Heritability of Intersex Traits

[GMT]

well, nothing, because the trait isn't linked to another trait, so the potential for other plants that don't possess that trait, to pass on desirable traits is unaltered, but with the probability to pass on an undesirable trait reduced (while clearly retaining the potential).

 

[Tom Hill]

Or, a percentage that I can turn into damn near everything, for when you select for that you select for that, and you narrow your pool in which to select for this, throughout all possible scale, right?

 

[Tom Hill]

Ie, these wild hairs are not free, let's try to be honest about what stuff costs, shall we?

 

[GMT]

members of the same family possess the same genes. Perhaps in mildly diff combos, but a canna seed isn't going to grow us a dandy lion. If one plant has everything you are looking for, and you dont select it because it also has something you don't want, you don't lose those traits forever unless they are the result of spontaneous mutation. Other plants within the same family will also contain all of the same genes, perhaps in diff ratios or combos but the genes that come from a line are in that line. The cost is time, not opportunity.

 

[stickshift]

The cost is time, not opportunity.

I don't know I've seen some stand outs that weren't kept that had slight defects, now rather than self them I just chucked, how I wish I had selfed instead (Still waiting on others like to show.. on the thin end of the curve..) time's the one thing we just don't know how much we will have, Do all you can while you can is what I'm embracing....

 

[GMT]

You know as well as anyone that breeding with an exceptional is no more likely to produce exceptional than anything else. Not to mention the time it takes to find them. All i'm saying is keep the ones you like as clones, breed to improve the average and ignore the thin ends of the bell curve.

 

[stickshift]

You know as well as anyone that breeding with an exceptional is no more likely to produce exceptional than anything else. Not to mention the time it takes to find them. All i'm saying is keep the ones you like as clones, breed to improve the average and ignore the thin ends of the bell curve.

But I also know that introducing exceptional to a pool usually can and does increase the mean for the better. For that is what I have seen. And that is what we should always be doing bettering it. As you know intersex is something I'd love removed for good, but it's in. We can't rewind, much as I'd love to. I fully agree in moving things forward with good numbers. But then I look at the standouts I have found and the best way to of got them and retain as much of them as poss would of been to self.. albeit I'm talking at F5, F6 + etc. I guess for doing the same early with selfing I need higher numbers in the F2 to evaluate. It is always coming down to numbers... but I will still be OPing too in early rounds, nothing wrong in doing both though I am sure the selfing will be faster.

 

[Tom Hill]

There are several arguments among breeders on whether it is wise to select for various traits from the beginning of a program, or wait until a modicum of homozygosity has been established. I implore you, do not take your eye off of the intricacies of inheritance of effect throughout all drug type cannabis selections. Put all of these other things on the back burner if you please for later. But no, once we've eliminated the 1% (.01?) of exact genotype required to do our best, we do not get to have it magically reappear later. Unlike other things such as sexual expression, these things should not be brushed aside for later selections imo. And if the tri or the more strongly dioecious individual does not show up later, who gives a fuck, at least we have not taken our eye off the true prize.

 

[Tom Hill]

You know as well as anyone that breeding with an exceptional is no more likely to produce exceptional than anything else. Not to mention the time it takes to find them. All i'm saying is keep the ones you like as clones, breed to improve the average and ignore the thin ends of the bell curve.

When speaking of quantitative traits this is mostly (not completely) true, but then why do you select against hermies? We can't have this both ways. In reality, evaluations by way of phenotype does give some advantage, otherwise we would not practice it at all. It is true, the added value may be a small number if we were to put percentage to it, but it is not wise to give it up, for the betting man, relishes the 7% advantage, just be careful not to squander it in less than truly paramount areas of selection criteria - and particularly in the beginning phases of a selection program.

 

[GMT]

Stick,

"But I also know that introducing exceptional to a pool usually can and does increase the mean for the better. "

in the offspring gen, I don't agree. In the offspring generation +1 I agree completely.



Tom, tell me where we are losing that 1% please. How did that 1% that we need, get linked to a trait we don't? I just dont see why you would assume by losing 1 single trait from a population, costs us necessary genes; that I see as being spread throughout the population we are working with. Ok maybe in the first few gens, but after F5 or so, you aren't going to be losing a particular gene by discarding a few undesirable (to some) plants. And yes, I do know the hermi thing can pop up at any time, regardless of the practices of the breeder, but it can also be reduced in frequency. I'm really struggling to see where you're coming from on this. Its not even a disagreement, I can't disagree with what I don't understand.

 

[Tom Hill]

It isn't linked but when when consider the instance of their existence they will often be together regardless of linkage/or any correlation at all. You loose it by narrowing the pool when eliminating these far from rare instances from selection consideration. We may and have thrown many traits by the wayside much faster than 5 gens on the norm. Look at it like this, if I am breeding for insane character or personality, it would not be wise to brush the most extreme examples of that aside, ever not for a moment. Something as simple as blond hair I can overlook for a gen or two and get back no prob, but the former is much more difficult to maintain.

 

[GMT]

if you look historically at mankind, we have lost a lot of traits along the way, or are in the process of losing them. That doesn't mean that a good hearted, hairy backed woman with a tail, should be bred with or the net generation will be bitches. We can find another woman with a good heart, and just help to eliminate hairy backed women with tails from the population for good.
We've talked numbers in another thread, so we know how hard it would be to replicate a special plant perfectly, however the number of plants to pretty much, statistically, be sure of capturing every gene is far far less. so to say that a person could lose vital genes by not using certain plants expressing one thing, doesn't add up to me. I feel it would take many gens just to reduce the occurrence of that one thing still expressing here and there.

 

[Corpsey]

i have only been following the last few pages so excuse my ignorance...

Tom, are you saying that in a breeding program you would include hermis and other undesirables? have you done this before and with what lines?

I understand (because of you) that the gene pool needs to be as diverse as possible with as many as possible, so that goes to include things we think are worth nothing at the moment? but might add to the genes later?

 

[Tom Hill]

Hi Yourcorpse,

Yes, yes, and yes. There are many instances where I have allowed intersex plants in selections and will continue to do so. A couple examples would be me allowing Haze males with a few female flowers into the mix when I was going for the broadest snapshot of the population as I could gather. I allowed the same in a recent North India regeneration via open-pollination. What I prefer to do is cut/top these types back some as to limit their input instead of removing them altogether.

Other examples would be at the beginning and for that matter throughout selections based around elite cuts. I am selfing Trainwreck currently for seed storage and if the nanner here or there bothered me I would not be. Aside from Trainwreck, that list is long in regards to outstanding plants we could not get started with if we were too hung up on all of this.

Likewise during selection cycles, I feel it is a mistake to bypass your most outstanding examples for selection due to the presence of a few intersex flowers, and better to let the scenario play out. It could be that the individual/s we are worried about presents no similar problems in her progeny or family generations she generates thereafter.

This is not to say that I have no problem with intersex plants, but they are only a problem if they give rise to following generations where the problem is such that it is unacceptable, those families should be culled in favor of more acceptable ones. But to bypass for consideration during phenotypic evaluation, your most outstanding individuals due to this when it may or may not even be a problem, and then to not even bother to investigate it further? I think not, or at least it doesn't make very good sense to me.

 

[Corpsey]

thanks, that makes a lot of sense now. you are right, if you have not even looked through the plants progeny how would you know if its a 'problem'.

 

[guineapig]

It is so complex, this topic, I researched it a long time ago in a few plant research journals
and there were at least a dozen genes controlling plant sex and the all interacted with each
other and were turned on and off by environmental factors.

Of course, this is using corn and arabadopsis thaliana to do the genetic sequencing, but I
would assume it holds true for cannabis as well.

kind regards from guineapig

 

[stealthy21]

right. breeding is really in a league of its own. you can run a cross and thats fine and dandy, but to be the one selecting, thats where the genius lies.

i have yet to test my hand and mind and breeding, but Tom, you will be the one i come too probably for my reading. i just love reading. that should help me find a starting ground.

I have actually made some of my own crosses. they are only in f1 state so far, but its a good line to start my playing with.

Slow and Steady wins the race.

 

[Tom Hill]

There is no true female genotypes that is all horseshit lol.

 

[Tom Hill]

This is funny for me that I started this. But yes this is all correct lol. Nspecta you and Sam are wrong and if you look for resinous males you are looking at females and I will stand back and laugh at you.

 

[GMT]

Does 318 and 319 not self contradict?