is this how you breed quality genetics?
- Thread starter FRIENDinDEED
- Start date
It's called 'Darwinism' Tony, survival of the fittest iow. When working like that, there will always be a certain logic to the methode.
I don't realy need science to back me up, for I can see it with my own eyes and reasoning.
Atm I am involved with a side project trying to acclimate Cannabis to unadulterated, native, 'Cannabis killing' soil.
I used several tens of thousends of seeds for that per plot, and inspite of pretty much killing them all, there will always be some inferior looking survivors making it into maturity.
Now the funny thing is that some of the offspring of these survivors will get a much better chance at survivel the year thereafter, and even reach maturity in much larger numbers as their predecessors did, and are looking already much better as the original stock.
These baby's had to put up with circumstances that normally would kill about 9.999% of all other Cannabis individuals.
If I now were to grow one of these 'extreme survivors comming from a line of extreme survivors' up under perfect circumstances, they would automaticly become the ones with most vigor & resistence to failure, but not necessarily budding power. (Allthough they will be pretty good at the latter too, but not as good as the niche bred ones growing up in their niche environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding plants under perfect circumstances each plant will enable one to select for the best-plants-under perfect-circumstances.
This is a good thing for if your highest goal to achieve as a breeder is uniformity. (EG. All will be the same cuzz they can't get to perform better as 'the best under perfect circumstances')
A thing that will only come true if they are beeing grown up under perfect, identical circumstances once again.
For sake of diversity, I reckon it is best to keep combining both methodes of breeding on the long run.
No one peticular way is the ultimate best on it's own, & I think that's also what Weird was refering at earlyer on.
I don't realy need science to back me up, for I can see it with my own eyes and reasoning.
Atm I am involved with a side project trying to acclimate Cannabis to unadulterated, native, 'Cannabis killing' soil.
I used several tens of thousends of seeds for that per plot, and inspite of pretty much killing them all, there will always be some inferior looking survivors making it into maturity.
Now the funny thing is that some of the offspring of these survivors will get a much better chance at survivel the year thereafter, and even reach maturity in much larger numbers as their predecessors did, and are looking already much better as the original stock.
These baby's had to put up with circumstances that normally would kill about 9.999% of all other Cannabis individuals.
If I now were to grow one of these 'extreme survivors comming from a line of extreme survivors' up under perfect circumstances, they would automaticly become the ones with most vigor & resistence to failure, but not necessarily budding power. (Allthough they will be pretty good at the latter too, but not as good as the niche bred ones growing up in their niche environment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding plants under perfect circumstances each plant will enable one to select for the best-plants-under perfect-circumstances.
This is a good thing for if your highest goal to achieve as a breeder is uniformity. (EG. All will be the same cuzz they can't get to perform better as 'the best under perfect circumstances')
A thing that will only come true if they are beeing grown up under perfect, identical circumstances once again.
For sake of diversity, I reckon it is best to keep combining both methodes of breeding on the long run.
No one peticular way is the ultimate best on it's own, & I think that's also what Weird was refering at earlyer on.
Last edited:
frito bandito
Member
If you want to breed mite resistant strains then you can do like the Haze breeders did. They had a shed full of nastiness (mold, mildew, pests, etc) where they put plants to test them for resistance to various conditions, and selected only the best. For those of you who have grown haze strains, ever notice how they are some of the hardiest and easiest to grow plants in a variety of conditions? That's cause the breeders had a real breeding program and they put their plants through the gauntlet, not a 600W babysat closet grow.
along this line i am subjecting a couple clones from my hermi spawned cross to light leaks as well as cycle changes w/ no herm expression
according to my notes {yikes} this is my LV cut and my SF cut & neither threw bananas or showed any tendency to herm
a little of weird's environmental testing ~lol
according to my notes {yikes} this is my LV cut and my SF cut & neither threw bananas or showed any tendency to herm
a little of weird's environmental testing ~lol
Glad to see things back on track. Peace GS
Last edited:
wow you're right. i wasn't aware of it going downhill and youre totally right. i don't think i will be able to enjoy it now that you said this but thank you for your well wishes, that is sweet. your contribution here has been exemplary.
peace,
pwf
Whatelse would you expect from a guy calling himself 'Supreme' PWF, lol
I am already getting pretty sick of all these wizzards leveling themselves up and looking down at the average Joe & making them feel like they couldn't ever be as good as they are for their lack of 'supreme' knowledge.
And their attitude Is supposed to be all for the good of our beloved plant right?
Like thanks to what they have studied, now everyone will be able to copy so we'll all get better Cannabis thanks to them?
Sounds like some severe ego mania heading the wrong way if ya ask me.
The thing that's disturbing me most about these wizzards is that they seem to have an agenda on the other side of the coin that's designed to mostly perpetuate their position.^^
I am already getting pretty sick of all these wizzards leveling themselves up and looking down at the average Joe & making them feel like they couldn't ever be as good as they are for their lack of 'supreme' knowledge.
And their attitude Is supposed to be all for the good of our beloved plant right?
Like thanks to what they have studied, now everyone will be able to copy so we'll all get better Cannabis thanks to them?
Sounds like some severe ego mania heading the wrong way if ya ask me.
The thing that's disturbing me most about these wizzards is that they seem to have an agenda on the other side of the coin that's designed to mostly perpetuate their position.^^
Last edited:
How characteristics are inherited across cell or organism generations without changes in the DNA itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SHpfkNRscOc#t=705s
I feel bad for getting this thread "off track" even though, breeding genes, while ignoring their wrappings and histones and methylations actually is different than dealing with just the code of the DNA.
Yet the histones do affect future generations, and are binded to DNA on the cytosine sites and their methylations do affect the DNA, and can be brought about by the developing and cell differentiation of the plant.
Apparently we are telling breeders they're doing something wrong or they think it's funny to breed in an environment which changes it's DNA, rather than breeding them together, it seems the environment also has an effect.
Dealing with AAaa and alle frequency, which is the dominant one and what sets of alles from the genotype are typically dominant within a given phenotype and which are recessive traits in which both plants must exhibit the trait, are more important than the epigenetics.
We were just kind of adding on and not disagreeing at all.
This is some of the elementary stuff we are talking about when breeding, but I think it will help people select their plants.
Of course they could smoke them, but knowing how to backcross generations afterwards to express the main phenotypical trait (mainly chemotype), to introduce those traits of the initial flower to it's following generations that lack that specific phenotypical expression due.
I am going to add to this and apply chemotype selection to cannabis, specifically regarding generations and their inheritance frequency. While many know that, applied to the BT and BD gene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SHpfkNRscOc#t=705s
I feel bad for getting this thread "off track" even though, breeding genes, while ignoring their wrappings and histones and methylations actually is different than dealing with just the code of the DNA.
Yet the histones do affect future generations, and are binded to DNA on the cytosine sites and their methylations do affect the DNA, and can be brought about by the developing and cell differentiation of the plant.
Apparently we are telling breeders they're doing something wrong or they think it's funny to breed in an environment which changes it's DNA, rather than breeding them together, it seems the environment also has an effect.
Dealing with AAaa and alle frequency, which is the dominant one and what sets of alles from the genotype are typically dominant within a given phenotype and which are recessive traits in which both plants must exhibit the trait, are more important than the epigenetics.
We were just kind of adding on and not disagreeing at all.
This is some of the elementary stuff we are talking about when breeding, but I think it will help people select their plants.
Of course they could smoke them, but knowing how to backcross generations afterwards to express the main phenotypical trait (mainly chemotype), to introduce those traits of the initial flower to it's following generations that lack that specific phenotypical expression due.
I am going to add to this and apply chemotype selection to cannabis, specifically regarding generations and their inheritance frequency. While many know that, applied to the BT and BD gene.
Nunsacred
Active member
Yes . Simply "yes".
Set up some opposing environments and select and cross the two.
Then after a few generations, change the environments again trying to keep them opposing.
It's like placing your traits in a circle and centering selection across it.
You get the short term benefits without the long term disasters
of inbreeding traits.
The gene interaction dbs
are where the answers lie
to the question :
what are the opposing environmentals I should select first?
indoor / outdoor
hot/cold
drought/flood
and parallel ones which are crossed together afterwards
eg. acid/alkaline soil can be split into 2 lines
acid/neutral and alkaline/neutral
to get better selection power at both ends.
CrazyKoala
Member
Tom, I like numbers, how is this quantified? Any pointers in the literature? Thanks.
CrazyKoala
Member
This is how I always looked at breeding 'well' to be simple. Can anyone clarify heterozygosity? The bs college undergrad answer for the why of heterosis is incorrectly explained as dominant genes masking undesirable recessive genes.
But what is the truth? What level of difference can we expect between say the best of step 5 above and the best of step 6 above with say ~100 females at each step?
And what are people's practical experience with heterosis as it pertains to cannabis? Yield, maximum potential size, potency, speed of growth? How are these mathematically inter-related?
Also in the above methodology, what is the math for plant count and number of times you repeat the selfing step, and what would be considered 'adequate'? If more selfing to S7-S8, what is the tradeoff? Obviously additional time and resources, and at the intermediate stage, undesired homozygosity on undesired traits, but is there enough separation in the 'families' such that the undesired overlap in taking step 6 will restore heterozygosity?
More simply, how much selfing is ideal for a particular level of selectiveness per step. I'm asking math.
stickshift
Active member
what do you think? he just spewed shit for the hell of it? (He isn't Aardwolf
)https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5681818&postcount=397
Page 169, Allard.
CrazyKoala
Member
Hello CK, always nice to meet an engineer/scientist/mathman of any variety, but particularly a fellow Californian, especially one who can draw a vortex that can be calculated the amount of paint required to cover the exterior while the interior remains infinite. Wonderfully intelligent and well worded post there. But allow me a couple of counter points/questions if you will. Tact is useful, yes, but is conflict not equally as useful in many cases? Particularly when change is the underlying goal? I do not mean to get into some long Hegelian diatribe on the matter but I am still of the opinion that my approach is not unsound at all.
If it's not obvious, I am not as concerned with harmony as I am with what I would refer to as the fringe element of folks out there who have the ability and desire to actually do something good for cannabis and therefore mankind. For that is not a lost cause and pretty much the only avenue/folk worthy of serious engagement imo. I am fully aware that there are many folks who have neither the ability or desire to apply themselves in such a way, but I see no real point in engaging them much more than I would a spinning top, ie for amusement purposes only. After all - the world needs ditch diggers too.
And vagueness is okay in the realm of social context ime, an invitation to further discussion, or not. A gentle poke is much easier to politely let pass on by, or save face as the east might say. Yes, it's a tricky business social interaction, but I'd rather go on record as loosing my cool than to not participate at all. I invite the dismantling of my thoughts, and even occasionally purposely set up that exact exercise
At any rate, coaxed to the surface or otherwise, it is a pleasure to read your thoughts sir, sincerely.-T
Glad to see you back as well. I saw the posts about some 'heat'. Man-- seems people are falling one after another. I suspect it is linked to online activity. Elite, the dawgs, kanga, then patient lists taken, then raids across wa, co, hi, ca. HS and BPG are fighting it to the end, and there is a growing resolve. harmony is indeed important when the greater adversary is active.
My thinking is prohibition will end on their terms when the coffers can make billions off of chemical isolates less effective than the simple plant. bayer buying gw was an indication of what's to come.
there is a race man... and i think we know it's not against the wiki experts. but i can appreciate your tough love mentality as well as your irritation.
btw i was bent on getting a dc cbd line and had the means other than the chunk because my paranoia got me thinking gn-bou had some issue post rez and cdog going down.
but that is me overthinking because there are probably people who buy 1000+ in gear rather than a pack or two. maybe you know other legitimate outfits with TH gear? no go on tude, hbies, hemcy, san, sd, peaks, ivibes.
what is your opinion on the double-faced nature of what is going on? why are they saying one thing and doing another? or is it rogue conservative holdovers from pre-2008?
stay safe. I admire your work. keep it coming. I'm rather new to biology and plants and genetics so I'm learning a lot.
BTW, who said I'm in spanish myth land? I thought I was in Michigan. ;p
Sorry I just read a thread about hawaii and helicopters flying low, and started thinking about the need for proxies and not giving things away. Not that a non-commercial person with state papers has anything to worry about, but you never know because of the politics. seems the political people and the educators are targeted just as much as the guys driving fancy cars are.
CrazyKoala
Member
what do you think? he just spewed shit for the hell of it? (He isn't Aardwolf
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=5681818&postcount=397
Page 169, Allard.
Thanks for that post and link guys. I never read about F.
Definition "knowing" is not a requisite to knowing what you're doing though. Saw a presentation about trifluralin induced DH in grains and immediately appreciated the 1-2 generational jump to homozygousity. A 'friend' has been messing with mixed results with D0 lines without really knowing the lay of the land in terms of definitions. The hard part is the same as the hard part in cloning, which is keeping things clean! 1-2 bad runs where 'my friend' got mold in the rockwool. No more. And no more moldy agar/murashige plates. Now my verbiage is catching up!
CrazyKoala
Member
Mr. Californicus, I'm reading f=2h-1, that is h as the chance of homozygosis (1 being 100%). That would mean F is designed to run between 0 and 1 not 0.5 and 1, is this correct or are there multiple conventions? I'm thinking h = 0.5 indicates heterozygosity, 1 perfect homozygousity correlating to F=0 and F=1 respectively. This all assumes no unpaired genes whatever that is called, and the mutant genes whatever that is called (like red, black and two greens on a roulette table!).
