how much does a male influence the terpene profile of female progeny when out-xing ?

[Collembola]

what I am aiming for is more genetics from that P1 male.

thankyou!!!

i think i got totally blind sighted by the circa 1979 !!! (> sounds speciale), wrongly assuming things again.

 

[Collembola]

i am sooooooo glad i gave myself all those headaches attempting reading about genetics, this is very interesting.

thanks guys.

 

[Collembola]

please can someone help ?:

say you were "looking to observe CBD in f2 generation, using p1 homogenus for THC NLD equatorial sativa x p2 homo for CBD WLD afghani indica"

open pollinated the f1 generation, then took aload of f2 generation to get tested for CBD >

would the plants that yielded the CBD, have traits, identifiable by a botanist to lean towards the indica parent also, probably ?

or can the genes be TOTALLY swapped around (sorry for terminology...) and you have a "completely sativa looking NLD plant", but with CBD ? in the f2, without any signs of WLDs indica being passed with them ?

theoretically speaking,

THANKS!

 

[igrowone]

from my reading of threads on cbd, the only reliable way is through lab testing cbd levels
a human 'sensor' might be good at judging cbd by effect, but that's not how it's being done by breeders

 

[Mustafunk]

Yeah, you will only know about what genes are dominant for each parent plant by testing the progeny. No magic rules here unfortunately, only gene dominances and true-breeding or recessive traits.

Vibes.

 

[Fuel]

Today, you will always find someone to say you that no matter what you do or where you do that ... it's just a cold equation and not plants that eventually you love. IMHO it's just sad.

In the other hand, we all smoke the sames reduced genpool since decades and initially they come in majority from "pollen chunkers". Today anyone who don't want only obtain a bankable holly grail is systematically treated with disrespect and arrogance. Yeah fem, autofem etc... are cool for a large part of the recent generation of growers but making seeds everywhere in every conditions stay the real deal until we all forget it. No matter if you do that in a giant greenhouse or a little closet. You're not supposed or forced to become the best breeder of the world each time you think about it. That's absolutly useless for all of us, the reverse not.

And killing plants is the principle of a selection, born in a personnal choice. And personnal choices are not garanteed 100% successfull, for everything. But in other hand, if you do the things with your hearth as compass you have the garantee to have fun.

Humble example. You love the high of one female that you grow and clone so many times that you're not able to say a number. Problem, her taste is horrible. But you love it enough to have seen her grow in every stage possible, smelling her regulary in your closet, touching the texture of her leafs, trunk ... and many more little things wich have more value in practice than any cold diagram based on pure theorical considerations.

If the taste is horrible and that you're not able to taste some nice weeds in coffeshops or from the setup of your friends, any classic strain will do the job. Let imagine you choose a Skunk and isolate the male wich have the best odor, or maybe the only male you get too.

The improvement will be done at this point. Or the male is sterile lol

Now you have a ton of F1 seeds to launch of a good hybrid for you. The mother have a high that you love and you can recognize her in the offspring like you can recognize a member of your family traits in his offspring. His eyes, his manner to do the things etc ... the father increasing in all case the quality of a bad side that you want to correct.

It's not "maybe", its not "you can't known of you don't launch a million seeds" or "you're not an established breeder so stop to make seeds for yourself". It's "you allready have improved your lovely female". Count on it, if you blend something you get a blend.

When you launch your own F1, you can be proud first then you will face differents situations. And it's not like sending humans to mars or to reverse engineering the space craft of an alien, no. It's just cannabis in a closet.

The first case, an unstable offspring. Well, you're lucky enough. It will be more easy to find your favorite lady, killing all others, and maybe close your little projet on the fly after maybe four or five rounds. It depend on your own will. If the high is too diluted by the male, you can cross a F1 male with your initial lovely female a fews times until the high is back. It was a turn for "nothing", yes, but you improved your initial cut in any case. Next step : find another strain with less skunk in his blood (to stay in the example). At the end of the adventure, with many tries like that over months and years ... you're more sure to obtain a better weed than you never expected before instead getting nothing in doing nothing, for fake reasons.

The second case, a too many stable (like clones) or a very constant panel. If you don't have a luck of leprechaun (in finding on it the exact equilibrum you wanted), you have better to make F2 then retry to find your lady then apply the process of the first case. Until you find your little personnal grail.

Mendel don't have writed god rules, but a methodology. If it can help when you have enough experience on multiple strains and theyr offspring, to sort specimens and increase your accuracy, it can be useless the most of the time for those who don't necessay want be the next Shantibaba of the cannabis history lol

 

[MJPassion]

This may interest you...
DIY CBD TESTING


https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=288029

please can someone help ?:

say you were "looking to observe CBD in f2 generation, using p1 homogenus for THC NLD equatorial sativa x p2 homo for CBD WLD afghani indica"

open pollinated the f1 generation, then took aload of f2 generation to get tested for CBD >

would the plants that yielded the CBD, have traits, identifiable by a botanist to lean towards the indica parent also, probably ?

or can the genes be TOTALLY swapped around (sorry for terminology...) and you have a "completely sativa looking NLD plant", but with CBD ? in the f2, without any signs of WLDs indica being passed with them ?

theoretically speaking,

THANKS!

 

[Collembola]

hehe,

thanks everyone, again,

i was just reffering to the CBD as the theoretical, question because i didn't know how to phrase a question (trying to refer to singular genttic propensity ("cannabinoid allele" (???))), as to the more basic noob orientent ("smell" one prior)

(same question, same answer ? tehehe)

will get working....

currently collecting more fungus gnats then pollen though...

it will be funny when, i don't have any f1 offspring to test, after all of the above.

------

"dank text" though... from you guys!!

------

does this mean also i cannot get ahead of myself with the "genetic bottlenecking too", like theoretical (at this point) s1'in etc ?

i was thinking of s1'ing a f1 then backcrossing to a f2 and looking in there (or something) ?

is that even more stupid then trying to predict the outcome f1 generation, at this point ?

thanks thanks thanks

 

[igrowone]

...
does this mean also i cannot get ahead of myself with the "genetic bottlenecking too", like theoretical (at this point) s1'in etc ?

i was thinking of s1'ing a f1 then backcrossing to a f2 and looking in there (or something) ?

is that even more stupid then trying to predict the outcome f1 generation, at this point ?

thanks thanks thanks

i have(and still) grown out a number of s1's from a f1 plant
likely, you will see no 2 phenotypes alike, or very rarely
though i have been advised by a more experienced grower that it can be an excellent way to introspect the genetics of the f1

 

[Collembola]

i have(and still) grown out a number of s1's from a f1 plant
likely, you will see no 2 phenotypes alike, or very rarely
though i have been advised by a more experienced grower that it can be an excellent way to introspect the genetics of the f1

hehe, and thus further referencing my stupidity, focusing on the p generation and then talking about seemingly vastly different hereditary (?)...

----------------

i read if you s1 a s1, you can start inducing mutations, and also that mutations only generally occur, when the line is way way depleted of things (???).

also (although it would be nice to see more), on a different forum someone posted s1 pictures and there was OBVIOUS loss of vigor, ...for that singular, non-descript example (although it looked very similar to the parent (?))

--------------

does anybody know how much genes of the generation are also carried with the singular plant ?

like if there are nice profiles within generation (IF reccesive / dormant (?) (not typo for change) / whatever.

can they also pop back up ?

i read about plants producing "grandparent" phenos or something ?

> will these probably have dramatically influenced the plant already ?

or can you get much more random outcomes that are not seemingly present in your chosen parents ?

thanks!

 

[Fuel]

i was thinking of s1'ing a f1 then backcrossing to a f2 and looking in there (or something) ?

Selfing, backcrossing or inbred something is an answer to a equilibrum that you want to modify. I mean that in crossing twos specimens (no matter how good you known them, how good you are, how top notch is your conditions etc ...) you generate more problems than solutions. When i mean "problems", it's not a negative point of view. It's just how Mother Nature see the things for every blend of twos equiibrum of gens.

Your goal when you cross something, is to fight the less possible against her and to understand how she solved the individual problems. Not to make the job better that the Nature will do, you're only able to create problems that she solve for you. And as a breeder (let's call everyone a breeder, i hate abstract hierarchy) you're just the form of life that she hate the most. Let pigs, dogs, cannabis and others domestic species free and you can be sure that she will have the last word, destructing millenaries of human work in centuries or less, depending the spanlife of the species and the speed of the turn over. We used to call it "wild", but mendel and darwin have another point of view on it.

Selfing a F1 is not like mounting new wheels on a car. It don't produce an unique result on offspring. First, you can cross the path of some cuts that simply can't be selfed. It's not so common, but it's enough radical to explain you that planning something over the first step is top create more problems that you can usually handle in a practical view of things.

But sefling a cut stay the only manner to generate the less problems possible to solve for mother nature, so the most "human readable" result in certain manner on the range of the specimen. It's like using a binocular. You're totally blind on the big picture, but you can see all the details of a portion.

is that even more stupid then trying to predict the outcome f1 generation, at this point ?

If it was stupid, the very expensive stallions of the best seedbanks will not be the most precious and used cuts they have.

i read if you s1 a s1, you can start inducing mutations, and also that mutations only generally occur, when the line is way way depleted of things (???).
also (although it would be nice to see more), on a different forum someone posted s1 pictures and there was OBVIOUS loss of vigor, ...for that singular, non-descript example (although it looked very similar to the parent (?))

That's way too absolute, because it's highly relative in practice.
If the cut is from an allready washed and "pressurised-as-hell" strain, yes it will occur.
If the cut have a big reservoir, you will able to drive it more long this way.

Just take in count that when you self a cut, it's like applying the result of a bunch of generations of very hardcore selection in one time. I don't mean you will have the same result that a IBL100 in one generation, you use the gens of only one specimen instead 200, but in term of pressure it give you an idea.

does anybody know how much genes of the generation are also carried with the singular plant ?

All gens but in a single variation. In fact in practice you don't really care because you choose to self the specimen at the basis ... it's why i talked about a "binocular" point of view previously.

i read about plants producing "grandparent" phenos or something ?

Yes, the galton thing. But people there are more in the punnet side. I will upload an image of what i consider as a good and affordable synthesis.


With the quote :

"These are that the total heritage of the offspring is derived as
follows. The two parents between them, contribute on the average one
half of each inherited faculty, each of them contributing one quarter
of it. The four grandparents contribute between them one quarter, or
each of them one sixteenth; and so on, the sum of the series ½ + ¼ +
1/8 + 1/16 + &c. being equal to 1, as it should be. It is a property of
this infinite series that each term is equal to the sum of all those that
follow: thus ½ = ¼ + 1/8 + 1/16 + &c.; ¼ = 1 /8 + 1/16 + &c., and so
on. The prepotencies or subpotencies of particular ancestors, in any
given pedigree, are eliminated by a law that deals only with average
contributions, and the varying prepotencies of sex in respect to
different qualities, are also presumably eliminated(fuel : i "bold" this passage because it's in direct relation with the subject of your thread, so take care in considering it). Corrections for these can of course be made in any particular pedigree, taking care
that the corrected series still amounts to 1 exactly." (Galton, Francis. 1898. A diagram of heredity. Nature, 57:293).

At this point it's interresting to known, to digg, but in practice you don't really care about that. Specially if you start from a selfed specimen, on a "binocular" manner to view the things. It's more interresting when you launch handfull of seeds each three days and when you have a large documentaion on every specimens of a fews generations.

In my entire life, i've crossed the path of only one person for wich it was a strategical tool. And it was in dog breeding, not in cannabis lol

It permit me to warn you that i love the 19th century documentation. Because it's more near the rustic manner and conditions that i use that modern ones wich are impossible to follow for me in practice without a top notch genetical lab, tools and very high level of scolar background. I don't really care about gens, because i'm simply unable to see, smell and touch them. Just a warning of my very personnal point of view.

All very educated guys and advanced theoricians will maybe cry as hell, but i dare to say you that if you want to see the past of a strain, no matter the generation you work on, just read in details the 25% group wich is the most far from the entire variation of the seeds you launched and you have your time machine.

will these probably have dramatically influenced the plant already ?

Yes, because the plant is builded with it. It determine the spectrum of the variations posssible if the strain never enter in heterosis.

or can you get much more random outcomes that are not seemingly present in your chosen parents ?

Mother Nature don't see the stabilization as we, as human, see it. I known it's abstract but we see it with our own spanlife, Mother Nature see it as an immortal breeder. It make a very big difference in the point of view of what is "random" or not.

Considering it, if you isolate some specimens wich create more variation than others, you will able to get more types of specimens that the reverse. But to create a genetical big bang is totally in the counter side that using backcrossing and selfing technics.

Well, all of that to say that to have a love affair with a plant in respect of his heritage is much more effiscient that any plan or diagram you can do. Have fun.

 

[Collembola]

really massive THANKYOU for the time taken to write that out!!!

and also commendation for all you guys tossing noobs crumbs!!!

the threads sorted me right out > for ages.

thankyou!