is this how you breed quality genetics?

[Weird]

have you? if so please do tell what the differences are in that plants progeny... since that IS what we are discussing... breeding, how combining genetics effects the progeny... not how changing the environment effects your clone.

so I ask you... what observations have you made on the differences in progeny as a result of mating the same pair of parents in differing environments?... since that actually WOULD be relevant to the discussion... instead of the fact that you get better traits from certain plants when grown in certain environments (woohoo big deal, everyone knows that )

I'm not discussing the differences in progeny as a result of mating the same pair in different environments and neither are any of the references that I am citing are. What they cite is the benefit of selection of breeding stock within a target environment as well as multiple environmental trials (MET). Yes METs are part of standard breeding nomenclature and programs. I provided references to them below.

As far as testing progeny in multiple environments, yes I also started my my own lines 20 years ago and continue to run them today.

I also have well over 100 multi-light grows to reflect upon for experience. I am simply discussing what I have observed in the course of growing over 20 years in multiple locations with multiple parties involved

My experience is what drives me to my conclusions and I simply look to see if science has concluding data to support it

do you have experiential correlations that have driven you to your conclusions? or are you reading things, and retorting based upon those readings?

why don't TRY to make the same argument with any body involved in agricultural science, collegiate or otherwise and see how much support you get removing the environment from breeding program considerations and report back to us. Call the cornel cooperative and talk to a PHd soil scientist or botanist or any of the professional botany societies. To be honest I doubt you posses that level of integrity

Nongenetic factors on phenotype

https://www.boundless.com/physiolog...tterns--2/nongenetic-factors-on-phenotype--2/

Local adaptation enhances performance of common plant species

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00262.x/abstract?

Use of artificial environments to reproduce and exploit genotype × location interaction for

lucerne in northern Italy

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00122-004-1811-9

A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1017557307800

Genotype-by-environment interactions (GxE) (implications on breeding program strategy)

http://cropscience.ch/?p=669

Approaches for coping with GxE

In general first the means of genotypes per location should be calculated. Those means can then be used in a different model to cope with GxE (two stage analysis, Piepho). In the case of G x E it is usually assumed that both effects are random. Environmental differences are often greater over years than over locations and it can be informative to separate year and location effects in the analysis of variance (Brown and Calgari 2008).


a) ignore it

Calculate the adjusted mean of the genotypes over environments and select the best ones. These genotypes are superior across the target population of environments but might not be the best ones for a specific environment. Thus, the genotypes should be selected for a low variance and a good mean expression.
Example:
The variance and standard error of each variety is calculated in all environments. The variety with the lowest variance is the most stable. On the other hand we need a good mean expression, so first select for a low variance and then for a good mean expression.
a<-tapply(yield,genotype,mean)
b<-tapply(yield,genotype,var)
d<-data.frame(order(-rank(a),rank(b))) # sort for low variance with -
e<- data.frame(x$Entry,d)

b) reduce it

The target environments can be partitioned into smaller, more homogeneous subgroups. Cultivar recommendations are then made separately for each subgroup of environments. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis are useful for partitioning into homogenous subgroups. In general it should be tested if the environments or subgroups are significant different from each other before a separation is applied.
Cluster analysis
While using parametric techniques for measuring stability it is assumed that a quantitative character shows a normal distribution, which may not be true. Parametric measures are relatively more sensitive to errors of measurement and addition or deletion of one or few observations causes great variation in parametric stability measures. Thus it is worthwhile to use non-parametric measures for stability. Clustering of genotypes according to their response structure is a non-parametric approach (Darbeshwar 2000). Create hierarchical groups of environments. Data from performance tests are highly unbalanced because genotypes typically vary from location to location and from year to year. The statistical distance between two locations can be determined from the performance of the subset of genotypes that are grown in both environments. The distance measure is calculated after Ouyang et al. (1995).

, j and j’ are 2 environments, is the mean of all genotypes i, s is the phenotypic standard deviation among all genotypes. When all genotypes in j are also grown in j’, Dij’ can be rewritten as:

where r is the correlation between the performance of the genotypes in environment j and j’. Djj’ is 0 if there if the genotype performance is identical in j and j’. Djj’ is 2 if the correlation between genotype performances in each environment is 0. The maximum of Djj’ of 4 is reached if crossover interactions occur and rjj’ is -1 (Bernardo 2002, p. 157).


Ouyang<- dist(x, method = “Ouyang”, diag = FALSE, upper = FALSE, p = 2)
hpg(dist,x[,1:54])
plot(hpg,main=””)

Several methods are available for joining clusters on the basis of Djj’. Within the unweighted pair-group method (UPGMA) the distance between two clusters is equal to the average distance between an environment in the first cluster and an environment in the second cluster (Bernardo 2002).


Pattern analysis is most useful when the TPE (target population of environments) is very large and diverse, and when researchers do not have a good hypothesis about the causes of GEI. But this is rarely the case- breeders usually have a good hypothesis about the way sites should be grouped on the basis of their characteristics.


Test of fixed environment effects



Additionally sites with similar rainfall patterns, soil types, and depths of standing water accumulation may be grouped for breeding purposes. Usually breeders have a working hypothesis about the most important cause of GEI within the region they serve. For example, the TPE may include both commercial farms where high levels of N are applied and subsistence farms using low levels of N. It is possible to test the hypothesis that there is cultivar x N level interaction in a multi-location cultivar trial by including N level as a fixed factor in a combined analysis of variance. If the G x E (E as the subdivision of environments) is not significant the division of the TPE into countries would not be warranted. In general, we want to subdivide a target region only when we can show that there is real cultivar x region interaction, and that subdivision will increase H.


Principle component analysis


Williams (1952) showed that the least square estimation of regression coefficients in the linear regression approach of GxE interaction was equivalent to extracting the first principal component of the genotypic performance (Darbeshwar 2000). G x E is calculated for n entries in k environments. PCA transforms the data into linear combinations of the original variables. These principle components are uncorrelated with each other. The first principle component accounts for the largest percentage of the variation in the data. If the first two components don’t explain a high percentage of variation, PCA losses much of its usefulness in partitioning environments into homogeneous subgroups.
model<-prcomp(data,scale=TRUE)
summary(model)
biplot(model)

Cluster analysis and PCA can be used as tool for identifying regions and subregions which are closely related.


c) exploit it

Identify cultivars suited to specific environments. Stability analysis provides information on the performance of genotypes as a linear function of the level of productivity in each environment. Multiplicative models aim to identify cultivars best suited to specific environments or to identify subsets of cultivars that do not exhibit crossover interaction.

 

[Tonygreen]

I'm not discussing the differences in progeny as a result of mating the same pair in different environments and neither are any of the references that I am citing are. What they cite is the benefit of selection of breeding stock within a target environment as well as multiple environmental trials (MET). Yes METs are part of standard breeding nomenclature and programs. I provided references to them below.

As far as testing progeny in multiple environments, yes I also started my my own lines 20 years ago and continue to run them today.

I also have well over 100 multi-light grows to reflect upon for experience. I am simply discussing what I have observed in the course of growing over 20 years in multiple locations with multiple parties involved

My experience is what drives me to my conclusions and I simply look to see if science has concluding data to support it

do you have experiential correlations that have driven you to your conclusions? or are you reading things, and retorting based upon those readings?

why don't TRY to make the same argument with any body involved in agricultural science, collegiate or otherwise and see how much support you get removing the environment from breeding program considerations and report back to us. Call the cornel cooperative and talk to a PHd soil scientist or botanist or any of the professional botany societies. To be honest I doubt you posses that level of integrity

Nongenetic factors on phenotype

https://www.boundless.com/physiolog...tterns--2/nongenetic-factors-on-phenotype--2/

Local adaptation enhances performance of common plant species

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00262.x/abstract?

Use of artificial environments to reproduce and exploit genotype × location interaction for

lucerne in northern Italy

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00122-004-1811-9

A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017557307800

Genotype-by-environment interactions (GxE) (implications on breeding program strategy)

http://cropscience.ch/?p=669

Approaches for coping with GxE

In general first the means of genotypes per location should be calculated. Those means can then be used in a different model to cope with GxE (two stage analysis, Piepho). In the case of G x E it is usually assumed that both effects are random. Environmental differences are often greater over years than over locations and it can be informative to separate year and location effects in the analysis of variance (Brown and Calgari 2008).


a) ignore it

Calculate the adjusted mean of the genotypes over environments and select the best ones. These genotypes are superior across the target population of environments but might not be the best ones for a specific environment. Thus, the genotypes should be selected for a low variance and a good mean expression.
Example:
The variance and standard error of each variety is calculated in all environments. The variety with the lowest variance is the most stable. On the other hand we need a good mean expression, so first select for a low variance and then for a good mean expression.
a<-tapply(yield,genotype,mean)
b<-tapply(yield,genotype,var)
d<-data.frame(order(-rank(a),rank(b))) # sort for low variance with -
e<- data.frame(x$Entry,d)

b) reduce it

The target environments can be partitioned into smaller, more homogeneous subgroups. Cultivar recommendations are then made separately for each subgroup of environments. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis are useful for partitioning into homogenous subgroups. In general it should be tested if the environments or subgroups are significant different from each other before a separation is applied.
Cluster analysis
While using parametric techniques for measuring stability it is assumed that a quantitative character shows a normal distribution, which may not be true. Parametric measures are relatively more sensitive to errors of measurement and addition or deletion of one or few observations causes great variation in parametric stability measures. Thus it is worthwhile to use non-parametric measures for stability. Clustering of genotypes according to their response structure is a non-parametric approach (Darbeshwar 2000). Create hierarchical groups of environments. Data from performance tests are highly unbalanced because genotypes typically vary from location to location and from year to year. The statistical distance between two locations can be determined from the performance of the subset of genotypes that are grown in both environments. The distance measure is calculated after Ouyang et al. (1995).
View Image, j and j’ are 2 environments, is the mean of all genotypes i, s is the phenotypic standard deviation among all genotypes. When all genotypes in j are also grown in j’, Dij’ can be rewritten as:
View Image where r is the correlation between the performance of the genotypes in environment j and j’. Djj’ is 0 if there if the genotype performance is identical in j and j’. Djj’ is 2 if the correlation between genotype performances in each environment is 0. The maximum of Djj’ of 4 is reached if crossover interactions occur and rjj’ is -1 (Bernardo 2002, p. 157).


Ouyang<- dist(x, method = “Ouyang”, diag = FALSE, upper = FALSE, p = 2)
hpg(dist,x[,1:54])
plot(hpg,main=””)

Several methods are available for joining clusters on the basis of Djj’. Within the unweighted pair-group method (UPGMA) the distance between two clusters is equal to the average distance between an environment in the first cluster and an environment in the second cluster (Bernardo 2002).


Pattern analysis is most useful when the TPE (target population of environments) is very large and diverse, and when researchers do not have a good hypothesis about the causes of GEI. But this is rarely the case- breeders usually have a good hypothesis about the way sites should be grouped on the basis of their characteristics.


Test of fixed environment effects


Additionally sites with similar rainfall patterns, soil types, and depths of standing water accumulation may be grouped for breeding purposes. Usually breeders have a working hypothesis about the most important cause of GEI within the region they serve. For example, the TPE may include both commercial farms where high levels of N are applied and subsistence farms using low levels of N. It is possible to test the hypothesis that there is cultivar x N level interaction in a multi-location cultivar trial by including N level as a fixed factor in a combined analysis of variance. If the G x E (E as the subdivision of environments) is not significant the division of the TPE into countries would not be warranted. In general, we want to subdivide a target region only when we can show that there is real cultivar x region interaction, and that subdivision will increase H.


Principle component analysis

Williams (1952) showed that the least square estimation of regression coefficients in the linear regression approach of GxE interaction was equivalent to extracting the first principal component of the genotypic performance (Darbeshwar 2000). G x E is calculated for n entries in k environments. PCA transforms the data into linear combinations of the original variables. These principle components are uncorrelated with each other. The first principle component accounts for the largest percentage of the variation in the data. If the first two components don’t explain a high percentage of variation, PCA losses much of its usefulness in partitioning environments into homogeneous subgroups.
model<-prcomp(data,scale=TRUE)
summary(model)
biplot(model)

Cluster analysis and PCA can be used as tool for identifying regions and subregions which are closely related.


c) exploit it

Identify cultivars suited to specific environments. Stability analysis provides information on the performance of genotypes as a linear function of the level of productivity in each environment. Multiplicative models aim to identify cultivars best suited to specific environments or to identify subsets of cultivars that do not exhibit crossover interaction.

^^^^ And that folks is how you breed quality cannabis.

 

[xmobotx]

and c is what has been going on FTMP

the extent of the outdoor data you get from the pros is usually 'finishes early sept outdoors' & we all know that means 'in holland'

which is what i been screaming

your canna growers are molding the environ to the cultivar
& breeders FTMP have been seeing how it does outdoors as an afterthought

seeing as we dont have reams of data and genetic banks to draw from it's not precisely the same as pro breeders engineering vegetable stock

 

[Storm Shadow]

Who's ready 4 a curveball?

Chicken...... Egg.........?

Which came first.....

At some point all this talk becomes Blah Blah Blah without PICS...Pics kind of take away the need to copy and paste a billion words.... let the photos speak for themselves....

BTW I created both the Chicken and Egg after losing a dice game to a Ghost Shrimp

 

[Bag]

ive grown the same plant in different conditions and ya wouldnt even think it was the same plant , and to the above poster that bredding cannabis isnt like breeding vegetables i disagree, breeding everything is the same wether its cats, dogs, people, plants , zombies !

anyhoo, cross the weed ya like, back cross , incross , self, whatever ya want to do , make yer own seeds and keep winning !!

 

[Infinitesimal]

I'm not discussing the differences in progeny as a result of mating the same pair in different environments and neither are any of the references that I am citing are. What they cite is the benefit of selection of breeding stock within a target environment as well as multiple environmental trials (MET). Yes METs are part of standard breeding nomenclature and programs. I provided references to them below.

selecting the same traits among different family pools, across multiple environments does have benefits... I never disputed that... but the only benefit of that is being able to select traits with a high level of prepotency meaning that the progeny will express it's traits across multiple environments and not just a finely tuned "target" environment ...

BUT...

the progeny still have to posses the gene in the first place which means all your (MET) work is all for not if the selected parents aren't homozygous so that each and every one (or at least most) of the progeny have the gene necessary for expression long before the environment has any say in the matter... meaning that the genotypes are of the upmost importance in relation to the environment when it comes to expression NOT THAT the environment is inconsequential just that it is a secondary consideration.

Approaches for coping with GxE

In general first the means of genotypes per location should be calculated. Those means can then be used in a different model to cope with GxE (two stage analysis, Piepho). In the case of G x E it is usually assumed that both effects are random. Environmental differences are often greater over years than over locations and it can be informative to separate year and location effects in the analysis of variance (Brown and Calgari 2008).


a) ignore it

Calculate the adjusted mean of the genotypes over environments and select the best ones. These genotypes are superior across the target population of environments but might not be the best ones for a specific environment. Thus, the genotypes should be selected for a low variance and a good mean expression.
Example:
The variance and standard error of each variety is calculated in all environments. The variety with the lowest variance is the most stable. On the other hand we need a good mean expression, so first select for a low variance and then for a good mean expression.
a<-tapply(yield,genotype,mean)
b<-tapply(yield,genotype,var)
d<-data.frame(order(-rank(a),rank(b))) # sort for low variance with -
e<- data.frame(x$Entry,d)

b) reduce it

The target environments can be partitioned into smaller, more homogeneous subgroups. Cultivar recommendations are then made separately for each subgroup of environments. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis are useful for partitioning into homogenous subgroups. In general it should be tested if the environments or subgroups are significant different from each other before a separation is applied.
Cluster analysis
While using parametric techniques for measuring stability it is assumed that a quantitative character shows a normal distribution, which may not be true. Parametric measures are relatively more sensitive to errors of measurement and addition or deletion of one or few observations causes great variation in parametric stability measures. Thus it is worthwhile to use non-parametric measures for stability. Clustering of genotypes according to their response structure is a non-parametric approach (Darbeshwar 2000). Create hierarchical groups of environments. Data from performance tests are highly unbalanced because genotypes typically vary from location to location and from year to year. The statistical distance between two locations can be determined from the performance of the subset of genotypes that are grown in both environments. The distance measure is calculated after Ouyang et al. (1995).
View Image, j and j’ are 2 environments, is the mean of all genotypes i, s is the phenotypic standard deviation among all genotypes. When all genotypes in j are also grown in j’, Dij’ can be rewritten as:
View Image where r is the correlation between the performance of the genotypes in environment j and j’. Djj’ is 0 if there if the genotype performance is identical in j and j’. Djj’ is 2 if the correlation between genotype performances in each environment is 0. The maximum of Djj’ of 4 is reached if crossover interactions occur and rjj’ is -1 (Bernardo 2002, p. 157).


Ouyang<- dist(x, method = “Ouyang”, diag = FALSE, upper = FALSE, p = 2)
hpg(dist,x[,1:54])
plot(hpg,main=””)

Several methods are available for joining clusters on the basis of Djj’. Within the unweighted pair-group method (UPGMA) the distance between two clusters is equal to the average distance between an environment in the first cluster and an environment in the second cluster (Bernardo 2002).


Pattern analysis is most useful when the TPE (target population of environments) is very large and diverse, and when researchers do not have a good hypothesis about the causes of GEI. But this is rarely the case- breeders usually have a good hypothesis about the way sites should be grouped on the basis of their characteristics.


Test of fixed environment effects



Additionally sites with similar rainfall patterns, soil types, and depths of standing water accumulation may be grouped for breeding purposes. Usually breeders have a working hypothesis about the most important cause of GEI within the region they serve. For example, the TPE may include both commercial farms where high levels of N are applied and subsistence farms using low levels of N. It is possible to test the hypothesis that there is cultivar x N level interaction in a multi-location cultivar trial by including N level as a fixed factor in a combined analysis of variance. If the G x E (E as the subdivision of environments) is not significant the division of the TPE into countries would not be warranted. In general, we want to subdivide a target region only when we can show that there is real cultivar x region interaction, and that subdivision will increase H.


Principle component analysis


Williams (1952) showed that the least square estimation of regression coefficients in the linear regression approach of GxE interaction was equivalent to extracting the first principal component of the genotypic performance (Darbeshwar 2000). G x E is calculated for n entries in k environments. PCA transforms the data into linear combinations of the original variables. These principle components are uncorrelated with each other. The first principle component accounts for the largest percentage of the variation in the data. If the first two components don’t explain a high percentage of variation, PCA losses much of its usefulness in partitioning environments into homogeneous subgroups.
model<-prcomp(data,scale=TRUE)
summary(model)
biplot(model)

Cluster analysis and PCA can be used as tool for identifying regions and subregions which are closely related.


c) exploit it

Identify cultivars suited to specific environments. Stability analysis provides information on the performance of genotypes as a linear function of the level of productivity in each environment. Multiplicative models aim to identify cultivars best suited to specific environments or to identify subsets of cultivars that do not exhibit crossover interaction.

notice how often these quotations mention genotype selection? that is all I gave been saying the whole time... though the examples still are only detailing ways to select and improve upon prepotency... which is completely subject to weather or not homozygosity was first established, so therefore prepotency is secondary to stably producing the right gene frequency among a population for expression in any given environment...

also I find it ironically funny that you mention your reverence for DJ and his strains, since the value in DJ's strains are their genotype... not their frequency of expression across multiple environments. Then you are championing (MET) like it is the end all say all... which DJ's lines are likely the least prepotent and such do NOT express themselves well across multiple environments... so I doubt DJ used much (MET) and if he did his strains didn't perform well, and is why his strains need such a specific environment to thrive... it seems kind of contradictory on your part, do you value DJ's strains or only strains that stably express themselves across multiple environments?

As far as testing progeny in multiple environments, yes I also started my my own lines 20 years ago and continue to run them today.

I also have well over 100 multi-light grows to reflect upon for experience. I am simply discussing what I have observed in the course of growing over 20 years in multiple locations with multiple parties involved

My experience is what drives me to my conclusions and I simply look to see if science has concluding data to support it

do you have experiential correlations that have driven you to your conclusions? or are you reading things, and retorting based upon those readings?

why don't TRY to make the same argument with any body involved in agricultural science, collegiate or otherwise and see how much support you get removing the environment from breeding program considerations and report back to us. Call the cornel cooperative and talk to a PHd soil scientist or botanist or any of the professional botany societies.

since you have things so well figured out, and have been breeding for 20 plus years... where are your strains... where are all your accolades... what do you have to show for all this work and experience you have... where are your consistent quality results, how come I never see anyone growing "Weird Genetics?"

To be honest I doubt you posses that level of integrity

way to go weird, this is the type of stuff I have begun to expect from you...

can't out debate so, you must resort to questioning my integrity as if that is pertinent to the discussion or that you know anything about me, my situation or my integrity... and nope I wouldn't "Call the cornel cooperative and talk to a PHd soil scientist or botanist or any of the professional botany societies" I am just a simple passionate cannabis enthusiast who reads a couple books every now and then... and I doubt many in professional botany societies or Ph'd soil scientists have spent much time researching cannabis so I don't know what contacting them would prove anyways... but "good effort" to undermine my opinion... xD

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

but since you likely don't know shit about me... here is what I have done, recently...
​

I didn't use (MET) I simply chose strains that I knew were fairly homogenous and showed high gene frequency for quality alleles then proceeded to select individuals that I believed would pass on my desired traits... here are the progeny grown by different individuals across "multiple environments."

My Sour Purple Grown by Lubdanugs, organically in a tent under 400w HPS with little to no variation among smell taste potency and effects with minimal variation among growth structure and yield

My Sour Purple @ day 60 grown by Disco Biscuit, chemically in party cups inside a cabinet under 150wHPS with similar variations in structure yield and appearance

My China Syndrome @day 57 grown by Disco Biscuit, chemically in party cups inside a cabinet under 150wHPS, only phenotype grown

^^ here is a link to these China Syndrome/Sour Purple test grows

My China Syndrome @ 4 weeks grown by Third Coast, not sure if he is organic or synthetic, in Coco Under 1150w Gavitas in a sealed room with Co2... so far the only pheno far enough along

My China Syndrome, from my torture test grow @ around 60 days, grown organically under a 1000w 6.4K sun pulse bulb, root bound under fertilized, heat stressed... still each pheno was covered in resin, was potent and shared the similarities in smell and taste that I had planned for

they all are pretty damned stable for the traits I selected, resin production, potency, and a spectrum of certain smells and taste (though smell and taste involve and traverse many many genes so it is a little less proponent for that trait) across a range of environments.


FUCK WITH ME NOW!

I see YOU talk a lot and all I have seen you post was some "Shire" cutting of SSSDH which was grown very well but that doesn't show me anything about your breeding talents or understanding... now again, I ask, Where are the results of your breeding... who has grown any of your shit?

but go ahead, continue to babble on and on about your understanding of breeding methodology while slandering others about their lack of application, lol man... to funny

 

[Tonygreen]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
I didn't use (MET) I simply chose strains that I knew were fairly homogenous and showed high gene frequency for quality alleles then proceeded to select individuals that I believed would pass on my desired traits...[/FONT]

THAT IS HOW YOU BREED QUALITY GENETICS

/end thread

 

[xmobotx]

breeding everything is the same

well, thats accurate but not precise~

which is what i said not precisely the same

i m ref'n the diff between having the data set and genetic bank that vegetable breeders work from

if you think underground breeding of cannabis is precisely the same as that, you are grossly oblivious to what that entails

perhaps, and hopefully; one day we will have those kinds of resources @ hand as canna breeders

not today though

 

[Infinitesimal]

I know; it's the consummate argument environment vs genetics ~it's far older than us or anyone else living today ~i just dont see why we cant separate it into a complimentary distinguished convo and hash out the genetics stuff here minus the environ arguments

yes, the old chicken and egg...

Who's ready 4 a curveball?

Chicken...... Egg.........?

Which came first.....

I was actually going to pitch this to myself for the sake of discussion...

the whole which came first the chicken or the egg question is fundamentally a function of ignorance and likely originally thought up from some theologian trying to prove creation... as anyone scientifically inclined and or with a brief understanding of evolution knows that, it is a silly question and, the egg came first...

since the chicken is a domestic bird variety selectively bred from the wild asian jungle fowl, so through breeding the genes present in the jungle fowl... the egg, the genotype, for chickens was created before the phenotypic expression we call chicken was stabilized into a breed of its own...

and we should all be aware that all modern birds evolved from the family of theropod dinosaurs. so again the egg came first...

genes rule and dictate the effect that environment can have on expression in the first place...​

there really is no logically sound argument for the contrary.

 

[Infinitesimal]

and c is what has been going on FTMP

the extent of the outdoor data you get from the pros is usually 'finishes early sept outdoors' & we all know that means 'in holland'

which is what i been screaming

your canna growers are molding the environ to the cultivar
& breeders FTMP have been seeing how it does outdoors as an afterthought

seeing as we dont have reams of data and genetic banks to draw from it's not precisely the same as pro breeders engineering vegetable stock

precisely it is the cultivators job to do the research on the genetics they buy in order to figure out the best environment in which to raise the specific genotype in order to coax the most desirable phenotypic expression from it...

it's not the breeders job to make the desirable phenotype express it's self according to the environment of the cultivator... if it were DJ would probably be considered the WORST breeder (which of course he is not, and is closer to one of the best) since his expressions are much more difficult to find in most average environments where special considerations for the genotype are not taken into account.

 

[Weird]

some seeds (03' stock)

seed runs from seed stock I bred

 

[Bag]

weird genes , edit ; might be a lil leafy but its some of the best shit in the world !

 

[Weird]

Here is a picture of a friend and student picture is circa 98', hes on his 3rd-rth grow, pictured with him are afghan and northern lights lines I worked from bagseed (as was the strains posted before) as well as sensi's nl5xhaze, hawain indica, silver haze and jack flash

 

[Weird]

just some of the secondary metabolite production the strain posted above put out

 

[gloryoskie]

Clearly we all know who the breeders are. Lets work on low
prices and stable genetics, still.

I really don't mind 100US for a 10 pack, but germ rates at 60%
and a different pheno each seed?

And don't tell me my shit's not dialed in.

Please.

 

[Infinitesimal]

I prefer trichome stalks to be shorter with a gland on each trichome and larger glandular heads... over an abundance of long stalked trichomes with small or no glandular head

 

[Weird]

selecting the same traits among different family pools, across multiple environments does have benefits... I never disputed that... but the only benefit of that is being able to select traits with a high level of prepotency meaning that the progeny will express it's traits across multiple environments and not just a finely tuned "target" environment ...

no, it is one or the other, I posted many references in this thread to studies and proven scientific breeding methods stating that cultivars for a local environment outperform those that work across multiple environments thus new methods in breeding such as participatory breeding programs for low input organic farming systems.

BUT...

the progeny still have to posses the gene in the first place which means all your (MET) work is all for not if the selected parents aren't homozygous so that each and every one (or at least most) of the progeny have the gene necessary for expression long before the environment has any say in the matter... meaning that the genotypes are of the upmost importance in relation to the environment when it comes to expression NOT THAT the environment is inconsequential just that it is a secondary consideration.

your mixing breeding methods

A) MET is a standard of traditional farming methods

B) modern breeding read genes to assure homogeneity/heterogeneity

the only way 99% of the breeders who have brought the cannabis genome to where it is now did it using traditional farming methods not by reading genes and alleles

notice how often these quotations mention genotype selection? that is all I gave been saying the whole time... though the examples still are only detailing ways to select and improve upon prepotency...

which is completely subject to weather or not homozygosity was first established, so therefore prepotency is secondary to stably producing the right gene frequency among a population for expression in any given environment...

how do YOU test YOUR genotypes? gene marker tech or through performance in a given environment?

how do YOU test YOUR progeny for homozygosity? gene marker tech or through performance in a given environment?

See I don't use gene market tech, I test my progeny by running them in a target environment and using my senses.

also I find it ironically funny that you mention your reverence for DJ and his strains, since the value in DJ's strains are their genotype... not their frequency of expression across multiple environments.

Because you take the context of what I say and distort it

I mentioned DJ's work because of the environmental sensitivities some of his lines posses.

I bet if it were that easy to separate the traits he wanted from the ones that caused some of his consumer base difficulties he would. Maybe if those people understood g x e = p they would be able to see the value in his gear that others do

Then you are championing (MET) like it is the end all say all...

Really? I mentioned it in this thread since it is part of formal traditional breeding programs and collegiate studies. Once again I posted plenty of references.

The original question (which I gave all the scientific data to compute) was what is the effect of environment on phenotype expression because while traits are genetically predetermined they are expressed because of their environment

if you doubt me then try to grow pot in a closet with 24 hour darkness in medium with no water and tell me how the genes are responsible for everything

in certain environments traits are expressed in greater frequency and or to a greater extent, the converse is also true

this is not an assumption on my part but intermediate collegiate plant breeding program required education (and yes I have posted it as a reference here are well)

which DJ's lines are likely the least prepotent and such do NOT express themselves well across multiple environments...

how much of his work have you grown compared to how much of his work done by other people you have read?

so I doubt DJ used much (MET) and if he did his strains didn't perform well, and is why his strains need such a specific environment to thrive... it seems kind of contradictory on your part, do you value DJ's strains or only strains that stably express themselves across multiple environments?

your confusing yourself by assuming. First if you want to know about DJ read DJ's articles on breeding, selection, environment and strains. I am stating my experience with his stock and what as I see as a failing with others who try to run it.

DJ's work is GENIUS as is the man. Many people find in DJ's work what they cannot find elsewhere. No one has more stable offerings of the genetic stock he posses for a reason.

since you have things so well figured out, and have been breeding for 20 plus years... where are your strains...

My strains are in STILL in my closet, and I have been given access to most elites, grown a bunch and got most of them to express to full potential. guess how many still make rotation?

where are all your accolades... what do you have to show for all this work and experience you have...

My accolades came well before I came online, but they aren't exactly public, my guess is it has something to do with prohibition

where are your consistent quality results, how come I never see anyone growing "Weird Genetics?"

just because you have an egotistical attachment to breeding doesn't mean I do. I never paid for a bean in my life or a cut. NOR have I ever charged for any genes I held. Not my vibe.

I think the need for people to have access to medicine is more important than the money and while I can't produce and give out meds for people I can certainly help people help themselves. I try to keep it to the real world tho, too many fakes, phonies, flakes and fly by nights online.

way to go weird, this is the type of stuff I have begun to expect from you...
can't out debate so, you must resort to questioning my integrity as if that is pertinent to the discussion or that you know anything about me, my situation or my integrity... and nope I wouldn't "Call the cornel cooperative and talk to a PHd soil scientist or botanist or any of the professional botany societies" I am just a simple passionate cannabis enthusiast who reads a couple books every now and then... and I doubt many in professional botany societies or Ph'd soil scientists have spent much time researching cannabis so I don't know what contacting them would prove anyways... but "good effort" to undermine my opinion... xD

you do lack integrity.

You spent several posts trying to argue that environment does not effect selection in a breeding program, I simply stated my point and posted scientific data to support it.

you denied it and instead of countering with any scientific body of evidence you simply regurgitated the same misinformation. That is when I suggested you try arguing the same point with professionals in the field.

When I do you claim that science isn't your forte when in fact you spent enough time extolling the virtues of homogeneous/heterogeneous genes as if you had a command of breeding science.

but since you likely don't know shit about me... here is what I have done, recently...

i know too much already

I didn't use (MET) I simply chose strains that I knew were fairly homogenous and showed high gene frequency for quality alleles then proceeded to select individuals that I believed would pass on my desired traits...

how are genes "fairly" homogenous?

Do you mean that you are testing homogenity in your progeny by testing them in a single environment and judging them on physical phenotype?

If you understood genetic homogeneity/heterogeneity and G+ E = P you would know that your plants can appear physically homogenous in one environment and appear completely different in another, thus the necessity to test in various environments for homogeneity in you are not testing using modern breeding tech.

Need pictures to show you what I am talking about? Got plenty.

here are the progeny grown by different individuals across "multiple environments."

My Sour Purple Grown by Lubdanugs, organically in a tent under 400w HPS with little to no variation among smell taste potency and effects with minimal variation among growth structure and yield
View Image

My Sour Purple @ day 60 grown by Disco Biscuit, chemically in party cups inside a cabinet under 150wHPS with similar variations in structure yield and appearance
View Image

My China Syndrome @day 57 grown by Disco Biscuit, chemically in party cups inside a cabinet under 150wHPS, only phenotype grown
View Image
^^ here is a link to these China Syndrome/Sour Purple test grows

My China Syndrome @ 4 weeks grown by Third Coast, not sure if he is organic or synthetic, in Coco Under 1150w Gavitas in a sealed room with Co2... so far the only pheno far enough along
View Image

My China Syndrome, from my torture test grow @ around 60 days, grown organically under a 1000w 6.4K sun pulse bulb, root bound under fertilized, heat stressed... still each pheno was covered in resin, was potent and shared the similarities in smell and taste that I had planned for
View Image

they all are pretty damned stable for the traits I selected, resin production, potency, and a spectrum of certain smells and taste (though smell and taste involve and traverse many many genes so it is a little less proponent for that trait) across a range of environments.


FUCK WITH ME NOW!

lol seriously? fuck with you now? your doing a good enough job on your own. are YOUR breeding and testing methods TH approved or just your scientific commentary?

btw whose gear did you use to start your seed company?

I see YOU talk a lot and all I have seen you post was some "Shire" cutting of SSSDH which was grown very well but that doesn't show me anything about your breeding talents or understanding... now again, I ask, Where are the results of your breeding... who has grown any of your shit?

I reaped the benefits from the results of my breeding in the real world and well before the internet and continue to this day.

but go ahead, continue to babble on and on about your understanding of breeding methodology while slandering others about their lack of application, lol man... to funny

I never slandered you about your application, I simply said that environment matters and is a factor in breeding programs and to remove it as a factor is meaningless in real life discussions

I couldn't give a fuck about how you do or what you do. Your the one with an agenda to dispute a point that doesn't hold water in the academic world, by educated professionals or otherwise, which is why I suggested to talk to scientists instead of arguing with me.

 

[bluntmassa]

Tom and Chimera understand not only everything that has been done, but also why it succeeded, and everything that should be done from here on out. Not that clown that is yapping about GSC, not that clown that bred your favorite what the fuck ever, and not you, understand wtf is going on with any of this if this is your input. We can have a 20 minute conversation with you and turn you into a pot-star. But you seem to want to cling desperately, to avoiding that whole conversation altogether. Why? And no, you have no clue now, make zero mistake, this is exactly where you are starting. Okay then, go.

I'm down with the 20 minute conversation I'll bring the bud although yours is probably better I can always grab the beers. I don't know why theirs so much shit talk on you and Chimera's forums I love hearing what real breeders have to say but then you got the know it all's that may have read a book on breeding but never produced anything special.

 

[Infinitesimal]

Weird, I grow my plants in the vacuum of space to completely avoid environmental inputs whats so ever, seriously this is getting fucking stupid... to the umpteenth degree... if you are going to read my comments do it correctly before you respond...

my "agenda" as you so hyperbole describe is simply to help inform people... others have no problem understanding me... it is you who, is misunderstanding me and create circular arguments most times when I am not even in disagreement with some of what you are saying... you are finding meaning that isn't there and then arguing with it... its kinda ummm, Weird!

I never said, that environment doesn't effect selection... you must have the reading comprehension level of a 2nd grader.... I essentially said... that it's just the tip of the iceberg... one needs to grow out the progeny to determine the homozygosity of the parents... but I am sure you will twist this to mean what ever the fuck you want it to so you can argue... I'm tired of it, it was never fun, and now its just fucking old... seeing you respond saying I said this and that when it is all in your mind...it is tiring I don't have time to play your games...


please, stop reading my posts and go back to reading the mottling on your seeds

if it comes to it I will just leave the thread... and everyone can listen the gospel of "weird"... It doesn't effect me in the least

 

[xmobotx]

yeah i gave up on it too