What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Chimera on the Myth of Cubing

Octavian

Member
Hi folks, it's been awhile since I've seen this excellent bit of advice from Chimera, one of the most knowledgeable gents in the biz, so I'm reposting it for those who can benefit from it. Enjoy!

Chimera
loose cannon

Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 960
Overgrow Sponsor

Hi Beast

you’ve just discovered the biggest myth (IMNSHO) of marijuana breeding- it is a mistake that almost EVERYONE makes (including many of the most respected breeders!).

Backcrossing will not stabilize a strain at all- it is a technique that SHOULD be used to reinforce or stabilize a particular trait, but not all of them.

For e.g.- G13 is a clone, which I would bet my life on is not true breeding for every, or even most traits- this means that it is heterozygous for these traits- it has two alleles (different versions of a gene). No matter how many times you backcross to it, it will always donate either of the two alleles to the offspring. This problem can be compounded by the fact that the original male used in the cross (in this case hashplant) may have donated a third allele to the pool- kinda makes things even more difficult!

So what does backcrossing do?
It creates a population that has a great deal of the same genes as the mother clone. From this population, if enough plants are grown, individuals can be chosen that have all the same traits as the mother, for use in creating offspring that are similar (the same maybe) as the original clone.
Another problem that can arise is this- there are three possibilities for the expression of a monogenic (controlled by one gene pair) trait.

We have dominant, recessive, and co-dominant conditions.

In the dominant condition, genotypically AA or Aa, the plants of these genotypes will look the same (will have the same phenotype, for that trait).

Recessive- aa will have a phenotype

Co-dominant- Aa- these plants will look different from the AA and the aa.

A perfect example of this is the AB blood types in humans:

Type A blood is either AA or AO
Type B blood is either BB or BO
Type AB blood is ONLY AB
Type O blood is OO.

In this case there are three alleles (notated A, B, and O respectively).

If the clone has a trait controlled by a co-dominant relationship- i.e. the clone is Aa (AB in the blood example) we will never have ALL plants showing the trait- here is why:

Suppose the clone mother is Aa- the simplest possibility is that the dad used contributes one of his alleles,
let us say A. That mean the boy being use for the first backcross is either AA or Aa. We therefore have two possibilities:

1) If he is AA- we have AA X Aa- 50% of the offspring are AA, 50% are Aa. (you can do the punnett square to prove this to yourself).

In this case only 50% of the offspring show the desired phenotype (Aa genotype)!

2) If the boy being used is Aa- we have Aa X Aa (again do the punnett square) this gives a typical F2 type segregation- 25% AA, 50% Aa, and 25% aa.
This shows that a co-dominant trait can ONLY have 50% of the offspring showing the desired trait (Aa genotype) in a backcross.

If the phenotype is controlled by a dominant condition- see example #1- all 100% show the desired phenotype, but only 50% will breed true for it.

If the phenotype is controlled by a recessive condition- see example #2- only 25% will show the desired phenotype, however if used for breeding these will all breed true if mated to another aa individual.

Now- if the original dad (hashplant) donates an 'a' allele, we only have the possibilities that the offspring, from which the backcross boy will be chosen, will be either Aa or aa.
For the Aa boy, see #2.
For the aa boy (an example of a test cross, aa X Aa) we will have:
50% aa offspring (desired phenotype), and 50% Aa offspring.

Do you see what is happening here? Using this method of crossing to an Aa clone mother, we can NEVER have ALL the offspring showing the desired phenotype! Never! Never ever ever! Never!! LOL

The ONLY WAY to have all the offspring show a Aa phenotype is to cross an AA individual with an aa individual- all of the offspring from this union will be the desired phenotype, with an Aa genotype.

Now, all of that was for a Aa genotype for the desired phenotype. It isn't this complicated if the trait is AA or aa. I hope this causes every one to re-evaluate the importance of multiple backcrosses- it just doesn't work to stabilize the trait!

Also- that was all for a monogenic trait! What if the trait is controlled by a polygenic interaction or an epistatic interaction- it gets EVEN MORE complicated? AARRGH!!!!

Really, there is no need to do more than 1 backcross. From this one single backcross, as long as we know what we are doing, and grow out enough plants to find the right genotypes, we can succeed at the goal of eventually stabilizing most, if not all of the desired traits.

The confusion arises because we don't think about the underlying biological causes of these situations- to really understand this; we all need to understand meiosis.

We think of math-e.g. 50% G13, 50% hashplant

Next generation 50% G13 x 50% g13hp or (25% G13, 25%HP)

We interpret this as an additive property:
50% G13 + 25% G13 +25% HP = 75% G13 and 25% hashplant

This is unfortunately completely false- the same theory will apply for the so called 87.%% G13 12.5% HP next generation, and the following 93.25% G13, 6.25% HP generation; we'd like it to be true as it would make stabilizing traits fairly simple, but it JUST DOESN'T work that way. The above is based on a mathematical model, which seems to make sense- but it doesn't- we ignore the biological foundation that is really at play.

I hope this was clear, I know it can get confusing, and I may not have explained it well enough- sorry if that is the case, I'll try to clear up any questions or mistakes I may have made.

Have fun everyone while making your truebreeding varieties, but just remember that cubing (successive backcrosses) is not the way to do it!
-Chimera


Thanks Chimera! You rock!

Octavian
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
Indeed... A very good article, by someone with the education to back up their statements...
Backcrossing is for fixing certian traits into a line and generational selection and incrossing to increase the number of 'true bred' plants in each successive generation...
 
Last edited:

Closet Funk

CeRtIfIeD OrGaNiC!
Veteran
Good read. Chimera definetly knows what he's talking about. I think he has degrees in Botany and other shit.
 

DocLeaf

procreationist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Raco said:
Breeding is an ART.
The "real" breeders are artists :D

the Pros are indeed Artisans,,, but anyone can be a breeder :wink:

for example: if yo go buy a pedigree rabbit and stud it to another pedigree rabbit,,, and then go sell the bunnies that the rabbits make,,, yo is a breed already... but still doesn't mean yo know shit about breeding, or rabbits for that matter... lol

peace Raco dude :dance: :canabis:

DocLeaf :joint:
 

guineapig

Active member
Veteran
thank you octavian......

i would love to read more from Chimera and look forward to any new projects of his....

:ying: gp :ying:
 

Raco

secretion engineer
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Hi Doc,
The only breeder is the one who created the strain.You are not breeding rabbits,you´re "producing" more rabbits of the "true" breeding strain.
Then mate that offspring among themselves (incestus)wait and soon you´ll see the results....jejejej sorry about the rambling,folks... :joint: :chin: :sasmokin: :D
 

Closet Funk

CeRtIfIeD OrGaNiC!
Veteran
I think Chimera needs to write a book on breeding. He seems to have some serious knowledge on the subject.
 

zamalito

Guest
Veteran
Raco I've said those same words a number of times before.

Doc always good to see you.

It makes you think about how lucky they were when breeding c99. By all theory c99 should be a complete mess but its a keeper.

Another thing I'd like to add is there are many differing degrees of dominance. For example we've always heard brown eyes are dominant and blue eyes are recessive and those that have one brown eyed gene will be the same as those that have two. Howver this just isn't true. Being heterozygous for eye color will produce a slightly different color than having only brown eyed genes. There are also additive genes where heterozygosity will produce a stronger trait than homozygosity. This means that there's a very large number of traits that simply cannot be true breeding and can only be reproduced consistently in a hybrid cross.
 

DocLeaf

procreationist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Raco said:
Hi Doc,
The only breeder is the one who created the strain.You are not breeding rabbits,you´re "producing" more rabbits of the "true" breeding strain.

In dogs, crossing two suffix in-stable enables a pre-fix (a kennel name),,, breeding plants is much the same... the suffix stable is responsible for the genetics it puts out originally, sure. But the new pre-fix is put onto the genetics produced by the new kennel/stable/breeder,,, not the old kennel. They're just named in lineage (on paper pedigree),,, they hold no responsibility for the new line or the breeder's work :wink:

Remember breeders often BUY genetics, at which point, whence bought, they belong to them... not someone else. get what Im saying,,,

you can't sell ya daughter and then claim her children as one of your own... it just doesn't work like that.

(I n I sorta agree with wat yo sayin,,, just playing with words)

peace dLeaf :joint:
 
Last edited:

Harry Gypsna

Dirty hippy Bastard
Veteran
theres a difernce between someone who makes crosses and a breeder...... generally its wether its just slinging pollen around, or actually having a goal for the cross and spending the time to do it right.
i could quite easily make some sour bubble x kali mist seeds but that dont make me a breeder, even in the loosest definition of the word.
 

TORC

Active member
Thanks Octavian. It's been a long while since I read that. Chimera is a man with a great deal of knowledge.
 

DocLeaf

procreationist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
sorry Zamalito man, missed yo. good to see you also :friends: stand strong me lion :canabis:
dLeaf :joint:
 
Last edited:

Tripco

Active member
In my humble opinion, Chimera did most of any breeder to explain "The Deep Genetics". DJ Short takes credit on explaining it with more common words, but Chimera gets further, deeper, however, sometimes not clear or indistinct for "everyday people". If you want to learn something 'bout genetics (not only in Cannabis world, but in all the livin' beings, in general), Chimera is the Man.
Here's the whole first page of that OG thread:

http://www.geocities.com/loroan/Backcrossing.htm
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top