-
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"!
Have you ever had a strainTOO dominant
- Thread starter Treevly
- Start date
Do you mean dominance in growing by "vigorous" or as in genetic dominance? For example Lashkar Afghan and PCK for me were continually the more dominant phenos in the hybrids I made with their males. The higher the amount of inbreeding in a cultivar the more dominant the genes seem to come out.
Treevly
Active member
Is that problematic at all? I meant genetically dominant.
Tynehead Tom
Well-known member
deep chunk is that way and seems to dominate in it's crosses and proginy from the F1.
I hold a biker kush v1 .male(karma) that also likes to dominate in the initial cross. I like him because he adds some real punch and frost to the crosses I have done so far.
I hold a biker kush v1 .male(karma) that also likes to dominate in the initial cross. I like him because he adds some real punch and frost to the crosses I have done so far.
Just culled all thunk x White Rhino plants.
My fault, as I vegged too long and dropped micro too late in flower.
The buds were so dense, mold took them all, if they were grown
properly, likely the best yielding crop ever in my grow.
An example of White Rhino overload in a cross,
I'll pop more seeds of the cross and pay closer attention.
My fault, as I vegged too long and dropped micro too late in flower.
The buds were so dense, mold took them all, if they were grown
properly, likely the best yielding crop ever in my grow.
An example of White Rhino overload in a cross,
I'll pop more seeds of the cross and pay closer attention.
Not necessarily, it just will require more time and numbers to isolate a non dominant version of a particular variety in the F1s of a cross. In the F2s, depending on selection, you will probably see more representation of the non dominant parent.
Treevly
Active member
That is very interesting as I have a mould potential as well, but being something of a rookie, I don't know what you mean by "dropped micro."
Asiatica
Active member
Breeding rules 101: The more inbred the strain the more it will be dominant in a cross. Landraces will demonstrate that consistently.
Deep chunk is extremely inbred hence the dominance in most crosses made with it.
When making a cross if your goal is a balanced cross then chose parents beforehand that will work towards your goal.
Deep chunk is extremely inbred hence the dominance in most crosses made with it.
When making a cross if your goal is a balanced cross then chose parents beforehand that will work towards your goal.
CreeperStipule
Active member
But they do! Phenotypic expression favours homozygous genes, even if partial codominance it will favour the most homozygous parent (esp if it's the pollen donor)... you see more of that parent expressed just like the deep chunk crosses did... The F2s typically show more variance than the initial F1.
No idea if this leads to less fitness in the population eventually, Def not as simple as mendal
No idea if this leads to less fitness in the population eventually, Def not as simple as mendal
Asiatica
Active member
I have no idea what the reason could be for.
I simply know what I have observed in my self made crosses and others crosses.
A poster above mentioned how Deep Chunk dominates in all it breeds with.
I have seen and heard this from other breeders who used Deep Chunk as well.
Ask Tom Hill how inbred Deep Chunk is (F20+?).
In my crosses with SE Asian landraces the SE Asian landraces always dominate.
If you can repeatedly show an example of where a heavily inbred line does not dominate in an outcross with an unrelated hybrid line then please post up your findings.
I simply know what I have observed in my self made crosses and others crosses.
A poster above mentioned how Deep Chunk dominates in all it breeds with.
I have seen and heard this from other breeders who used Deep Chunk as well.
Ask Tom Hill how inbred Deep Chunk is (F20+?).
In my crosses with SE Asian landraces the SE Asian landraces always dominate.
If you can repeatedly show an example of where a heavily inbred line does not dominate in an outcross with an unrelated hybrid line then please post up your findings.
One should never consider one's own experiences, to be either representative of all experiences, or sufficient to deduct any underlying truths of nature.
Don't ask for others to prove you wrong, the burden of proof is not on them, it's on you to prove yourself right.
You really think that Tom thinks his plants are homogeneous?
Look, it sounds like I'm being harsh, but you should have seen the early days around here. There are no homogeneous plants, never mind plant lines, not outside of a lab working with haploids and colchicine. Even then, while genes can and do evolve over time, these time scales are huge. You can breed new ratios of genes, but you're not breeding new genes.
Don't ask for others to prove you wrong, the burden of proof is not on them, it's on you to prove yourself right.
You really think that Tom thinks his plants are homogeneous?
Look, it sounds like I'm being harsh, but you should have seen the early days around here. There are no homogeneous plants, never mind plant lines, not outside of a lab working with haploids and colchicine. Even then, while genes can and do evolve over time, these time scales are huge. You can breed new ratios of genes, but you're not breeding new genes.
CreeperStipule
Active member
Gmt, TH's own description states it's over 20gens so it will be homozygous for certain traits, again that's in the description, also go through the reports it dominated crosses.. do you have any experience with Deep chunk?
I don't think anyone has stated the line is fully homozygous or fully homogeneous ie; Isogenic
I don't think anyone has stated the line is fully homozygous or fully homogeneous ie; Isogenic
Last edited:
CreeperStipule
Active member
Here you go the description -
now if it's breeding true for many traits what would you call it? I'd go with homozygous for those traits
Deep Chunk
If anyone is ordering seeds have them label them as Hemp seeds with less than 0.01% THC. Cannabis seeds have zero THC in them. In 2018 hemp was officially legalized on the federal level "The farm bill".
www.icmag.com
now if it's breeding true for many traits what would you call it? I'd go with homozygous for those traits
I'd say certain traits are consistent across the line. Different statements.
I have spent many a night discussing these topics with Tom on this site, the last thing he would want of his plant lines, is for them to become that which you claim deep chunk has. Maintaining variance is essential for preservation in his book.
I was once sent deep chunk, unfortunately it didn't like the conditions I offered it. I didn't have the space to dedicate to getting to know it well enough to work with it.
I do however have a little experience outcrossing extremely inbred plants. There is a difference between genes being dominant, and being reliably passed on. There is also gene count to consider. A line consistently bred for a trait affected by gene count, will have a higher gene count to pass on. Therefore a co dominant expression may lean in one direction rather than either being suppressed.
I have spent many a night discussing these topics with Tom on this site, the last thing he would want of his plant lines, is for them to become that which you claim deep chunk has. Maintaining variance is essential for preservation in his book.
I was once sent deep chunk, unfortunately it didn't like the conditions I offered it. I didn't have the space to dedicate to getting to know it well enough to work with it.
I do however have a little experience outcrossing extremely inbred plants. There is a difference between genes being dominant, and being reliably passed on. There is also gene count to consider. A line consistently bred for a trait affected by gene count, will have a higher gene count to pass on. Therefore a co dominant expression may lean in one direction rather than either being suppressed.
CreeperStipule
Active member
Homogeneous means alike as in that deep chunk population looks fairly homogeneous.
Big difference than saying that population looks homozygous.
Anyway why was Monkey Haze an F2 release? That's the only cross I've come across where it didn't dominate. Also why wasn't DC the father in that line like the Thule Fog?
Big difference than saying that population looks homozygous.
Anyway why was Monkey Haze an F2 release? That's the only cross I've come across where it didn't dominate. Also why wasn't DC the father in that line like the Thule Fog?
Last edited:
Well, technically, when discussing homogeneousness, we are strictly discussing one gene with two copies, in a single thing. Or two things that share the same individual gene, with no differences.
However on weed forums, it has come to mean stable and consistent for all genes between siblings. I know, speaking two languages in one location is awkward, especially when they sound alike. Sort of English American.
Homozygous on the other hand refers to the location of said gene, ie is it at the same location on both strands of DNA inherited.
The code for life is fairly locked in, so all green plants are homogeneous for some genes, both within and across lines, but they cannot be said to be homogeneous for all genes. As for a homozygous plant, so long as the genes are in the same chromosomes, it's irrelevant. And certainly not something that I believe anyone on here is even looking at, nevermind playing with.
So when talking about lines, such words are already technically inappropriate, unless identifying the genes being discussed. That's why I'd use the phrase I stated, rather than all these scientific words that get misused and then become common place to mean their new perverted meaning.
However on weed forums, it has come to mean stable and consistent for all genes between siblings. I know, speaking two languages in one location is awkward, especially when they sound alike. Sort of English American.
Homozygous on the other hand refers to the location of said gene, ie is it at the same location on both strands of DNA inherited.
The code for life is fairly locked in, so all green plants are homogeneous for some genes, both within and across lines, but they cannot be said to be homogeneous for all genes. As for a homozygous plant, so long as the genes are in the same chromosomes, it's irrelevant. And certainly not something that I believe anyone on here is even looking at, nevermind playing with.
So when talking about lines, such words are already technically inappropriate, unless identifying the genes being discussed. That's why I'd use the phrase I stated, rather than all these scientific words that get misused and then become common place to mean their new perverted meaning.
CreeperStipule
Active member
Perverted, haha
