Basic genetics explained
- Thread starter Padre CH
- Start date
I wanted to post some pics for you but I can't use my camera ATM so I'll do it without.
For me, there are no god or bad mutations. Some are just more advantageous for the plant, the breeder, or the researcher than others. It all depends what you want and what not
.I don't think that you can say yet that your plant with the weird twin seeds has a mutation causing this phenomenon. With mutation I mean a genetic mutation, just to be clear. You would have to grow this seeds out, make again some seeds, or even cross them and see to what point that trait is inherited.
With the 'evidence' you have so far it seems more likely that it is just an abnormality, a deformation.
I have a Rosetta Stone which for reason unknown showed sever chlorosis on just one branch (probably iron, manganese, or sulphur deficiency) and it has doubled calyxes (a calyx within a calyx) only on that branch. A mutation too good to be true; imagine a plant with twice as much harvest
. The seeds are normal looking though. We'll see if the offspring got that trait too (touch wood).I have also a cutting of said plant taken during flowering and put back into veg. Obviously, this caused the typical malformed, single leaflet, non-serrated leaves. It got pollinated before cutting and started to develop seeds but the messed up hormone household which causes the leaves to go bonkers also affected the seed formation. They showed sever deformities, under others a twin seed like yours... but these weren't viable cause I plucked them early for that the plant has enough resources to set roots.
What I'm saying is, several things (stress, injury, UV etc.) can lead to malformations sometimes affecting the whole plant or just a single branch and not only the area of the initial 'intervention'.
Cannabis reacts very easily to all kind of external influences with hormonal fluctuations, reorganisation of the meristem and other stuff causing changes in the overall architecture and symmetry of the plant. Some of these become preserved (temporarily or permanently) even if the plant grows. Thereby, branches, leaves, flowers, and finally seeds can be affected by something that maybe happened to the seedling.
But nature has its ways to set the clock in the gametes back so that the seed should usually be fine again (mostly, not always).
BTW where did you get chanterelles at this time of the year? Do you grow them?
So that would statistically be a completely homozygous plant, a true IBL and not that IBL crap so often used as advertisement.
SO COOL TO FINALLY HAVE FOUND SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW THEY LOOK AND PERFORM! Sorry for shouting but I'm really excited over here
.Could you tell me/us how these plants grew and behave? How bad does it get regarding inbreeding depression? Are there many lethal traits (i.e. low fertility and seed viability)?
Appreciate any insights you're willing to share and thanks in advance for your time!
Apart from Toms DC (might be a candidate but doesn't do too badly, does it?) I'm lacking basically any information on truly inbred cannabis plants. Therefore, I started my own experiment but not sure yet how that will work out, I'm only at making S2 right now. Still a long way to go... what's better than to spend that time on learning where this journey may lead?
Cannabis seems to be an extraordinarily adaptable and flexible species as you point out. I'm thinking there must be genetic coding for that adaptability. Probably not one single gene but it would be nice to nail this quality of the species??
[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=49503&pictureid=1284076&thumb=1]View Image[/URL] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=49503&pictureid=1284075&thumb=1]View Image[/URL] [URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=49503&pictureid=1284072&thumb=1]View Image[/URL]
Chantarellus cibarius, boletus edulis....
That chantarellus doesn´t exist BTW, but if you´re happy OK.
Enjoy yourself
I guess you are a mushroom expert?
Funny as I have picked them hundreds of times......
They are associated with Oaks.
Even at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantharellus_californicus
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...v._Associated_with_Live_Oak_in_California_USA
Article
A New, Commercially Valuable Chanterelle Species, Cantharellus californicus sp. nov., Associated with Live Oak in California, USA
David Arora, Susie M. Dunham
Economic Botany . 01/2008; 62(3):376-391.
DOI: 10.1007/s12231-008-9042-7
ABSTRACT A New, Commercially Valuable Chanterelle Species,
Cantharellus californicus
sp. nov., Associated with Live Oak in California, USA. The prominent golden chanterelle of California’s oak woodlands is characterized as a new species, Cantharellus californicus sp. nov., using molecular and morphological data. Our observations indicate that it is the largest Cantharellus species in the world, with individual sporocraps commonly weighing 1/2 kilogram (kg) (or 1 pound) or more when mature. Other
Cantharellus species in California are compared and evaluated, including their known ectomycorrhizal hosts. The California oak chanterelle
is an economically valuable species, and some observations on its commercial harvest are presented.
FTI,
David Arora author of "Mushrooms Demystified" gave mushroom classes we attended at UC Santa Cruz, he and Paul Stamets up at Fungi Perfecti in Olympia WA know more about mushrooms then anyone else I have ever met. Paul taught us how to grow mushrooms including by the acre outdoors in the ground or other ways. David taught us how to ID to be safe, and find all the local mushrooms in the California central coast area.
I love mushrooms and chanterelle is my favorite edible, Cantharellus californicus is what I love, the best of the chanterelles in my book and I have tried many different species, maybe 10 or more. I have found many over 1 Kg in my years of hunting them.
-SamS
Attachments
I don´t give a fuck.
I´ve got books from Paul Staments.
May be you should learn from him; he tryes to understand the nature......
There are mushroms that got different names depending of the autor.
Must be a EGO-inflated American ( quite common) that found that and Chantarellus Californicus....
¿ Why not Founding -fathers chantarellus ???
I´ve got books with 6000 references so you can say whatever you want
Small man = Big Mounth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqnCeTWcL2E
I´ve got books from Paul Staments.
May be you should learn from him; he tryes to understand the nature......
There are mushroms that got different names depending of the autor.
Must be a EGO-inflated American ( quite common) that found that and Chantarellus Californicus....
¿ Why not Founding -fathers chantarellus ???
I´ve got books with 6000 references so you can say whatever you want
Small man = Big Mounth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqnCeTWcL2E
Really? Again?
Could we please stick to the topic?
But we could open a new thread about fungi! I have a soft spot for them too. About 10 years back I used to determine all sorts of fungi I found under the microscope and with home made chemical tests . Bad thing is, most of the fungi here around aren't edible and chantarelles are rather hard to find... makes it difficult to imagine one weighing a kilogram.
BTW does nothing small exist in the States?
Could we please stick to the topic?
But we could open a new thread about fungi! I have a soft spot for them too. About 10 years back I used to determine all sorts of fungi I found under the microscope and with home made chemical tests
. Bad thing is, most of the fungi here around aren't edible and chantarelles are rather hard to find... makes it difficult to imagine one weighing a kilogram.BTW does nothing small exist in the States?
Really? Again?
Could we please stick to the topic?
But we could open a new thread about fungi! I have a soft spot for them too. About 10 years back I used to determine all sorts of fungi I found under the microscope and with home made chemical tests
BTW does nothing small exist in the States?
Sure the prohibitionists have small minds...
-SamS
xSo that would statistically be a completely homozygous plant, a true IBL and not that IBL crap so often used as advertisement.
SO COOL TO FINALLY HAVE FOUND SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW THEY LOOK AND PERFORM! Sorry for shouting but I'm really excited over here
Could you tell me/us how these plants grew and behave?
Weak and pitiful.
How bad does it get regarding inbreeding depression?
Real real bad.
Are there many lethal traits (i.e. low fertility and seed viability)?
Did not have so much trouble with seed fertility, but most of the pollen from the S3, S4, were functionally sterile, they did not really go through dehiscence, they dehisce but drop no pollen as the pollen is to sticky, if you use a q-tip you can get some pollen and it will work.
We solved most of the problems created by the loss of vigor due to inbreeding by having several lines and combining them at the end to restore vigor. Our goal was not homozygous lines we did get close, but I was not interested in them I was using selfing to find varieties with higher and higher %'s of target Cannabinoids. That worked fine.
Some of the S4 & S5 were tested for Homozygous vs Heterozygous They were almost homozygous but unusable for production in that form without first restoring vigor and fertility. I suspect you will see Homzygous Cannabis varieties and seeds available in the near future.
Skunk #1 has been inbred on a population level at least 10 years, not by selfing one plant, when I checked it for Homozygous vs Heterozygous I was surprised to find it was the most Homozygous "variety" ever checked, much more then any industrial hemp variety presently sold, we checked them also. Much much more then any other drug "variety". Not more then my S5's but that was not a variety.
-SamS
Appreciate any insights you're willing to share and thanks in advance for your time!
Apart from Toms DC (might be a candidate but doesn't do too badly, does it?) I'm lacking basically any information on truly inbred cannabis plants. Therefore, I started my own experiment but not sure yet how that will work out, I'm only at making S2 right now. Still a long way to go... what's better than to spend that time on learning where this journey may lead?
Y
Yard dog
The book/journal was called - “Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity; Technical Guidelines,” by L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and R. Reid
Y
Yard dog
They used the following to attain 95%
S = -3 loge (1-p)
allowing S to be the sample size ie: 1000, p is freq of the rare trait.
at least that along with Sedcoles 1977 computer models were used for the 1993 paper, in the updated one they have updated the math. I'd have to go digging on the math for 99%.
Y
Yard dog
Though I think the paper was an update to this, it was published in crop science.
With all this great science in this basic breeding thread lets up the anti
Why don't any of the "true professionals" answer question I posed so long ago
BY WHAT DEGREE OR PERCENTAGE OR MEASURABLE AMOUNT DOES YOUR METHODOLOGY IMPROVE RATES OF DISCOVERY and why do you present it in a way that would nullify the benefit of any other methodology?
To date they what have they discovered that "basic" breeding and selection haven't found?
Perhaps something for medical companies such as GWPharma but what about for the seed community?
Reality is our cultivars came outside of those methods, via traditional and standard methodologies (regardless of how piss poor some were executed).
Amazing they tout THEIR methodologies everywhere as if anything less won't produce any favorable result whatsoever. WHERE ARE THESE AMAZING NEW CULTIVARS THAT ONLY THEY CAN BREED. WERE ARE THEY? MARKET READY AND FOR SALE?
I know I hear them talk about what they wish THEY HAD NOT DONE that they put out in seed form.
But I digress, this is not an attack, this is simply dissemination of the information here in ICMAG.
Current reality is that small time guys (100 plant and less) are bumping the uglies of proven cultivars and creating highly sought after cuts. its not that fucking hard. (most of them worked through people just like this that's why you don't see facilities. don't hate the breeders prohibition DOH!)
bottom line it is a gross misrepresentation of this plants potential (which has already been actualized) is unacceptable regardless of who does it.
interestingly enough is that in parts of the world were they do run 1000s of plants they get an increase of local agricultural performance from their cultivars not super cultivars they inbreed.
Why aren't they increasing their cultivars performance?
What improvements do newly bred cultivars require to be worthy of the effort?
What about the improvements to chemovars, can the results we seek be gotten using "basic' breeding methods?
Is it impossible to simply enrich or add traits to a strain through basic breeding methods?
And what about the numbers? 20 guys with 100 plants is 2000 plants
There are lots and lots of people growing those numbers?
what percentage of elites will present themselves naturally?
What percentage of elites cuts and seeds are out there. out there changing lives as a result of these new modern breeding methods?
when the only topic of discussion is the puffing of ones chest regarding technology that is not even appropriate in regards to the topic the thread there is more at play than science
when they are dont creating the perfect strain maybe they will tell me how any one weed will suffice to meet a variety of differing needs some of them opposing
I have sats that curb appetites and indicas that make you hungry, two traits i want to remain mutually exclusive
maybe the "true professionals" will tell us how they will know what array of secondary metabolites will please everyone exactly the same
ONE STRAIN TO RULE THEM ALL
don't worry boys and girls sauron lost in the end
Why don't any of the "true professionals" answer question I posed so long ago
BY WHAT DEGREE OR PERCENTAGE OR MEASURABLE AMOUNT DOES YOUR METHODOLOGY IMPROVE RATES OF DISCOVERY and why do you present it in a way that would nullify the benefit of any other methodology?
To date they what have they discovered that "basic" breeding and selection haven't found?
Perhaps something for medical companies such as GWPharma but what about for the seed community?
Reality is our cultivars came outside of those methods, via traditional and standard methodologies (regardless of how piss poor some were executed).
Amazing they tout THEIR methodologies everywhere as if anything less won't produce any favorable result whatsoever. WHERE ARE THESE AMAZING NEW CULTIVARS THAT ONLY THEY CAN BREED. WERE ARE THEY? MARKET READY AND FOR SALE?
I know I hear them talk about what they wish THEY HAD NOT DONE that they put out in seed form.
But I digress, this is not an attack, this is simply dissemination of the information here in ICMAG.
Current reality is that small time guys (100 plant and less) are bumping the uglies of proven cultivars and creating highly sought after cuts. its not that fucking hard. (most of them worked through people just like this that's why you don't see facilities. don't hate the breeders prohibition DOH!)
bottom line it is a gross misrepresentation of this plants potential (which has already been actualized) is unacceptable regardless of who does it.
interestingly enough is that in parts of the world were they do run 1000s of plants they get an increase of local agricultural performance from their cultivars not super cultivars they inbreed.
Why aren't they increasing their cultivars performance?
What improvements do newly bred cultivars require to be worthy of the effort?
What about the improvements to chemovars, can the results we seek be gotten using "basic' breeding methods?
Is it impossible to simply enrich or add traits to a strain through basic breeding methods?
And what about the numbers? 20 guys with 100 plants is 2000 plants
There are lots and lots of people growing those numbers?
what percentage of elites will present themselves naturally?
What percentage of elites cuts and seeds are out there. out there changing lives as a result of these new modern breeding methods?
when the only topic of discussion is the puffing of ones chest regarding technology that is not even appropriate in regards to the topic the thread there is more at play than science
when they are dont creating the perfect strain maybe they will tell me how any one weed will suffice to meet a variety of differing needs some of them opposing
I have sats that curb appetites and indicas that make you hungry, two traits i want to remain mutually exclusive
maybe the "true professionals" will tell us how they will know what array of secondary metabolites will please everyone exactly the same
ONE STRAIN TO RULE THEM ALL
don't worry boys and girls sauron lost in the end
......
Don´t worry,I´m not posting again in any Thread were you are taking part, it´s a waste of time.
Keep talking with your fanboys that are like Parrots just repeating what you say Sam says... Sam this.... Sam that.....
Harry, why don't you make everyone's day and be a man of your word.
VG
Why don't you keep your word? This is #4.
And use your spell check, if you don't mind.
-SamS
"Don´t worry, I´m not posting again in any Thread were you are taking part, it´s a waste of time."
-harry74
@weird
I know, I'm not the person you asked ...
I think it's as much (or even more) about marketing than it's about breeding skills.
IMO basic genetics help understand what's going on, it is not mandatory to know these things to achieve great results.
Not so long ago farmers only used their wits and observation skills (green thumb and weed whispering if you will) to produce the basis of many if not most non-GMO agricultural crops. But for those who want to make something new (not just crossing elite with elite) the basics help to get into it faster than only by learning by doing.
I wonder how many creators of elites were actually aware of their findings. I think it was probably a friend with maybe a poor sense for breeding but a great one for 'marketing' who did. If a hobby breeder evaluates his cross it is very subjective and individually tailored. When a 'marketing guy' smokes it, he does it with a sense for the public, he perceives the weed the way others might experience it. He knows what folks out there want, what might come en vogue, and how to sell it if they don't .
Another aspect are the different mechanisms involved in 'elite' breeding.
One is heterosis; a principle still not entirely understood. Basically, one has to cross x with z and with luck (and a bit experience, but not much of a scientific basis I guess) get a heterozygous form that performs better than the parents. It's basically trial and error all the way down. There aren't many commercial breeders out there who still do that. Pollen chuckers might get a clone only because they don't keep both parents alive and can't produce these F1 seeds for the world over a longer time. So they keep on breeding and crossing and hope to fix their desired traits with the aim of creating a seed strain (isn't that about what many hobby breeders dream of?). Now, the problem is, that such a seed strain is more homozygous than the original F1. This likely lowers the probability of getting something new or great no matter what theoretical knowledge they have.
The second thing is cannabinoid and monoterpene content. Which cannabinoid it shell be is kind of predetermined (i.e. THC or CBD) and THC wins most often . That's the trait which is 'basic genetics'. The 'how much' depends not on the genes/alleles (they're always there, even in industrial hemp and ditch weed) but on the mechanism leading to the higher or lower expressed of the coded proteins involved in cannabinoid and terpene synthesis. Seems like these factors are partially inherited on the female side (cytosolic factors and non-nuclear DNA) and for another ... nobody knows. How do you breed for something you don't understand? I'd say with a green thumb and weed whispering .
As soon as you have the desired high THC trait fixed you also have the intermediates fixed and when you cross such an elite with another, the trait continues to exist with a high probability. That implies that everyone can cross elite with elites to eventually create a new elite. All that's needed then is good marketing and get that stuff to the people. Folks I know who're good with plants or animals do often better with plants and animals than humans... if you see what I mean.
For me, this thread and many others about how to breed cannabis aren't about getting the knowledge enabling me to easily create an elite by myself (I'm afraid it won't work anyway) but about satisfying my desire for knowledge, understanding what I'm dealing with, seeing the bigger picture, connecting the dots so that I can explain the result more than predict it. At least, the theory tells me what to expect and why when crossing hemp with drug type cannabis and hence safe me a few generations of trial and error. It won't give me an elite but I might be able to avoid getting something neither worthy of a drug nor for fibre production.
And finally, GMO and such stuff is fun if you're a scientist and work in a lab. For the next hundred years or so it's highly unlikely that these techniques become available to private persons. Maybe there will be enough understanding of how cannabis plants work in the years to come and eventually some biotech company will create even custom-made kits for private persons to fool around with. But when they do, you'd still need proper training to work under sterile conditions and properly use these ready-to-use 'DIY GMO' kits and grow the calluses out in Petri dishes. But I hope these days will never come! Understanding nature is one thing, trying to dominate it another... and we know well enough how good such attempts turned out in the past for our planet and thus for our species.
I know, I'm not the person you asked
...I think it's as much (or even more) about marketing than it's about breeding skills.
IMO basic genetics help understand what's going on, it is not mandatory to know these things to achieve great results.
Not so long ago farmers only used their wits and observation skills (green thumb and weed whispering if you will) to produce the basis of many if not most non-GMO agricultural crops. But for those who want to make something new (not just crossing elite with elite) the basics help to get into it faster than only by learning by doing.
I wonder how many creators of elites were actually aware of their findings. I think it was probably a friend with maybe a poor sense for breeding but a great one for 'marketing' who did. If a hobby breeder evaluates his cross it is very subjective and individually tailored. When a 'marketing guy' smokes it, he does it with a sense for the public, he perceives the weed the way others might experience it. He knows what folks out there want, what might come en vogue, and how to sell it if they don't
.Another aspect are the different mechanisms involved in 'elite' breeding.
One is heterosis; a principle still not entirely understood. Basically, one has to cross x with z and with luck (and a bit experience, but not much of a scientific basis I guess) get a heterozygous form that performs better than the parents. It's basically trial and error all the way down. There aren't many commercial breeders out there who still do that. Pollen chuckers might get a clone only because they don't keep both parents alive and can't produce these F1 seeds for the world over a longer time. So they keep on breeding and crossing and hope to fix their desired traits with the aim of creating a seed strain (isn't that about what many hobby breeders dream of?). Now, the problem is, that such a seed strain is more homozygous than the original F1. This likely lowers the probability of getting something new or great no matter what theoretical knowledge they have.
The second thing is cannabinoid and monoterpene content. Which cannabinoid it shell be is kind of predetermined (i.e. THC or CBD) and THC wins most often
. That's the trait which is 'basic genetics'. The 'how much' depends not on the genes/alleles (they're always there, even in industrial hemp and ditch weed) but on the mechanism leading to the higher or lower expressed of the coded proteins involved in cannabinoid and terpene synthesis. Seems like these factors are partially inherited on the female side (cytosolic factors and non-nuclear DNA) and for another ... nobody knows. How do you breed for something you don't understand? I'd say with a green thumb and weed whispering .As soon as you have the desired high THC trait fixed you also have the intermediates fixed and when you cross such an elite with another, the trait continues to exist with a high probability. That implies that everyone can cross elite with elites to eventually create a new elite. All that's needed then is good marketing and get that stuff to the people. Folks I know who're good with plants or animals do often better with plants and animals than humans... if you see what I mean.
For me, this thread and many others about how to breed cannabis aren't about getting the knowledge enabling me to easily create an elite by myself (I'm afraid it won't work anyway) but about satisfying my desire for knowledge, understanding what I'm dealing with, seeing the bigger picture, connecting the dots so that I can explain the result more than predict it. At least, the theory tells me what to expect and why when crossing hemp with drug type cannabis and hence safe me a few generations of trial and error. It won't give me an elite but I might be able to avoid getting something neither worthy of a drug nor for fibre production.
And finally, GMO and such stuff is fun if you're a scientist and work in a lab. For the next hundred years or so it's highly unlikely that these techniques become available to private persons. Maybe there will be enough understanding of how cannabis plants work in the years to come and eventually some biotech company will create even custom-made kits for private persons to fool around with. But when they do, you'd still need proper training to work under sterile conditions and properly use these ready-to-use 'DIY GMO' kits and grow the calluses out in Petri dishes. But I hope these days will never come! Understanding nature is one thing, trying to dominate it another... and we know well enough how good such attempts turned out in the past for our planet and thus for our species.
There's not many "true professionals" here.
No one does this. They speak of populations and statistics. It doesn't nullify anything, it just gets you where you're going faster. Statistically speaking. You could always just pop one and get your winner right there.
Weird way to look at it. Seed companies haven't even been able to maintain their lines. What release of blueberry are we talking. Was Kali Mist always this influenced by afghanica genetics? Ha.
And reality is we could do more and get further through proven methodologies. You're like arguing for maize when people know how to breed good F1 hybrids of corn. Seems stupid.
Who are THEY? It isn't "THEIR" methodologies. They read about them and researched plant science. You are just making this part up man.
I crossed my Triangle Kush to my Sour D and the internet LOVED IT! Let me pat myself on the back. Your whole view on this matter is so backwards I don't know where to start.
Do you think it's stupid to Self girl scout cookies and to self triangle kush and then decide which one to use as a parent? GSC segregates, Triangle not so much. Statistically you're better off using one than the other. But everyone still buys Phantom Cookies so who cares?
What?
You'll have to answer your own question about your own work and your own life...
Most were made by selfing...sounds pretty basic to me.
I don't know, didn't you say you had some chem lines?
Depends on what you're looking for. To me 1 in 30 to 1 in 100 end up in the keeper pile until I tire of them.
I don't know but I can tell you it certainly would have been more if you just keep crossing your sour d to your kush....
Yeah Budweiser is still looking for that one beer to rule them all. But the Budweiser guys are pretty fucking stupid aren't they?
