeard
Wonderful brother Xavier, I wish I shared your eloquence and clarity of thought. I am curious why you stated s1's as being statistically the same as an f1. Wouldn't rather an s1 be the same as as an f2 if made from an f1 cutting, or the same as an f3 if bred from an f2 cutting etc... I understand this is more a question of semantics, since, as you had stated before the whole concept of generational numbering is largely arbitrary and more just a way for a breeder to keep track of his or her own work.
Sam, I am curious why selfing was necesary in the development of the pure chemovars. Since accurate testing of cannabinoid levels was obviously necesary wouldnt the chemovar espress itself in the males just as it would in the females? Wouldnt using male pollen from a plant that most closely resembles a pure chemovar out of an equally large population of males produce the same result as selfing?
Sam, I am curious why selfing was necesary in the development of the pure chemovars. Since accurate testing of cannabinoid levels was obviously necesary wouldnt the chemovar espress itself in the males just as it would in the females? Wouldnt using male pollen from a plant that most closely resembles a pure chemovar out of an equally large population of males produce the same result as selfing?
pHrail
Member
Good thread, but I think it's been overran with bullshit. I think the link below clarifies some of the confusion a little bit as to the original question. I'm not sure what book this is from but it's a good article.
http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-growing/89809-chap-3-genetics-breeding-cannabis-part-2-3-a.html
Read this, it's excellent for this discussion.
http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-growing/89809-chap-3-genetics-breeding-cannabis-part-2-3-a.html
Read this, it's excellent for this discussion.
Last edited:
Bluebeard,
I self to find varieties with mostly one Cannabinoid, if you think you can find pure Cannabinoid varieties of anything besides THC in males or females, you are wrong. Without a male high in the target or females that have what you want you need to make them. I selfed because it was the fastest and only practical way to create varieties with only CBD, or CBC, or THCV, or CBG, etc. This goal can not be achieved using male varieties that do not have high levels of the target Cannabinoid, and they are not found in nature in such high levels, they have to be man made. If you think about it you will see why.
-SamS
I self to find varieties with mostly one Cannabinoid, if you think you can find pure Cannabinoid varieties of anything besides THC in males or females, you are wrong. Without a male high in the target or females that have what you want you need to make them. I selfed because it was the fastest and only practical way to create varieties with only CBD, or CBC, or THCV, or CBG, etc. This goal can not be achieved using male varieties that do not have high levels of the target Cannabinoid, and they are not found in nature in such high levels, they have to be man made. If you think about it you will see why.
-SamS
nycKid
Member
Luc from Paradise seeds just made a strain called Opium by reverse sexing a female to a male and breeding with that pollen. I wonder if anyone has grown that one out yet. I am sure many have done this already and didn't even know it. My buddy tried to recreate the so called white lable bubble gum cross to make bubba and it was not bubba period. Side by side with the pre 98 , and a few others and it was a joke. Great post.
B
Bluebeard
Sam, I think you misunderstood my question. I'm well aware that the pure chemovars arent found in nature except for thc and it takes a minimum of three generations to create them. What I am asking is why is it "near impossible" to create them using males? Don't the male populations show the same variations in cannabinoid levels as the females? If the male population physically expresses it's genes regulating various cannabinoid levels in ratios similar to that of females with the same genotype then there really is no real advantage to using selfed plants other than cutting the population size in half. Perhaps I'm nit picking but doubling the population size and the number of plants requiring cannabinoid level testing seems far from impossible when I consider the difficulties of working with an s3 to s5 population. The only reason I can think of is that males dont express their genes which regulate cannabinoid levels.
