What Male to use in a cross?

[Tom Hill]

"by doing this the odds are more stacked against you. well that and time aswell."

URUK,

I'm talking about a multi-pronged attack to turn around what we have now instead of this one sided argument that I simply do not agree with, an alternative approach if you will.

Nvisionary keeps comparing OP polyhybrids to what we have a great deal of now (polysoup, lol, that was good) and stating that nobody will know the difference, but he continues to avoid comparing what we have now to what we could have now with just a bit more effort.

A) Take any polyhybrid on the market today, open pollinate no less than 100 plants (save the best females), store the seed except 1000 - Nvisionary is somewhat appeased I would hope.

B) Then grow out these 1000 held back from storage, set aside the best 10-20 individuals and intensively inbreed for a couple of generations - I would self them. Discard the less desirable families and open pollinate what's left, or use them for F1 seed, etc.

We would have accomplished both what Nvisionary is insisting is best for the future of cannabis -leave room for future improvements in (A), as well as done some actual improvements in (B), and I'm sure the market would approve of (B) like X100 what he's suggesting, lol. I think this type of multi-approach would be far better for cannabis and not particularly farther-fetched than what he is laying down.

Can I come forward, and speak out against my peers who didn't jump on board and agree? No, some of these guys ARE already in possession of prepotent breeding stock that does not require massive numbers in selection imo, and also because nobody can honestly say with certainty that their efforts will not contribute beneficial inputs to the future of cannabis, imo. -T

 

[GreenintheThumb]

How did I miss all this drama?

First off, how the hell do you evaluate 2000 individual plants? It always seemed to me that running several hundred seeds at once would be a big pain in the ass (yes, yes; no pain, no gain) and basically impossible without a nice lab setup. I never understood how TFD/Sam claimed to pop 10000 and pick the best 100 or 10 and only cross them. How the hell do you do that especially in a greenhouse when the plant has to be pollinated before you've even had a chance to puff it. And I'm not really sure where the 2000 number that's now being spouted off came from. It's the number required to theoretically carry all the genes forward a generation? Out of curiosity, who did the math on this one?

Also, I feel visionary is ONLY talking about freezing the world in OP land until the legal issues have cleared up until real progress without fear of gene loss can be made.

Tom:
I'm so with you on the issue of education. It's why I was a little disappointed that VanXant didn't take GN up on his forum offer. Would have been a nice place to chat, there is a lot of worthless posts and general thread derailment even in the breeder's lab. For a while now I've tried to get Chimera to follow through with his old idea about writing a book that's actually full of cannabis specific breeding info. Frankly, Marijuana Botany is practically worthless. It seems to me the most improvement someone like eXe or Chimera could make to the pool would be this book. Only time will tell.

On the subject of your methodologies:
I think the problem in this discussion is that many of you are talking opposing ideas. Preservation is the antithesis of improvement. And sadly, we can't have it both ways. You said, "If I was to develop 3 lines descending from a single cross, would this not be better for the genepool than open pollinating from that cross onward? I believe it would." This really depends on how you look at it. If we are talking about maintaining the apparently modest amount of diversity in the pool then obviously the OP would be preferred. However, I think you're almost as interested in genetic improvement and therefore, 3 lines with appropriate selective pressures applied would be preferred.

 

[Tom Hill]

Hiya GitT,

Narrow to 5% +/- with breeders eye, then sampling, then further via genotyping.

I am not siding, I am for both conservation efforts and artificial selections.

3 lines from 2 pure are better for the genepool because it is understood that I have also first preserved the original 2 pure lines.

I learned that from one Mr.RC Clarke in a book called Marijuana Botany decades ago - he had vision, and saw all this polyhybrid soup coming

 

[spliphy]

hilarious

hilarious

understatement

.... and because nobody can honestly say with certainty that their efforts will not contribute beneficial inputs to the future of cannabis, imo. -T

if I were a betting man......significant strides have been made due to the ability of modern travel to develop what the indigenous farmers of Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan, Thailand, etc. had as "prepotent" strains

yeah, some people were 'at the right place, the right time' too

what we have today is the hybridizations of those indigenous farmers' work...already very significant cultivars have been and are being developed by some folks

 

[spliphy]

sure can........isolation

sure can........isolation

Preservation is the antithesis of improvement. And sadly, we can't have it both ways."

clonal form back-up, seeds, grow rooms, etc.

one idea of OP: having "stock", "library"

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Narrow to 5% +/- with breeders eye, then sampling, then further via genotyping.

Hi, Tom. Always a pleasure. Is this in reference to my question on how to whittle down 2000 individuals to something we could manage? How do you sample them when they're obviously outdoors or in green houses? By the time you have to pollinate them you'd not know much. And you mention further selection based on genotype? How do you do that? With the lab I mentioned or with progeny tests? Do you personally think TFD/Sam did everything (or most things) right when they were doing this sort of work 20 years ago?

I am not siding, I am for both conservation efforts and artificial selections.

3 lines from 2 pure are better for the genepool because it is understood that I have also first preserved the original 2 pure lines.

I'm aware you value both conservation and selections for improvement. I wasn't saying you were only interested in one. I just meant that visionary seems to be solely speaking on the ideal of preservation and you're trying to do some selection as well. Now, how do you preserve the original lines? Large OP? That's part of your program, isn't it? Do you consider DC an ibl? I assume you maintain it with OP methods or at least larger populations with minimal selection.

Also, wouldn't 4 lines be better than 3? It seems like you kind of arbitrarily jumped onto the number 3. Why is that? And wouldn't your methods here be very dependent on the goals of your program? Are you trying to create superior F1s and you figure one of the 3 maybe favorable? I guess I don't understand what you were trying to say with that quote in general.

I learned that from one Mr.RC Clarke in a book called Marijuana Botany decades ago - he had vision, and saw all this polyhybrid soup coming

Hahaha, yeah I suppose I was a little harsh on Clarke. I just didn't see many modern methods of breeding outcrossing species in that book. I guess it's hard to be modern when the book in question is decades old. Regardless i'm sure visionary would have something to say about your method of preserving the two pure lines I await the thunderbolts. Thanks for always being a great contributor while remaining so open about your methods and thoughts. You're one of the few who make if fun to get on this site.

 

[nvisionary]

SOTF420, a plant with 3 nodes is not a TRIPLOID plant. Rather, it is a plant with an
architecture called 'whorled'. The term whorled phyllotaxy is commonly used.

VerdantGreen said:"1. if there are so few gene combinations in cannabis then why would you need such huge numbers of plants for any 'worthwhile' attempts at breeding.

>>>>>Increasing the numbers of plants increases the likelyhood(probability) of recovering the genes that are NOT under direct selection. With small populations, the inverse is true.

-When we favor one allele over another(selection) we are selecting against other alleles. -Genes under selection are linked to many other genes and are inherited as a group. -Genes that are not under direct selection remain heterozygous and when a breeder selects only ONE or a FEW plants to carry on the population, loss of the unselected allele (and linkage group)can occur.(genetic erosion). With small populations, the likelihood(probability) of losing unselected alleles is HIGHER than when larger populations are used. When REPEATED GENERATIONS of this occur, even more genetic degradation occurs and the potential for improvements, and healthy plants, is diminished.
-Populations that have reduced allelic diversity, and have also been created by un-focused yet strong direct selection can only produce offspring with reduced capacities. It follows that these genetically thinned individuals also have reduced potential to produce new genotypes in future matings.

In order to safeguard populations under selection from loss of important un-selected alleles, an INCLUSIVE strategy like Open Poll. is employed on large populations.

VerdantGreen:"2. If (as i understand it) some of you are encouraging open pollination and are against selection, wouldnt the drug quality of cannabis go backwards rather than forwards? isnt it selective breeding that has taken us from hemp to potent weed?"

>>> No, open pollination will not make High THC plants go hempy. Drug cannabis is basically all homozygous for THC production(B locus), so there is almost no chance of losing high THC types of plants with people only breeding with large, openly breeding populations. 'Going hempy' is something that happens in natural cannabis stands that are only under Natural Selection(not artificial) and contain CBD alleles.

ANY improvement of drug cannabis that arose was entirely caused by the genetic distance of the First Hybrids. Thats almost gone completely now. Its becoming more and more reduced as the gene pool becomes more and more RELATED, which the Seed Bizz, including the patrons, facilitate.


I would like to hear how ANY seedlines from Seedbay/Bootique are beneficial to the gene pool. haha! Small population re-mixes of re-mixes of re-mixes arent beneficial to the gene pool! High selection pressures, and short-term breeding programs based only on phenotype and small populations are not effective at directing genetic gain...get real. Im pointing my finger at all of that junk-of-reduced-potential.

TomHill:"Does anybody here think we should gather up all the lines on the planet, mix them, and open pollinate the results? No, we want to maintain distance etc, we are only arguing where to draw the line."

>>>>I will let GreeninTheThumb say it for me again. (This was good, thank you GiT.)

GreenintheThumbs: "I feel visionary is ONLY talking about freezing the world in OP land until the legal issues have cleared up until real progress without fear of gene loss can be made."

Yes, and modern breeders AS A WHOLE need to get over this idea that they CAN produce ACTUAL SEEDLINE IMPROVEMENTS with their poor methods when they simply cannot. Well, Tom Hill SURE CAN. and so we should allow Tom to do it while trying to get others to conserve genetic resources through remediation of the POORLY MANAGED SEED BIZZ.
Encouraging the kind of poor handling of the drug gene pool that we have been seeing HERE, -through advocating AMATEUR BREEDING, through the less-than-truthful marketing of these amateur-whittled hackjobs, couch-based breeding newbies giving BASELESS plant breeding advise, and gypsy offering checks while you get your ya-yas out on the gene pool- is sheer bullshit. It doesnt take too much intuition to know that this is wrong. Its nothing more than ignorance and carelessness. And greed of course. I mean,.. if youre fighting the idea of improving the seed bizz its because youre a seed MAKER(you meaning all hacks). You like to think youre a plant breeder but you really cant be a good one, with nothing but ineffective methods at your disposal...

Tonic101: Very good post. You probably arent going to get any comments from the audience here on much of that, but I noticed and appreciated what you had to add. Thanks for your note.

Sideshow-Bob:"And now to one of your favourite terms: the genetic erosion: please explain to us what you understand by this... because for me it sounds like you actually think that there are genes lost – in the sense that the plants today have lesser genes than they had before. And that would be total crap.."

>>I think Ive adequately explained above how genes(alleles) are lost through selection on small populations. Which is not MY idea; its a scientific fact. If you think its "crap" then youve never studied how a population becomes extinct. In short: it begins with the loss of genetic diversity, caused by increasingly less and less individuals breeding, and ends with extinction.

Sideshow-Bob:"Now you propagate OP for small populations to keep the genetic diversity, well, that may sound sensible at first, BUT: what we are talking about here is genetic drift (not erosion!) and as you may be aware the genetic drift is the bigger the smaller the population is – so small populations are highly important for genetic diversity! And not only that... if you do OP the chance is higher you fuck up the line..."

>>>>>> Im not sure we're on the same page re: genetic drift. Genetic drift is a shift in the frequency of the genes, caused by skewed selection. I.e. Its like when someone buys a pack of 'Blueberry', then selects only one male and one female and the produced seedlot CHANGES in some way from the Original 'Blueberry' seedlot. This is DRIFT.
Genetic drift is REDUCED through breeding with LARGE populations with NO/low selection. (open pollination)

No, I dont see an infinite range of genetic diversity in humans either. Have you ever seen a human with a duck bill? or fins? We are pretty much all the same(sans mutations), with only a FEW genes different among us, and thus we all stand upright, have 10 fingers..etc..
There arent that many distinct 'varieties' of human beings either. we are ALL very RELATED, like cannabis.

No, Im not impressed with the amount of genetic diversity in the 3 seed offerings you listed. Dont mistake these seed offerings' INSTABILITY and UNPREDICTABILITY for GENETIC DIVERSITY.

Sideshow-Bob:"I have only explored a very small of what is available in seed form to everybody today, but it is enough to know that i will find something new to explore until the end of my days "

>>>> Yes, I used to think the gene pool was vast and always coming up with something new..but I dont feel that way any more.

 

[DocLeaf]

SOTF420, a plant with 3 nodes is not a TRIPLOID plant. Rather, it is a plant with an
architecture called 'whorled'. The term whorled phyllotaxy is commonly used.

Think you mean tri-foliar.

 

[SOTF420]

You can call it Triple Nipple if you want, you know what I mean and we all refer to it using various names. Either way it's pretty interesting I think. Some real advances in yield could be made with a stable line featuring three nodes per instead of two. I have seen this in several plants but only one that PREDICTABLY passed on the trait to it's F1 offspring (select Sweet Tooth #4 father picked from about 10 males for grapefruit smell, vigor, size, first preflowers) and of which said beans are in my vault. Said natural triple noded female bb x sk plant was fully vigourous and showed the trait since seedling stage all the way through flower, 3 leafs & nodes perfectly symetrical, no lack of anything, no low resin, had good yield, etc. Just a "normal" potent awesome Indica dominant structure plant dark green wide leafs and great frosty fruity bud with 3 of everything, even the first cotelydon leafs.

Later some of these seeds were grown out years ago and roughly half of them showed the triple nodes just like the mommy but had smell & structure of the Sweet Tooth. They were never flowered out as they were just simply being checked for the passing of the trait and to test viability which was very high like 80-90%, timing was not right for a grow or they surely would have been cloned & flowered. Few hundred original F1 beans remain, 6 years old.

How desireable is this trait? Is it rare to be passed on to offspring in a large %?

Could it be isolated into a 99% or so predictable trait in the strain with the triple nodes, and do this without the original parent(s)?

 

[spliphy]

nvisionary,

Where is the statistical model?

Oh, your rant was based on intuition...I see


I'm out

 

[nvisionary]

No, its not called "tri-foliar", and its not called anything YOU WANT to call it. You see? this is a good example of how ridiculous stoners are.

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

READ IT DOC. I bet you dont even understand what a triploid really is...sad shit "breeders".

spliphy, its not based on intuition. This is common knowledge. Just because you dont have a clue doesnt mean its not real.

 

[DocLeaf]

Dude, you've got the wrong person and a major attitude problem! Please change them..

A tri-foliar plant is technically one that gives out x3 bladed leafs isnt it?,, yeah man i n i always stoned like an old set of scales Anyhow...


whorled... hmmm (someone made that one up kids) ,, x3 or 4 sets of leaves on the same nodal joint aren't curly worly ah-kid! look see...

This plant was a male,, SD x MM [Vash]

Triple,,, quad,, call it what you will... on the same specimen,, but whorled,, that's a new one on me.. lol

Edit: apparently 'whorled' is a botanical term. thanks. l

Hope this helps

NB. Linguistics and semantics change from place to place .. for example the term "pheno" was NEVER used to describe a 'specimen' in any walk round horticultural or arboricultural lecture we ever attended in the UK. But language and the definitions people prescribe to things change .. that's cool. Maybe we're all 'whorled' out off the cheese peace out

 

[spliphy]

your words

your words

spliphy, its not based on intuition. This is common knowledge. Just because you dont have a clue doesnt mean its not real.

your previous post said "intuition", also "feeling"

numbers please

 

[DocLeaf]

Anyhow,, use the male you like the look of

 

[nvisionary]

My attitude is good. No problems. Maybe you feel ridiculous. Just educating you, like everyone says is the most important avenue to explore....I hope you are now up to speed on what whorled phyllotaxis/y is.

It wasnt a matter of linguistics, it was something else...and both of us know it.

p.s. theyre almost always MALE.

 

[spliphy]

peace, Docleaf

 

[DocLeaf]

What do you suggest,, we pick the plants we least like the look of.. lol

Excellent,, let's use those shi**y little dwarf plants that didnt root properly,, great plan tonto.

Peace out

 

[spliphy]

not either or

not either or

What do you suggest,, we pick the plants we least like the look of.. lol

Excellent,, let's use those shi**y little dwarf plants that didnt root properly,, great plan tonto.

Peace out

nice looking males "may" pass nice looking qualities ... but that is ornamental...you are not growing ornamental plants are you?

 

[DocLeaf]

Indeed,, we like the ones that look fat and frosty (even males),, with nice solar panels!!!
thanks for keeping things civil spliphy

Without going down the cloning route,, then its impossible to know exactly which characteristics will be passed on,, until yo sow out the lineage... it's a lucky draw!

IME 1 in 3 crosses,, from mindful selection / parent plants,, are worth growing and smoking again. Obviously everything always depends on what exactly you are aiming for by using the male in that cross... our experience is mainly with food-lines,, and we only play with ganja (another food line) on the side,, organic. I n I only speak what I've done... not interested in yesteryear or hearsay.

Sometimes we find females we really like the look of ,,, and just want to place pollen to them (it's addictive folks) just to see what happens... where is any harm in that? please enlighten me

peace n flowers

 

[spliphy]

wish you the best

wish you the best

Indeed,, we like the ones that look fat and frosty (even males),, with nice solar panels!!!
thanks for keeping things civil spliphy

Without going down the cloning route,, then its impossible to know exactly which characteristics will be passed on,, until yo sow out the lineage... it's a lucky draw!

IME 1 in 3 crosses,, from mindful selection / parent plants,, are worth growing and smoking again. Obviously everything always depends on what exactly you are aiming for by using the male in that cross... our experience is mainly with food-lines,, and we only play with ganja (another food line) on the side,, organic. I n I only speak what I've done... not interested in yesteryear or hearsay.

Sometimes we find females we really like the look of ,,, and just want to place pollen to them (it's addictive folks) just to see what happens... where is any harm in that? please enlighten me

peace n flowers

can't edit the title in my previous post

I meant: Your "gene pool" not "the gene pool"

"bag appeal" is nice, but smoking is the better arbiter of selection...which adds challenge, since final selection is not made until after the product is harvested, and maybe cured