Everybody a breeder ?

[Tom Hill]

I mean, whytf should we screw around with something that is not going to give us what we want? Why not use the best plants to start with? I fucking garantee you, if you narrow things down this way you'll end up with a better result, ride, whatever you want to call it, the vast majority of the time. It has absolutely nothing to do with feminized seeds, or any of that, does it. Of course not.

 

[GMT]

thanks Tom. I'm gonna try this out over the summer and see what happens.

 

[Tom Hill]

Thank you sir for doing so. The 1:9 (concentrate to distilled H2O) ratio the guy advertises is questionable, use like 3:9 or so, ime.-T

 

[GMT]

ah right, how about the distilled thing? Are the other chems in standard tap water gonna prevent it working? I mean clearly I can get distiled, after looking aroung I found model railway places carry it for their steam engines, but is that a must? doesn't make sense to me that.

 

[Tom Hill]

really? If distilled water was an issue for me I would boil it well and then let rest/pour off. The concern is how any number of other chems you may have in your water will effect the ones you are introducing. I would not let it stop an experiment however.

 

[Tom Hill]

just fucking do it dude.. Then out of your 5 favorite plants you'll be able to ahead of time predict which is likely to have the highest GCA vaslues and etc. Outside of marker assisted breeding, it's like mana from the heavens for cannabis breeders.

 

[Tom Hill]

and just for weird anybody who has an attitude or problem with that doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about and can go straight to hell, lol

 

[Mate Dave]

Only if you need the selfed progeny in my opinion should you use it.

Nullizygous organisms contain two mutant alleles or 'loss-of-function' alleles for the same gene.

This is what is happening to a filial generation when disregarding the traits carried on the Y.

Factor in loss of any linked traits present on the Y.

If the Y is the only 'Key' left to fit the Ideal Karyotype the selfed generation is therefore not needed. However it offers opportunity to explore further into the diversity of the genome.

You would therefore have to test all the possible recombinations for desireable charachteristics, the selfed progeny compared to the usual dioecious matings as this would see if it makes a difference, and if so, is it worthy of the extra financial cost to the seed produced.

"Basically I assume the y chromosome is returned back to the karyotype when the selfed progeny breeding goal is complete."

Cannabis is an out-crosser period!

"Severe inbreeding can alter viability and effect the males ability to recombine half Sib, this is the one outstanding benefit of the selfed progeny to the breeder when increasing homozygosity." I know nobody else who can tell me the another!

Do you need a selfed generation? - It depends on the breed, some crosses will the perfect genotype upon a normal 1:1 mating and all progeny will be the desirable genetype showing spectacular phenotypes, 'Mono Hybrid' all recessive. With a male female ratio of 20% -80%.

You can't breed a heterozygous individual with linked traits!

Males offer that breeder the ability to make better crosses period!

It not like we have to use this technique, I will put money on normal dioecious selection being more beneficial to the gene-pool as far as resistance and diversity are concerned.

Heterozygosity promotes resistance and variance.

 

[Tonygreen]

GMT picture me as anything you want haha

Self 5 outstanding individuals, rank them according to their progeny, the one that has the most consistant progeny will go through a quick backcrossing method (use as a recurrent parent) without running into the problems that Chimera outlined in myths about backcrossing. Boom, you have your precious Y, and you have completed in 4 cycles a far superior product than what anyone would lay odds on you could do in 9, using any other method.-Tom

ON IT.

 

[GMT]

Tom offered me a way to keep using my males and working the whole line quicker in 3 generation chunks. The selfing is to aid selection, not to breed with and will be done prior to each chunk to make a selection.

 

[Tom Hill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymsHLkB8u3s Matt lol.

 

[SooperSmurph]

spoken like somebody who's never cracked the first book.

like i said. anyone smart enough to prove me wrong is welcome to do so. "read a book" isnt an argument. thats like if we were arguing about atheism vs religion and someone says "read the bible" like thsts the end of the discussion. all youre doing is marking yourself as an idiot by using such "arguments."

odds are ive read more books than everyone else in this thread combined. i guess thats why i understand their limitations, and that just because its in a book doesnt make it true. dont mind me though. go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, it it makes you feel smart.

We have no way of translating complicated subjects from 0 understanding to perfect understanding. The only way for you to participate in this discussion properly is for you to take the time to do the reading, without that, we can talk until we're blue in the face, and you simply won't understand it anyway.

I'm not going to discuss marriage and child rearing with a teenager, so how can I seriously discuss plant genetics with someone who refuses to do the basic reading involved? Not telling you to enroll in the local CC, but at the very least you should read "Experiments in plant hybridization" by Gregor Mendel, what better way to form an understanding of plant genetics than with the original treatise on it?

 

[Tonygreen]

Everything you do should aid selection maybe, I mean I'm no "breeder" but if that was my goal why would I do otherwise! I can see how narrowing down the variables by taking out the Y would help.

Tom can you expound on that bit about a using a recurrent parent to backcross in that situation? For example, would you back cross to the original parents (p1 I guess)that made the f1's you made your 5 outstanding selections from to self and test the progeny? OR do you maybe make your selections from the progeny you selfed from each 5 and backcross those (f1 parents)?

 

[indicadom]

I didn't say everything is art, good job putting words in my mouth though.

What I did say is, practically applying proper breeding techniques is, or could be considered an art. The art lies in the selection. But whatever, feel free to continue to be a douche.

Good job attacking me about a punnet square even after I predicted you would, though now you attack me because I didn't give you the answer, even though it was an off handed comment initially.

And no, I'm not saying the Einstein of breeders is in hiding, I'm saying there exists a large group of people knowledgeable in breeding who don't post online, or sell seeds, not to mention the breeding masters who haven't even fucked with cannabis because of its legality.

Have a nice day douche

No, the proper application of breeding technique is just that, nothing else. The technique of proper breeding only changes when science says so, what YOU are talking about is each breeder's individual taste, which is irrelevant to proper breeding technique. Do you understand the distinction now? The best method is always going to be the best method regardless of what grower A chooses to select for and what grower B chooses to select for. Stop saying ART over and over, you sound ridiculous. Art is a unique discovery made by an individual, something that nobody else can reproduce. This however has no impact on proper breeding technique.

I could care less if you give me the answer for what a punnett square is, because I already know the definition. I am sorry to break this to you again, but real breeders have extensive knowledge, networking, work experience, background, studying, etc. Do you really think that the best breeders in the world wouldn't of already ran into each other? There aren't many places cannabis is accepted and most of the top breeders have known each other for a very long time. So no, you're wrong, there doesn't exist a large group of knowledgeable growers that nobody has ever seen, and nobody has ever met.

I mean seriously your lack of scope is really astounding. Now you're saying all the BREEDING MASTERS, don't even mess with cannabis because of the legality? Out of all the college graduates in the world, how many are arts degrees versus science degrees? Now out of those science degrees how many are related to plants? Now out of those degrees how many pursue a postgraduate in the same field? How many receive doctorates in their field? There are no cannabis breeding masters in existence yet, all the brilliant minds of the world have been occupied with other ventures. Give it 50 years when cannabis has become a regular topic of conversation in the scientific community.

spoken like somebody who's never cracked the first book.

like i said. anyone smart enough to prove me wrong is welcome to do so. "read a book" isnt an argument. thats like if we were arguing about atheism vs religion and someone says "read the bible" like thsts the end of the discussion. all youre doing is marking yourself as an idiot by using such "arguments."

odds are ive read more books than everyone else in this thread combined. i guess thats why i understand their limitations, and that just because its in a book doesnt make it true. dont mind me though. go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe, it it makes you feel smart.

This post is absolutely littered with grammatical errors, and you're claiming to read more than everyone else in this thread? I mean really? You've already been proven wrong, and you are just standing around yelling, "Who can prove me wrong, huh!?".

 

[Tom Hill]

Selfwell Cubewell. If a plant selfs well,,that is to say that many of her progeny upon selfing, resemble her, that is because she is homozygous across many traits. These are the plants you then plug into many areas of breeding, in the case of the backcross, in about 3, you will have that mother (recurrent parant who also selfs well) giving rise to a population that looks very much the same as her selfing progeny did, but with males.

You'll get that no matter the donor parent (the original; male you use) so it doesn't really matter much. Is this the way the backcross is traditionally used in breeding? NO, but who cares it is completely valid. The only part that would be taken out in real breeding would be the reintroduction of the Y, because they've not been so poisoned with ignorant stoner babble. Wierd, huh?

 

[GMT]

hmmmm, we're getting along, don't spoil it lol.

 

[Tom Hill]

It was obviously a poke at Mr. Weird.....

and why shouldn't I, I've been jumping up and down over in the corner here over OUR thing, not my thing or any of that bullshit. fuc u guys

 

[Mate Dave]

Selfwell Cubewell. If a plant selfs well,,that is to say that many of her progeny upon selfing, resemble her, that is because she is homozygous across many traits. These are the plants you then plug into many areas of breeding, in the case of the backcross, in about 3, you will have that mother (recurrent parant who also selfs well) giving rise to a population that looks very much the same as her selfing progeny did, but with males.

You'll get that no matter the donor parent (the original; male you use) so it doesn't really matter much. Is this the way the backcross is traditionally used in breeding? NO, but who cares it is completely valid. The only part that would be taken out in real breeding would be the reintroduction of the Y, because they've not been so poisoned with ignorant stoner babble. Wierd, huh?

Utter useless method for the Heterozygote individual do you not think Tom.

Only really being of significance to a homozygous recessive genotype should we have its inbreeding coefficient partner to hand to lock down all dominant traits.

 

[bushweed]

The one argument that floors this whole notion that breeding cannabis is best done by those versed in botanical genetics using a strict mathematical methodology is this:

The best dope that the world has ever seen was grown by farmers in places like Nong Khai, Santa Marta, Mazari, Mulanje, the Palni Hills and Oaxaca, and these farmers were completely ignorant of anything other than simple arithmetic, were completely ignorant of scientific methodology, were completely ignorant of anything pertaining to botany, chemistry or genetics; yet year in year out using nothing but simple traditional methods in disparate parts of the globe, they produced the best drug cannabis we've seen.

And it truly wasn't until the Americans and Western Europeans came along with their reductionist scientific world view that the Golden Age of drug cannabis came to an end.

And this my fellow stoners is why anyone with a joint in their mouth and a Gregor Mendel book in their hand, telling you the only way to breed superior cannabis; is full of pure unadulterated bullshit, because all of the evidence is to the contrary.

And all you lab coat wearing scientologists look like nothing so much as white missionaries brandishing the Bible saying - this is the only way!

Sure

 

[Tom Hill]

No Matt, you can not obtain more heterozygous individuals than to cross two divergent homozygous individuals, now tell me again where to begin?