How many plants must you select from to not be a "hack"

[GreenintheThumb]

Now imagine how much better chemdog could be if they had 1000 seeds to choose from.

 

[*mistress*]

Now imagine how much better chemdog could be if they had 1000 seeds to choose from.

'better'?...

how?

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Oh maybe it could yield better, be more resistant to pests and diseases, breed truer, smell better, have better bag appeal. Ya know, maybe a better individual could have been found if the population were bigger. That's what this thread is about. Showing examples of when only a few seeds were popped and elite individuals were uncovered isn't really what the OP was asking.

Soma found his G13xHaze in one seed. So is that the answer?

 

[*mistress*]

Showing examples of when only a few seeds were popped and elite individuals were uncovered isn't really what the OP was asking.

op from post 1...:

I believe you truly don't need to select from 100's of plants to be a successful breeder and to find keepers. I feel one could use a base of 20 or less even and be able to lock down certain traits over time with selective breeding ect how do you all feel about this?

Soma found his G13xHaze in one seed. So is that the answer?

maybe... it was/is answer for Soma. maybe not answer for GreenintheThumb... maybe no 1 answer.

many heirlooms & elites were not found w/ testing thousends of specimens... some of b.o.g's genes came from just two paks...cheers

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Okay guys, it's over. The answer is one. Cross it to all your shit and charge an arm and a leg for it.

 

[Balance]

Quote:
Ne = 4 * (# of Males) * (# of Females) / (# of Males) + (# of Females)

Now if you really think about this equation that cuzin Dave has posted it shows you how much is lost when seed makers use only one male. Plug the #1 into the male slot on that equation and use any number you like for the females. Try it a few times and you see that you could be losing a great deal of those females genes by not using more males.

For example if you use 1 male and 1000 females 1001 total plants...
effective breeding population = (4x1x1000)/ 1001= 3.99

But if you use only 5 males and 5 females...
Ne= (4x5x5)/ 10= 10

You get so much more out of a population when you try to use an equal number of males and females. 1001 plants with a poor male to female ratio has an Ne of less than 4 while a population of only 10 plants at a 1:1 ratio actually has an Ne = to the real population.

Hope that simplifies for someone that might not be grasping it yet.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=86477&page=2

I pulled this quote from this thread, it's a great read. Especially the second page where Chimera explains why 30 plants are the bare minimum of an allelic snapshot. Using only one male or only one female can eliminate the genes you are trying to breed. Anyone claiming otherwise simply got very lucky.

 

[*mistress*]

maybe there seem @ least 3 different topics.

1. population
2. selection
3. isolation

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Okay, I'm just going to assume english isn't your first language.

The problem is that all of the traits that are desirable to the smoking/growing community at large are polygenetic. They really don't follow the simple punnet square you posted. And the best breeding methodologies to meet REAL goals don't involve selecting the "best 10%" and mating. This picture is more complex than most realize.

 

[englishrick]

i agree,,,but i think ,,,

"Exreshion is 9, 10th`s of the Law"

 

[beta]

.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

It's hard for me to know what you mean by 'individual selection'. If you grow out X amount of ladies and keep your favorite smoke and breed with a sole individual because you think she smokes the best it's a far cry from looking at the SCA of all 20 ladies through their progeny.

 

[beta]

.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

No, no value in selecting an individual solely on observable characteristics. Yes, progeny testing is the only way to determine a plant's value in a breeding program. The problem is you're speaking in such absolutes I feel like i'm treading dangerous waters answering.

 

[stoney917]

maybe 2 or 2million never know how many till u find what works.

 

[Mr. Greengenes]

Anyone who thinks there's some magic number of plants that equals sufficient selective pressure, and that that number applies to any and all seedbatches just needs to spend a few more years actually growing and breeding cannabis. Then come back and talk.

 

[Azra'eil]

i agree mr greengenes, i have just put these ratios to give an idea.

 

[VerdantGreen]

i think 'hack' is often just a term that established and respected breeders use in order to marginalize and discourage others from the practice, or somehow make their work seem like it is on a lower level. at the end of the day most of the favored available strains will have involved single male to female crosses which other purists would call 'hacking' anyway.

so its not just the quantity of plants that you grow to choose the parents, its also the ability to select the right parents. one person may be able to select better parents from a batch of 10 than another person could select from a batch of 100 (not saying i'm that person)
- it's the results that count for nearly everything. if the cross you make gives some dynamite weed, then the rest doesnt matter so much imo.
VG

 

[WelderDan]

The Russet potato was created by Luther Burbank from a single mutation he found in his garden of heirloom potato varieties. It is the most widely used potato today, at least in North America. Burbank was no hack, and was responsible for the preservation of many heirloom varieties of plants, as well as the creator of many varieties of various plants.

It isn't the number (or lack thereof) of plants that you have to select from that defines weather or not you're a hack, it's the eye for selection of specific traits and the ability to to reproduce those traits that define the difference between a hack and a talented breeder.

 

[Mr. Greengenes]

Speaking of an eye for selection, I have a theory about how peoples' ability to see traits changes, or more accurately, develops over time. So often you hear the phrase, "There were two phenotypes". You read further and find that the observer noticed that some were short (get ready...INDICA) and the others were tall, (don't tell me...SATIVA?). That kind of statement always startled me because I've yet to see a seedbatch that fell into such neat, well defined categories even for those most easily observed traits. But, further thought always brings me to the conclusion that the observer wasn't really looking that closely, or more properly, hadn't yet learned to look. Coming from the other direction, the science of plant breeding has matured quite a bit since Mendel. It's much less common for people to trot out the punnett square with great confidence than it was in days past. The simple explanation for that is that we now know that traits that sort into simple qualitative groups are rarer than hens teeth, and that most traits are inherited quantitatively. Of course, that's not to say that the PS is useless with quantitative traits. Now for the real can of worms. Whether a trait is judged to be quantitative or qualitative can depend on who observed it.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Everything we enjoy about cannabis is a qualitative as far as i can see.