Is low potency a recessive trait?

[bubbl3r]

Pops...you being an anthropologist, whats your take on the missing link theory?









Bubbl3r

 

[bubbl3r]

Unknown at this point. My son has Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis(ALS or Lou Gehrigs Disease),a motor neuron disease. It is characterized by high glutamate levels in the spinal fluid. normally, glutamates are there to protect neurons. If you have glutamate excititoxicity, the neurons are killed and are not replaced and the muscle fiber is worthless.

THC is a neuroprotector. Ironically, the U.S. Government ,who claims cannabis has no medicinal value, has patented cannabinoids for their antioxidant and neuroprotective values. CBD supposedly has neuroprotection against glutamate excititoxicity and is anti-convulsive to treat the muscle spasms and twitches that motor neuron patients have. Unfortunately, all drug strains are practically devoid of CBd. Sam has created a high CBD strain, but it is for a commercial venture and is not yet available to any of us in the States.

Neuroprotector...first time I heard that one.

The patents are worthless, as no one can patent a living plant, or anything it produces naturally. Having said that, I think they have patents on some modified wheat seed and corn or maize?


What are the usual drug remedies and or surgery for the condition?




Bubbl3r

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I hope that speedy progress will come of the work Sam is doing, Pops.

Can't it all be simplified to state that low potency is a product of selection, and nothing more? I mean, at the end of the day, isn't that all a breeder really has to work with?

Working in or taking out any trait can only be done through selection as is, so what significance does this whole question have?

 

[Pops]

Neuroprotector...first time I heard that one.

The patents are worthless, as no one can patent a living plant, or anything it produces naturally. Having said that, I think they have patents on some modified wheat seed and corn or maize?


What are the usual drug remedies and or surgery for the condition?




Bubbl3r

There are no treatments or therapies. It is fatal. For those in the U.S.(30,000) who have ALS, 50% die in 2 1/2 years, 70% in 5 years and 90% in ten years.

At one time you could not put a patent on a plant. Now you can and there are numerous patents of corn and other crops.

THC is a neuroprotector, an antiemetic(good for nausea), good for minor pain and has been shown to kill cancer cells. CBD is a neuroprotector against glutamate excitotoxicity, an antioxidant, an immunomodulator,anti-convusive, anti-inflammatory,relaxes the long muscles of the body and an antpsychotic(anti-anxiety). It also seems to prevent cancer cells from migrating and reproducing.

 

[bubbl3r]

I hope that speedy progress will come of the work Sam is doing, Pops.

Can't it all be simplified to state that low potency is a product of selection, and nothing more? I mean, at the end of the day, isn't that all a breeder really has to work with?

Working in or taking out any trait can only be done through selection as is, so what significance does this whole question have?

Its a discussion....for me its a bit more, in that I want to test my theory.

Most breeders would have you believe, that they are an artist, creating a masterpiece by blending the many genes on their pallet.

I don't believe that, and think more do more harm than good, as they aren't driven by any conservation whatsoever.





Bubbl3r

 

[Pops]

I hope that speedy progress will come of the work Sam is doing, Pops.

Can't it all be simplified to state that low potency is a product of selection, and nothing more? I mean, at the end of the day, isn't that all a breeder really has to work with?

Working in or taking out any trait can only be done through selection as is, so what significance does this whole question have?

Thanks for the sentiments.

Yes,low potency is a product of selection, though I believe that stands of drug strains left to go feral will eventually wind up more hemp-like with more CBD. I don't know that for fact. hemp varieties generally have lower total cannabinoid levels, though they may appear resinous. Generally, there is less biomass and lower cannabinoids in hemp strains.

 

[Pops]

Pops...you being an anthropologist, whats your take on the missing link theory?
Bubbl3r

Don't want to interrupt the thread with another discussion. Anthropologists are like anyone else. They have to eat. The more wild ass theories, the more famous you become and the more money you get in research grants. We could fill several threads with this discussion about missing links.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Ditchweed areas are almost a thing of the past, but the one that do exist seem to be gaining potency. I know I have heard several reports of people saying that they have found ditchweed that is very smokable. I have to think that this is due to the outdoor growers pollen. It could also be that what these folks have found was not once feral hemp at all, but remnants of outdoor grows. (shrug)

 

[bubbl3r]

Don't want to interrupt the thread with another discussion. Anthropologists are like anyone else. They have to eat. The more wild ass theories, the more famous you become and the more money you get in research grants. We could fill several threads with this discussion about missing links.

Ok, just give us the one theory you fancy the most!





Bubbl3r

 

[kopite]

So, how does this pertain to the first backcross in a line. For example, Rez offers many "boutique" crosses of tightly held, hard for *some* to acquire cuttings. How much should you see that variation bottleneck in the BX#1 generation?

I know Mr Soul of Brothers Grimm stipulated 75% at this point for the Cinderella lines (IE: Princess75, P88 and P94 aka Cindy99), based off of Mendel's work. But it's also dependant on how many positions are responsible for potency etc as to how large that Punnet Square will be IE: more possible combinations, more possible outcomes

below is a recent post by chimera with regards to backcrossing

Here's a snipet on backcrossing from the breeding chapter I wrote for Jorge's most recent version of the bible.

Backcross Breeding –
A type of breeding that involves repeated crossing of progeny with one of the original parental genotypes; cannabis breeders most often cross progeny to the mother plant. This parent is known as the recurrent parent. The non-recurrent parent is called the donor parent. More widely, any time a generation is crossed to a previous generation, it is a form of backcross breeding. Backcross breeding has become one of the staple methods clandestine cannabis breeders use, mainly because it is a simple, rapid method when using greenhouses or grow
rooms, and requires only small populations. The principle goal of backcross breeding is to create a population of individuals derived mainly from the genetics of one single parent (the recurrent parent).

The donor parent is chosen based on a trait of interest that the recurrent parent lacks; the idea is to introgress this trait into the backcross population, such that the new population is comprised mainly of genetics from the recurrent parent, but also contains the genes responsible for the trait of interest from the donor parent.

The backcross method is a suitable scheme for adding new desirable traits to a mostly ideal, relatively true-breeding genotype. When embarking on a backcross breeding plan, the recurrent parent should be a highly acceptable or nearly ideal genotype (for example, an existing commercial cultivar or inbred line). The ideal traits considered for introgression into the new seed line should be simply inherited and easily scored for phenotype. The best donor parent must possess the desired trait, but should not be seriously deficient in other traits. Backcross line production is repeatable, if the same parents are used.

Backcross breeding is best used when adding simply inherited dominant traits that can easily be identified in the progeny of each generation (example 1). Recessive traits are more difficult to select for in backcross breeding, since their expression is masked by dominance in each backcross to the recurrent parent. An additional round of open pollination or sib-mating is needed after each backcross generation, to expose homozygous-recessive plants. Individuals showing the recessive condition are selected from F2 segregating generations and backcrossed to the recurrent parent (see example 2).

Example 1– Backcrossing: Incorporating a dominant trait

Step1– Recurrent Parent × Donor Parent
|
V
F1 Hybrid generation

Step 2 – Select desirable plants showing dominant trait, and hybridize selected plants to recurrent parent. The generation produced is denoted BC1 (some cannabis breeders break from botanical convention and denote this generation Bx1. BC1= Bx1).

Step 3 – Select plants from BC1 and hybridize with the recurrent parent; the resulting generation is denoted BC2.

Step 4 – Select plants from BC2 and hybridize with the recurrent parent; the resulting generation is denoted BC3.
.

Example 2 Backcrossing: Incorporating a recessive trait

Step1– Recurrent Parent × Donor Parent
|
V
F1 Hybrid generation

Step 2 – Select desirable plants, and create an F2 population via full sib-mating.

Step 3 – Select plants showing the desired recessive trait in the F2 generation, then hybridize selected F2-recessive plants to the recurrent parent. The generation produced is denoted BC1.

Step 3 – Select plants from BC1, and create a generation of F2 plants via sib-mating; the resulting generation can be denoted BC1F2

Step 4 – Select desirable BC1F2 plants showing the recessive condition, and hybridize with the recurrent parent; the resulting generation is denoted BC2.

Step 5 – Select plants from BC2, and create an F2 population via sib-mating; denote the resulting generation BC2F2.

Step 6 – Select plants showing the recessive condition from the BC2F2 generation, and hybridize to the recurrent parent; the resulting generation is denoted BC3.

Step 7 – Grow out BC3, select and sib-mate the most ideal candidates to create an F2 population, where plants showing the recessive condition are then selected and used as a basis for a new inbred, or open-pollinated seed line.

This new generation created from the F2 is a population that consists of, on average, ~93.7% of genes from the recurrent parent, and only ~6.3% of genes leftover from the donor parent. Most importantly, one should note that since only homozygous-recessives were chosen for mating in the BC3F2 generation, the entire resulting BC3F3 generation is homozygous for the recessive trait, and breeds true for this recessive trait. Our new population meets our breeding objective. It is a population derived mainly from the genetics of the recurrent parent, yet breeds true for our introgressed recessive trait.


Backcross derived lines are expected to be well-adapted to the environment in which they will be grown, which is another reason backcrossing is often used by cannabis breeders who operate indoors. Indoor grow rooms are easily replicated all over the world, so the grower is able to grow the plants in a similar environment in which they were bred. Progeny therefore need less extensive field-testing by the breeder across a wide range of environments.

If two or more characters are to be introgressed into a new seed line, these would usually be tracked in separate backcross programs, and the individual products would be combined in a final set of crosses after the new populations have been created by backcrossing.

The backcross scheme has specific drawbacks, however. When the recurrent parent is not very true-breeding, the resulting backcross generations segregate, and many of the traits deemed desirable to the line fail to be reproduced reliably. Another limitation of the backcross is that the “improved” variety differs only slightly from the recurrent parent (e.g., one trait). If multiple traits are to be introgressed into the new population, other techniques such as inbreeding or recurrent selection may be more rewarding.

Hope that's a little more clear......
Respectfully,
-Chimera

 

[Pops]

There are many theories, but no one knows exactly where Homo sapiens came from. You can go all the way back to Australopithicus and see human traits beginning, but there are no direct links that we can positively confirm. Man was not related to Neanderthal, as there is no genetic remnant left from Neanderthal. hHomo sapiens appeared somewhere from 80,000 to 200,000 years ago from a line we have not positively confirmed. Probably evolved in Africa and moved out to the Middle east, India, the Far East and then Europe. Anthropologists sound like experts, but we are speculators. We guess at what happened in the absence of real evidence. If only those damned chimps had learned to write!!!!

 

[bubbl3r]

I think I prefered the Anunnaki version....lol


How about the creation itself...were we some microspec stardust that landed with a comet that crashed to earth, or a spontaneous reaction to some sort of chemical event maybe, or the Anunnaki again?....lol




Bubbl3r

 

[Pops]

I believe in the primordial goop theory. Somewhere in the mass of chemical reactions going on when the earth was formed, a chance encounter of chemical crosses created the first DNA. After that, it was all downhill!

I don't count out the Annunaki, but I don't think they were stupid enough to create something like us. Besides, I don't believe in any gods, even Sumerian ones.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

bubbl3r, you're fucking funny...
You're either a semi-clever little troll, or really really stupid.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Its a discussion....for me its a bit more, in that I want to test my theory.

Most breeders would have you believe, that they are an artist, creating a masterpiece by blending the many genes on their pallet.

I don't believe that, and think more do more harm than good, as they aren't driven by any conservation whatsoever.





Bubbl3r

See... just a troll with a hard on for breeders...
Basing your opinion on an impossible premise makes you look like a fool, btw... Denying provable history based on your imagination makes you look like a fool as well... Or a nutjob, maybe... Certainly not anyone interested in furthering knowledge...

Provide one example of wild cannabis being highly potent, or STFU...
Provide an explanation for the mechanism by which man created the recessive traits you claim we added, or STFU...
Provide evidence to counter the example of man completely affecting the evolution of corn, so much so that you cannot find wild corn... Or STFU...
Provide any evidence other than your speculation, or STFU...

Stop acting like you know something, and have a viable hypothesis when there is less than nothing out there to back you up... You're wasting bandwidth...

 

[Cannacopia]

While I agree with you on many of your points grateful head, you are incorrect on this one:

"Provide evidence to counter the example of man completely affecting the evolution of corn, so much so that you cannot find wild corn... "

Chimera showed me some pics once of the wild-relative of corn, teosinte- pronounced tay-o-san-tay.

It was man that "bred" teosinte by saving seeds over generations, that made what we see as today's corn.

Bubbler is actually correct to say there is no wild-corn. There is a wild relative, but it is not corn / maize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte

 

[Pops]

Zea mays is probably the ancestor of the corn used by the Aztecs and went through a selection process over many generations. It was widespread over Central America and reached the American Southwest. Various cultures made their own selections and wound up with many varieties of maize. Corn today looks very little like its original ancestor. By the same token, many breeds of dogs today look very little like their original ancestors.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

While I agree with you on many of your points grateful head, you are incorrect on this one:



Chimera showed me some pics once of the wild-relative of corn, teosinte- pronounced tay-o-san-tay.

It was man that "bred" teosinte by saving seeds over generations, that made what we see as today's corn.

Bubbler is actually correct to say there is no wild-corn. There is a wild relative, but it is not corn / maize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte

I am fully aware that there is a wild relative of the genetic precursor to corn... That is what I wanted Bubbl3r to discover... The wild shitty spindly barely edible wild cousin to corn... All there is is that useless plant, and corn...

The end of the gene pool which remained uncultivated remained very similar to the ancestor it shares with corn....

The end of the gene pool that was hybridized, selected, and generally fucked about with by mankind has very little in common with it's wild cousin... It is a highly useful and valuable crop completely due to man's intervention...

It is a very good model for the way man affects the evolution of plants he finds useful... Breeders increase the frequency of the 'needles in the haystack'... Often they increase the frequency of desirable traits to the point where they become the rule instead of the exception... Just like corn and just like cannabis...

I had wanted bubbl3r to figure it out on his own, but you let the cat out of the bag early... :wink:


"Provide evidence to counter the example of man completely affecting the evolution of corn, so much so that you cannot find wild corn... " is still 100% correct, btw, since teosinte is a descendent of the same plant corn descended from , but is not actually wild corn...

 

[flexo]

yeah what man has done to corn is amazing.

I saw it on Modern Marvels recently, it was nothing compared to what it is today, crazy evolutionary changes

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Zea mays is probably the ancestor of the corn used by the Aztecs and went through a selection process over many generations. It was widespread over Central America and reached the American Southwest. Various cultures made their own selections and wound up with many varieties of maize. Corn today looks very little like its original ancestor. By the same token, many breeds of dogs today look very little like their original ancestors.

yes pops, but don't you think that once long ago there was a genetically perfect 'superdog' before all the other dogs were created by adding nasty recessive traits to doggie dna?