is this how you breed quality genetics?

[Only Ornamental]

...
I just finished watching this video... very insightful and very helpful. it tickles my brain and makes me want to go back to school. He talks about and shows how gene sequencing and marker assisted selection by way of various molecular methods, can actually identify linked genes then using the sequencing/mapping to select plants which contain the marker gene that is known to be linked to the desirable trait... then use proven breeding methods to cross and work the lines toward homozygosity (ideally using gene marker techs each step of the way) and notice that even with all these high tech advantages he still mentions HUGE populations .... but obviously this kind of stuff goes way way way beyond the scope of probably 99.99999999% of people interested in playing with cannabis genetics.
....

I know quite a bit in general but as good as nothing when it comes to hands on plant breeding and especially cannabis breeding .

There are soooo many stories and tales about hollow stems, purpling and so on which allegedly are linked to potency and alike that I still wonder if one of these 'byproduct phenotypes' could actually serve as visible marker and not just a molecular marker (i.e. invisible to the naked eye) as you mentioned it above. There are always some linked but unrelated traits (at least for some time) and drawing a rudimentary gene map with the poor man's markers should also be possible (but maybe not useful).
One huge problem I see with the scientific approach, besides time and space, are costs. Unless you're one of the dozen or so top selling seed banks, you don't get enough money from seed sells alone... and selling weed only work for a very few.

 

[rhinoman 1]

Hey Only Ornamental, Most of them stories are just that stories to boost there egos or there seed sales. Nothing beats experience when breeding cannabis whether it's through observation or science.

 

[Infinitesimal]

There are soooo many stories and tales about hollow stems, purpling and so on which allegedly are linked to potency and alike that I still wonder if one of these 'byproduct phenotypes' could actually serve as visible marker and not just a molecular marker (i.e. invisible to the naked eye) as you mentioned it above. There are always some linked but unrelated traits (at least for some time) and drawing a rudimentary gene map with the poor man's markers should also be possible (but maybe not useful).

IDK, I would have to think that like rudimentary maps of the earth... they would be inaccurate/unreliable at best... if not just wrong.

Hey Only Ornamental, Most of them stories are just that stories to boost there egos or there seed sales. Nothing beats experience when breeding cannabis whether it's through observation or science.

it works similar to putting people down to make yourself feel better, if you can tell someone something they didn't know (whether it's true or not), they might just think you are smarter then they are... and therefor an expert on the subject. When its really just the blind leading the blind.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Hey Only Ornamental, Most of them stories are just that stories to boost there egos or there seed sales. Nothing beats experience when breeding cannabis whether it's through observation or science.

True, most of them... but quite a few (maybe not in the field of cannabis, dunno) have a grain of truth to them. Finding that grain would be the trick .
Besides, these observations you mentioned, aren't they the 'markers' I was speaking of? As much as I love science, it's only a means a very few can afford. The others are stuck with everyday items and what nature gave them; six, maybe seven senses, a mind to experiment with, and some 'kitchen chemistry' from the grocery stores. All it takes, is a bit of MacGyver spirit to make it work . IMHO we, the pollen chuckers, should more focus on this sort of 'borderline science' than on molecular biology because it's all we've got. The old ways aren't not always bad or obsolete. After all, many of the great discoveries and inventions in the past were achieved that way.
As long as we don't really understand cannabis from a scientific point of view all the talk about genetic (which is only half of the truth), reverse breeding (which for now is only a proof of concept anyway), mono- and sesquiterpene profiles (sadly, many talk about 'turpines' whatever that should be), the entourage effect (which remains to be proven), and I could go on like that, is just wasted time. We should put realism first, else it'll be like talk about a manned mission to Mars when we could plan our vacations on another continent instead .

IDK, I would have to think that like rudimentary maps of the earth... they would be inaccurate/unreliable at best... if not just wrong.
...

Good comparison! I think for the 'daily home breeder', rudimentary is better than nothing. Think about it, 300 years back it got people to Africa and Asia on a relatively frequent basis... and it got them to America too, although at first not on purpose... LoL

 

[rhinoman 1]

So what your sayin is genetics breeding techniques environmental factors are all markers.

 

[Only Ornamental]

So what your sayin is genetics breeding techniques environmental factors are all markers.

Please take no offence. I'm saying that in case English is your mother tongue rudimentary skills in grammar and punctuation or, if you're writing in a foreign language, a working auto-correction or spell check app are mandatory for a proper conversation. Worst case, ask someone to countercheck or help you translate .
See, I have no clue what you're asking... all I can comment is that environmental factors, markers, and breeding techniques have nothing to do with each other.

 

[rhinoman 1]

Hey only ornamental, no offense taken. You said "besides , theses observations I mentioned ain't they the markers you were speaking of".

 

[rhinoman 1]

. all I can comment is that environmental factors, markers, and breeding techniques have nothing to do with each other.

They do if you were going to recreate let's say sk1 .

 

[Only Ornamental]

I suppose you understand something else under the term 'marker' than I do .
A marker can be a trait (a visible 'difference') or something on the molecular level (often a protein or a secondary metabolite) which is on one hand easy accessible/measurable and on another indicative for the trait, gene or whatever you really seek but can't directly measure/determine/quantify or only with a lot of efforts or costs. The marker you measure and the gene/disease/trait you're truly interested in are simply somehow linked but it doesn't matter why and how.
As purely artificial examples: A hollow stem could be a marker for a higher THC content, a high Brix value for a dense trichome coverage, or phosphodiesterase expression for disease resistance. As said, this three examples are bollocks.
I was initially talking about visible markers whilst Infinitesimal was talking about molecular markers but both of us were talking about markers which is basically the same .

If you tried to recreate Skunk #1, you'd fail LoL . Theoretically, you could do it but you'd had to know the complete genome of the variety to imitate and of your new breeding stock. But even than, non-genomic factors play a role too and due a lack in understanding and technology can not yet be designed like you can remove or insert virtually any gene you wanted. Where the environment fits in, I can't see and breeding techniques are always breeding techniques, no matter the weather or the variety you're dealing with.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Idukki 1983, thanks to RSC btw
See the different pheno's

Keep on growing

 

[The Revolution]

Really there is some good discussion in here, I will continue reading in the morning. Thanks to Chimera, TomHill, any others that have contributed, in an attempt to clear up/make sense of modern day breeding and/or lack there of.

 

[RedSoloCup]

https://archive.org/stream/TheBiotechnologyOfCannabisSativa2ndEdition/The_Biotechnology_of_Cannabis_sativa_2nd_edition_djvu.txt

I'm sure theres some good info in this if anyone is willing to dig. Great thread here btw.

 

[rykus]

Reading through these "breeding" threads the last few days has been painful.... some great info mixed in but the level of bullshit is unprecedented in any breeding forums i've seen except maybe dog breeder forums.

Glad to see a few people persevere through the onslaught of uneducated opinion based "facts" to spread a little knowledge and truth, but even with my limited genetic reading and time/space dedicated to strain preservation i was shaking my head.

I would love to see a thread where some of the few breeders that actually work IBL's show a few steps and % numbers when first starting a new line. glad to see I atleast got some of the steps right in my own program, but also seeing that as my own % has shown me if I really want to get my x's to strains I will have to step up the test crosses, and really write down my results a little more systematically.

I swore off strains from seed banks in the mid 90's, and have been working solely on preserving local heritage seeds and clone only strains I recieve as a commercial producer.... but I'm ready to get serious so thanks to the few that have helped....

Just going to throw it out there though that I will be breeding for people that hopefully can grow, and have somewhat stable indoor rooms so environmental aspects of breeding shouldn't be an issue

 

[Vital]

The people in the business want you to think it's a lot harder than it really is. There is more than one way to skin a cat and I can show you 10 different successful seed breeders or seed makers as I call them that use 10 different methods. Take lot's of notes, label everything and follow your passion, you'll be fine and it's much easier than you think. It's time consuming but well worth it if you're passionate about it.