I can find you Clarke attempting to help address the genetic decline in hemp in russia where they used the model
http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha02106.html
-
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"!
What Male to use in a cross?
- Thread starter groady-ho
- Start date
I can find you Clarke attempting to help address the genetic decline in hemp in russia where they used the model
http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha02106.html
defo my sorta style doc,,,gives a feelin of snow,,,,ever seen the film the snowman
,,,im tryly a child a heart
,,,im tryly a child a heart
all you guys are cool in my book....
Nvisionary,
"Modern polyhybrid cannabis(which you ALSO work with, right?)"
>> I assume you're refering to the bred for indoor created over the last 30 years or so? No, I'm not breeding with it. I guess I did make a Bigbud hybrid once many years back. I think what you are all upset about is a tiny fraction of the gene pool. I know it's all important but the world is really much larger than you're trying to make it out to be.
"Im going to bet that the seed varieties you are looking at have changed with time, by the hands of the farmers involved. I DOUBT that they consider the intricacies of plant genetics, when the operation is nothing more than an outdoor cash crop. They probably haven had formal education on plant breeding or genetics...Do you vouch for their methods?haha"
>>>I arrived here 20 years ago and yes they have changed. It is more difficult to find superior phenotypes than it was. They maintain their lines with large open pollinations like they always have, and they are going downhill. I agree that they'd do better to limit the frequency of the event and store seed better/longer.
"Tom. The land race youre "looking at" does not have any genes that are not ALREADY in the circulating drug gene pool! Tell me what kind of genes you think are special in the Central american outdoor weed, that will be important contributions. I think the pool is all in. (ok. to appease you.. ALMOST all in) OK? almost 100%"
>>They are not already circulating in my stock they are far removed from it, they'll be of some use, thanks.
"That is YOUR contribution to the gene pool"
>>You have no idea how things will work out, just guessing, ignoring this fact does not make it go away. Most of your guesses and assumptions about me thus far have been incorrect - maybe kick that crystal ball of yours, or try to get your money back.
"Modern polyhybrid cannabis(which you ALSO work with, right?)"
>> I assume you're refering to the bred for indoor created over the last 30 years or so? No, I'm not breeding with it. I guess I did make a Bigbud hybrid once many years back. I think what you are all upset about is a tiny fraction of the gene pool. I know it's all important but the world is really much larger than you're trying to make it out to be.
"Im going to bet that the seed varieties you are looking at have changed with time, by the hands of the farmers involved. I DOUBT that they consider the intricacies of plant genetics, when the operation is nothing more than an outdoor cash crop. They probably haven had formal education on plant breeding or genetics...Do you vouch for their methods?haha"
>>>I arrived here 20 years ago and yes they have changed. It is more difficult to find superior phenotypes than it was. They maintain their lines with large open pollinations like they always have, and they are going downhill. I agree that they'd do better to limit the frequency of the event and store seed better/longer.
"Tom. The land race youre "looking at" does not have any genes that are not ALREADY in the circulating drug gene pool! Tell me what kind of genes you think are special in the Central american outdoor weed, that will be important contributions. I think the pool is all in. (ok. to appease you.. ALMOST all in) OK? almost 100%"
>>They are not already circulating in my stock they are far removed from it, they'll be of some use, thanks.
"That is YOUR contribution to the gene pool"
>>You have no idea how things will work out, just guessing, ignoring this fact does not make it go away. Most of your guesses and assumptions about me thus far have been incorrect - maybe kick that crystal ball of yours, or try to get your money back.
tom ,how do you feel about presevation of terpenprofile?
i feel every line should have a goal,,,,once the goal has been achived then it should be outcrossed
ive got 2 suspect SK1 CLONES ,,,,,
BOTH have a zigzag "suspect" mexi sativa in the veg structure trait..............similar to this picture below,
BOTH suspect SK1 clone`s share an almost generic Skunklike smell and taste,,,i have come to call it a generic "Terpenprofile"....am i correct in this deffinition
i would like to capture this geric terpenprofile,,,,but im almost totaly confused how to go about this propperly,,,can you help..?
BOTH have a zigzag "suspect" mexi sativa in the veg structure trait..............similar to this picture below,
BOTH suspect SK1 clone`s share an almost generic Skunklike smell and taste,,,i have come to call it a generic "Terpenprofile"....am i correct in this deffinition
i would like to capture this geric terpenprofile,,,,but im almost totaly confused how to go about this propperly,,,can you help..?
What method of sexual reproduction has LESS gene loss than OP?
You just said you didn't read the study Clarke based this off of. So how do you know where the numbers came from?
Hi Tom. Still waiting on you to return my friendly pm so I can figure out what of your releases would work best for me to try out.
Haze isn't a modern polyhybrid bred for indoor/under glass grows?
Well, first off I'd like to say this is kind of a ridiculous statement on visionary's part. What landraces were ever maintained by people with a formal education in genetics/plant breeding. You know very well the answer is none. And what crops weren't for cash visionary? These people don't put in the work to grow fields of ganja out of the kindness of their hearts. People like to feed their families. And landraces were always changing and becoming more acclimated to the environment. What's true today was true 100 years ago.
Tom- can we see some pictures of the plants/fields? I'd love to see what you're evaluating. I also asked what traits and characteristics were in this larndrace that made you believe it was of value as a progenitor. You also claim this landrace has been on the decline. Can you elaborate on that and maybe offer your explanation as to why that's happening?
I don't know about you guys but after I kicked mine it started leaking some blue shit on me
Haze isn't a modern polyhybrid bred for indoor/under glass grows?
Well, first off I'd like to say this is kind of a ridiculous statement on visionary's part. What landraces were ever maintained by people with a formal education in genetics/plant breeding. You know very well the answer is none. And what crops weren't for cash visionary? These people don't put in the work to grow fields of ganja out of the kindness of their hearts. People like to feed their families. And landraces were always changing and becoming more acclimated to the environment. What's true today was true 100 years ago.
Tom- can we see some pictures of the plants/fields? I'd love to see what you're evaluating. I also asked what traits and characteristics were in this larndrace that made you believe it was of value as a progenitor. You also claim this landrace has been on the decline. Can you elaborate on that and maybe offer your explanation as to why that's happening?
maybe kick that crystal ball of yours, or try to get your money back.
I don't know about you guys but after I kicked mine it started leaking some blue shit on me
Jones
Member
So you admit that OP is THE BEST METHOD of sexual propagation in terms of maintaining diversity? Earlier you stated the problem with OP is gene loss. Get real, the "problem" with OP is they maintain all the shit genes that real breeders will properly rogue out one day. As far as gene loss, OP is THE BEST METHOD OF PREVENTING IT.
Don't you get it? There was a study, there is a paper that was published and it was peer reviewed. Here's the abstract since I know you love them so
Abstract One objective of the regeneration of genetic populations is to maintain at least one copy of each allele present in the original population. Genetic diversity within populations depends on the number and frequency of alleles across all loci. The objectives of this study on outbreeding crops are: (1) to use probability models to determine optimal sample sizes for the regeneration for a number of alleles at independent loci; and (2) to examine theoretical considerations in choosing core subsets of a collection. If we assume that k-1 alleles occur at an identical low frequency of p0 and that the kth allele occurs at a frequency of 1-[(k-1)p0], for loci with two, three, or four alleles, each with a p0 of 0.05, 89–110 additional individuals are required if at least one allele at each of 10 loci is to be retained with a 90% probability; if 100 loci are involved, 134–155 individuals are required. For two, three, or four alleles, when p0 is 0.03 at each of 10 loci, the sample size required to include at least one of the alleles from each class in each locus is 150–186 individuals; if 100 loci are involved, 75 additional individuals are required. Sample sizes of 160–210 plants are required to capture alleles at frequencies of 0.05 or higher in each of 150 loci, with a 90–95% probability. For rare alleles widespread throughout the collection, most alleles with frequencies of 0.03 and 0.05 per locus will be included in a core subset of 25–100 accessions.
And no i didn't miss the post. And the reason they "SET" a number is because it's their genebank and they get to make the rules. They based these rules off of the science of maintaining healthy germ plasm not arbitrary bullshit. But I admit it looks like their numbers are based solely on statistical models.
Don't you get it? There was a study, there is a paper that was published and it was peer reviewed. Here's the abstract since I know you love them so
Abstract One objective of the regeneration of genetic populations is to maintain at least one copy of each allele present in the original population. Genetic diversity within populations depends on the number and frequency of alleles across all loci. The objectives of this study on outbreeding crops are: (1) to use probability models to determine optimal sample sizes for the regeneration for a number of alleles at independent loci; and (2) to examine theoretical considerations in choosing core subsets of a collection. If we assume that k-1 alleles occur at an identical low frequency of p0 and that the kth allele occurs at a frequency of 1-[(k-1)p0], for loci with two, three, or four alleles, each with a p0 of 0.05, 89–110 additional individuals are required if at least one allele at each of 10 loci is to be retained with a 90% probability; if 100 loci are involved, 134–155 individuals are required. For two, three, or four alleles, when p0 is 0.03 at each of 10 loci, the sample size required to include at least one of the alleles from each class in each locus is 150–186 individuals; if 100 loci are involved, 75 additional individuals are required. Sample sizes of 160–210 plants are required to capture alleles at frequencies of 0.05 or higher in each of 150 loci, with a 90–95% probability. For rare alleles widespread throughout the collection, most alleles with frequencies of 0.03 and 0.05 per locus will be included in a core subset of 25–100 accessions.
And no i didn't miss the post. And the reason they "SET" a number is because it's their genebank and they get to make the rules. They based these rules off of the science of maintaining healthy germ plasm not arbitrary bullshit. But I admit it looks like their numbers are based solely on statistical models.
i agree,,,,OP proserves all the sh1t genes,,,,it brings forward all the recessive stuff that might gave been missing from the expreshion in the "present" generation,,,,
imo 1:1 has the ability to create new lines,,,all the resessive quallitys can be brought out with OP,,,
imo 1:1 has the ability to create new lines,,,all the resessive quallitys can be brought out with OP,,,
Rick
I told you I would walk you through Allard. One paragraph at a time if I have to. Realize this will waste countless hours of my time. However, until we have accomplished this why don't you not post every opinion on breeding that pops into your head.
I told you I would walk you through Allard. One paragraph at a time if I have to. Realize this will waste countless hours of my time. However, until we have accomplished this why don't you not post every opinion on breeding that pops into your head.
the direction OP takes is relitive to enviromental pressure and the agent of selection,,,,
.
Last edited:
sorry,,,im stopping ,,from now,,,i dont wana blow a gift ,,thanks for the strait talk G
Jones-
I must have missed you saying OP is the best method of sexual propagation with regard to diversity. Seems strange that you acknowledge this but say its problem is gene loss.
Remember when URUK asked how many numbers the rye guys were running? I believe you told him to email the authors. Perhaps you could follow your own advice if you're so against this 2000 number.
Just because you didn't see the math Clarke used to come up with the 2000 number doesn't mean he arbitrarily chose the number. It means you arbitrarily decided not to trust him
Furthermore, what's the point of bitching about this? No one's running thousands of plants at a time. Few people are running hundreds. So regardless if the true population required to bring 99% of the alleles into the next generation is 5000 or 200 NO ONE IS DOING IT! No matter what the number ends up truly being, breeders need to run as many numbers as possible and maintain as wide a population as possible. And anyone would admit we're no where NEAR the population sizes needed.
I must have missed you saying OP is the best method of sexual propagation with regard to diversity. Seems strange that you acknowledge this but say its problem is gene loss.
Remember when URUK asked how many numbers the rye guys were running? I believe you told him to email the authors. Perhaps you could follow your own advice if you're so against this 2000 number.
Just because you didn't see the math Clarke used to come up with the 2000 number doesn't mean he arbitrarily chose the number. It means you arbitrarily decided not to trust him
Furthermore, what's the point of bitching about this? No one's running thousands of plants at a time. Few people are running hundreds. So regardless if the true population required to bring 99% of the alleles into the next generation is 5000 or 200 NO ONE IS DOING IT! No matter what the number ends up truly being, breeders need to run as many numbers as possible and maintain as wide a population as possible. And anyone would admit we're no where NEAR the population sizes needed.
