IBL's list

[pastor]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Selfing is the most extreme form of inbreeding.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Selfing IS inbreeding.
It is NOT the only method if inbreeding.[/FONT]

Thank you MJPassion. Now I think I've understood.

Not only in the States... a good way to keep the fields in the family, lol.

 

[pastor]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Far as I know only some plants & very few animals are capable of selfing. Actually, more plants than I originaly thought are capable and rely on selfing for survival. [/FONT]

Yes, inbreeders are the rule. Outbreeder plants are very few. That's why hemp is so interresting

 

[MJPassion]

Keep outcrossing cannabis and it will become hemp.

 

[Only Ornamental]

I'm not so sure you understand the concept of 'wrong' when it comes to presenting information in the public.

I think Adolf Hitler knew the concept well when he said something like:
Tell a big lie mixed with known truth and your story becomes believable.

That's not ecactly what he said but close.

One false part of a comment makes the entire comment false. It is true with math as it is with law.

Truth that's tainted is no longer true even in the slightest.

By the way... you asked me to bust your balls so why ya gonna whine about it when it happens?

I didn't ask for being beaten over and over again for something that's already been corrected...
You have a point with your comparison (the one with the false info in the true context, not Hitler ) and I'm again and again fucking sorry to being the only one who used a term which can be used but usually isn't and which looks like misleading humanity (attention, sarcasm). I can well take criticism but not when my whole reputation is repeatedly put into question due to a minor mistake by someone who repeatedly writes half-truths himself...

Which brings me back to topic: You said 'I think I laid it out the basics in post 48 fairly well. All are examples of breeding within a line.. line breeding... ie., the end result being an inbreed line or IBL... '
You and others here mix up line or in-breeding with IBL: One is a means, the other a result. The important thing is, that you can inbreed without ever getting an inbred line and, with modern gene- and biotechnology, one can get an IBL without any true breeding at all. If you look at 'older' dog races (FCI), most of them have been line bred and often closely inbred for 50 to 200 generations and they are still no IBL's. Take for example BALB/c mice (one of the most famous mouse IBL), they have been closely inbred for ~20 generations and then loosely inbred (or line bred) for ~40 generations and since ~20 years bred without respecting relationships. The results aren't the same; you can do a common fatherhood test with any dog and the test should work fine, do it with BALB/c and the test will indicate that any living male BALB/c mouse (and all which ever lived in the last 20 years) is the father with nearly a 100% accuracy (or that you just retested the same sample over and over again). FYI, I'm talking here about more than one million mice! A failing fatherhood test is no definition of IBL's but a simple tool (if used on several generations) to indicate a true IBL. BTW a fatherhood test would work on any cannabis plant grown from seed .

 

[Only Ornamental]

Keep outcrossing cannabis and it will become hemp.

MJ-MJ...
Cannabis (the way most growers/tokers use is) is Cannabis indica (according to Linné and Hillig) whereas hemp is Cannabis sativa.
There are other nomenclatures but that doesn't change the fact that drug type cannabis and hemp are two different pairs of shoes and aren't interconvertible.
As an example, if you outcross a Black Widow to a Jack Herer you still have an NLD/WDL hybrid and not something like fibre hemp.
Besides, hemp could mean fibre or seed hemp (cultivated hemp), feral hemp (cultivated hemp gone wild) or wild hemp (like what's often called ruderalis). Cannabis usually refers to cultivated drug type cannabis, but also includes feral and wild cannabis as well as non-drug cannabis (again cultivated, feral and wild).

Outcrossing only means to cross with something not in the same line as the parent plant or population of interest (and it's up to the breeder to define the 'line' and the population) .

Edit: Because you love references to prove my point, S. Gilmore, R. Peakall, and J. Robertson, Forensic Science International. 172 (2007), 179-190.

 

[MJPassion]

I'm hopping off this tread mill...
The conversation is not really progressing with you OO.
It seems to me you've got an itch for an argument rather than a discussion.

I posted definitions to back my words, from cultivation/breeding experts, and it seems you disagree with those as well.

When you can bring something besides your own thoughts & opinions to the table the discussion might continue.

I've got one question for ya though...
Why are you obsessed with telling folks that IBLs don't exist?
That's completely untrue!

 

[Only Ornamental]

Oh, you used good citations from others... I don't hold something against those but the way you interpret some of them...
I'll see if I can find some things to back 'my thoughts and opinions' up, if it's what you need
I'm not obsessed and IBL's do exist, I'm just trying to explain how it comes that they don't in cannabis... but what can I say, you believe in the seed banks advertisement, think that the terms 'auto', 'autoflowering', or 'automatic' is proper nomenclature to indicate a plant without photoperiode and so on...
Only because some famous breeders use the term IBL doesn't bring it to existence but I'm not a famous breeder so my word doesn't count no matter my background, I got it.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Here's a little literature for you MJ: Brenner's Encyclopedia of Genetics (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780080961569)

 

[Only Ornamental]

And here some more literature to back 'my thoughts and opinions' up (if you haven't remarked, I'm not sharing thoughts and opinions but just stating the obvious based on strict logic and hard evidence ).
We start simple: http://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/advanced/topics/PopGenetics/Pages/ReproductiveMatingSystems.aspx
And a publication: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n1/pdf/nrg2025.pdf
A definition: http://fishwild.vt.edu/conservation_genetics/materials/inbreedi.pdf
Some mathematics: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932357/pdf/ajhg00558-0120.pdf and http://www.genetics.org/content/139/1/473.full.pdf

If you don't get these things, I'll explain it simple:
In case of cannabis with 20 chromosomes, 6 successive selfed generations lead to a mathematical probability of 100% that the offspring is completely homozygous and hence it and it's offspring (if only bred within the line) is worthy of the title IBL although the reality differs from statistics. There is no cannabis 'strain' available that has been selfed that much, feel free to ask all breeders .
I can calculate it for you step by step if you need help .

In general breeding, if you do strict and successive sibling crosses with only two randomly chosen individuals (usually a male and a female) from each generation, it takes at least 20 generations to obtain near complete homozygosity (mathematically speaking only and neglecting crossing over). Notably, you are forbidden to do anything else than these 20 successive and random sibling crosses or it will take longer. If you use 3 individuals, it takes at least 40 generations. Is there a cannabis variety that has been bred like that? No! Why? Because you genetically bottleneck to the extent that you can't do selection anymore but just have to take what's viable and fertile. If you do selections, you will chose vigorous siblings and those tend to be the more heterozygous ones (remember hybrid vigour) and you bias the system resulting in more generations needed for a near homozygous line aka IBL.

Backcrossing to one or the other parent will not result in an IBL even though it increases homozygosity because the parents aren't completely homozygous (i.e. IBL's). Bx is just a means to increase specific parental genetic traits within the offspring. That, like everything else I stated, is not my opinion but a scientific fact proven over and over again in real life.

Still believe that there are cannabis IBL's?

Besides, I found out that line breeding is used differently in livestock breeding and in thoroughbred breeding. The definition of an IBL remains the same: 5 selfings for most crop and livestock due to not more than 12 chromosomes (and in case of cannabis 6 selfings) or 20 sibling generations as stated above...

 

[Only Ornamental]

Hehehe...
I have a poor connection & I'm working off my lame phone.
But hey... It's what I've got & I make it work. My posts are legible, save for a spelling error here n there.

Back from holiday. Hadn't a slow connection but a public and unsecured hotspot colliding with my internet security...
I colour coded the post in question so that it becomes legible also for you .

That would be correct.

I think I laid it out the basics in post 48 fairly well. All are examples of breeding within a line.. line breeding... ie., the end result being an inbreed line or IBL...

No, sorry bro, but that wouldn't.
First, many self-fertilising flowers become also fertilised by other flowers from time to time. For example bumblebees have a way to pollinate self-fertilising tomatoes. It's enough every now and then to make them no IBL's unless a farmer maintains the line.
Furthermore, line breeding does not ultimately lead to an IBL; dog and cat breeders do line breeding but try to avoid ever getting an IBL (already before that point, the breeds start showing diseases and alike which messed up quite a few ones already!).

So I went a got a couple references...

There's no mentioning that an IBL is the result of line breeding in those citations. There's also no logic explanation why you would draw that conclusion from those citations. 'Line breeding' is simply a verb and 'inbred line' a noun and that's that. They could be linked but they can also be independent.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Yes, inbreeders are the rule. Outbreeder plants are very few. That's why hemp is so interresting

Got any reference for that? Cause many wind pollinated plants and especially non cultivated species are typical 'outbreeders' (except some crops) and many insect pollinated ones are either self-sterile or have different means to prevent self pollination in case they are self-fertile (e.g. different times in anther and stigma 'maturation' like Asteraceae and Aroidae or tricky built flowers like orchids and Lamiaceae).
Besides, I don't see why the way of pollination should make a plant more or less interesting. I'd say cannabis breeding would be more interesting if it were an 'inbreeder'...

 

[pastor]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Got any reference for that?[/FONT]

No, I was just thinking about vegetables which are mainly inbreeders, but i've spoken too fast, without real knowledge. mea culpa.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Besides, I don't see why the way of pollination should make a plant more or less interesting.[/FONT]

coz within crop plants, it figures an exception by this way of pollination, and the state of dioecy. It seems way more complex than peas, and IMO, complexity is stimulating. But i would add, like above, i've spoke too fast, without knowledge, in a foreign language (maybe i would have spoken differently in my own language, with more shades and more doubts, less roughly).

The good side is that I've learnt a lot with your explanations, your posts are really helpfull and scientist: this is what we need (in MJ forum) 'coz there's too much misinformations and pseudo-scientific assertions.
Next time I will shut up and listen carefully, coz i'm here to learn with people like you
Thank you Only Ornemental.

 

[Only Ornamental]

No, I was just thinking about vegetables which are mainly inbreeders, but i've spoken too fast, without real knowledge. mea culpa.

coz within crop plants, it figures an exception by this way of pollination, and the state of dioecy. It seems way more complex than peas, and IMO, complexity is stimulating. But i would add, like above, i've spoke too fast, without knowledge, in a foreign language (maybe i would have spoken differently in my own language, with more shades and more doubts, less roughly).

The good side is that I've learnt a lot with your explanations, your posts are really helpfull and scientist: this is what we need (in MJ forum) 'coz there's too much misinformations and pseudo-scientific assertions.
Next time I will shut up and listen carefully, coz i'm here to learn with people like you
Thank you Only Ornemental.

Don't be sorry and most certainly don't shut up! It wouldn't be a discussion anymore and non of us knows everything; I know about some things, you about others and together it gives a whole (or at least something closer to that LoL). We're talking here about plants being more or less interesting and that is a pure subjective point of view and each and every one can have his own opinion. I was just asking why you think the way you do. Like you said: 'But i would add ... i've spoke ... in a foreign language (maybe i would have spoken differently in my own language, with more shades and more doubts, less roughly).'
Oh, besides, you weren't wrong or spoke without knowledge . As opposed to wild flora, there really seem to be more inbreeders amongst cultivated plants. I wonder why...

 

[pastor]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As opposed to wild flora, there really seem to be more inbreeders amongst cultivated plants. I wonder why... [/FONT]

really? héhéhé...

 

[Only Ornamental]

Yea, pretty much looks like that (judging by a quick&dirty google search) .

 

[rantan]

nitpickers extraordinaire ... thought this was about ibl's

 

[pastor]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]nitpickers extraordinaire ... thought this was about ibl's [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yea, you're right, the end is a little off topic, but it remains quite interesting, don't you think? Maybe you feel a little disappointed by all these years of misuse of language?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A lot of conflicts start by different uses of words, people don't understand each other, that's why it's important to define those words and to call a spade a spade.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
There's stable varieties, homogenous, both, but the word "IBL" is not suitable in our case. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It isn't the most important, the plants remain the same and the great work done too, that's what we need![/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[Only Ornamental]

Just realised that there's an actual 'inbreeding thread' pinned and started by Gypsy himself: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=17570

Furthermore, I found a nice list of stable strains and alleged IBL's (for breeding purposes) on a German speaking forum... respecting the TOU, I'll share the link only per PM .