Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Marijuana Growing > Marijuana Strains and Breeding > Cannabis crosses are not F1s, so says science!

Thread Title Search
Click for Cannapot - buy cannabis seeds
Post Reply
Cannabis crosses are not F1s, so says science! Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-08-2018, 05:42 PM #21
TimeKeeper
Member

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the clouds
Posts: 110
TimeKeeper will become famous soon enoughTimeKeeper will become famous soon enoughTimeKeeper will become famous soon enough
There really is no such thing as a true or false F1 cross. As long as the P1 stock is genetically divergent it's an F1 cross. We are just talking about different degrees of heterozygosity in the P1 stock. This will have a large effect on offspring down the line in regards to stabilization of desired traits. Most breeders(cannabis and others) are only concerned with F1 hybrids due to heterosis. If you start with an IBL for the P1 you tend to have an easier path to stabilization of traits down the line. The cannabis industry is unique in the heavy use of clones to pass genetics from place to place. It takes a significant amount of work to stabilize an elite cut in seed form. Most cannabis breeders today make and release only F1 hybirds because its a shorter path to good plants. IBLs are incredibly important tools for the breeder but may not hold as much value to the end consumer. No need for any "H1" label to add to the confusion, but I see you working!
TimeKeeper is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-08-2018, 07:22 PM #22
HuffnPufferfish
Member

HuffnPufferfish's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: under the sea
Posts: 969
HuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really niceHuffnPufferfish is just really nice
since we are all idiots and dont know any better, i think its fine

stonerscience we call it
__________________
watching grass grow
HuffnPufferfish is offline Quote


Old 06-08-2018, 11:45 PM #23
Betterhaff
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,745
Betterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond repute
There could be another triple tomorrow. No science there.
Betterhaff is offline Quote


Old 06-09-2018, 12:04 AM #24
troutman
Seed Whore

troutman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: In the Fridge
Posts: 2,745
troutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond reputetroutman has a reputation beyond repute
Fact: No two individuals are the same.

So wouldn't that make any mating between compatible individuals be somewhat of a hybrid situation?
More so I think is the two are Landraces from different parts of the Globe. As stable as vegetable seeds
are compared to Cannabis. If you plant a dozen or more tomatoes. You'll find one better than the rest I think.
__________________
Terpene Amplification.

Working on Something Sneaky

Legalization may kill black markets. Government tyranny creates them.
troutman is offline Quote


Old 06-09-2018, 04:39 AM #25
Betterhaff
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,745
Betterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond reputeBetterhaff has a reputation beyond repute
testing may help
Betterhaff is offline Quote


Old 06-09-2018, 04:51 AM #26
PerfectDay
Newbie

Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 11
PerfectDay will become famous soon enoughPerfectDay will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural high View Post
I'm struggling with whether you fully understand what the terms homozygous and heterozygous mean.

Homozygous - both alleles are the same for any gene loci, eg AA, or BB

Heterozygous - each allele is different for any gene loci, eg Aa or Bb

Thus homozygous AA x homozygous aa = heterozygous Aa

Cheers
@naturalhigh Yes, I understand the difference. You were correct, my apologies for the earlier reply. I was distracted by a family issue concerning a step child, cops and cannabis. (The lawyer I hired has already fixed the issue in our favor!)


I noticed when going back over my chart that I hadn't gone far enough into the complexity of cannabis breeding and there were some discrepancies that needed fixed. The chart was meant as a jumping off point for where cannabis breeding starts, rather than a placement of where cannabis breeding is. According to genetic data most breeders aren't breeding hybrids or even polyhybrids as it would have led people to believe, but rather multi polyhybrids.

It is important to be absolutely accurate with scientific terminology and nomenclature. I'm just as guilty as others for purposefully self rationalizing the discrepancies between nomenclature and cannabis breeding.
Most people in the sciences, and elsewhere, will ignore us if we call something an F1 when they have to go searching through 8 different phenotypes to find the one we are advertising. However, if we are clearly labeling it as a cross of two multi polyhybrids, which they are, then they know to not expect any stability to the strain line. There is no nomenclature designation for polyhybrids or multi polyhybrids, because in all other plant breeding a multi polyhybrid plant line would be considered too unstable and would be culled or line bred for dozens of generations until it was stable. Because there is no adequate nomenclature it's important to remember that we're in the proposal and negotiations phase of settling new nomenclature, rather than in the settled nomenclature phase.



Just as before, alert me if any discrepancies are noticed in the above chart.


@troutman "You'll find one better than the rest I think." This characteristic has been explained with the variability of the environment in most cases.

For our hypothetical food crop to be as variable as our multi polyhybrid cannabis you'd need to plant seeds from a variety and get completely different tasting, growing and maturing tomatoes, e.g. very tart, very sweet, very sour, and completely bland, along with deterministic, non deterministic and something in between for growth profiles, and widely varied maturation rates.
This isn't what we get with vegetable seeds though, unless you find a rare mutation or have really bad luck which delivered you a seed with tons of double recessives hidden in the line.
****************************** ********************

The core of the problem being hashed out along side the nomenclature issue, is that cannabis in it's current form is tremendously unstable and variable. Breeders are saying "You'll get one of these 2 or 3 phenotypes, because it's an "F1 hybrid" except that according to genetic data, or close recorded phenotypic data, you're actually getting 8-12 phenotypes for the selected traits and it's a multi polyhybrid. When the breeders are asked why they are being deceitful they just reply that "It must be your technique," or "that's just the way cannabis is," which are both inaccurate and dishonest. Some of us have learned to know what to look for in finding more stable genetics in the swamp of strains, but no one should have to. A customer should be able to buy an "H1 hybrid" knowing it's a swamp of genetics, and they should be able to require breeders to produce more stable lines, with the facts on their side, if they want to be charged larger prices. Breeders that do produce stable lines with desired traits should be able to charge a premium, because their lines have been inbred to the point that there is only one major phenotype with very low variability. None of this can happen while we allow breeders to mislabel crosses with anything that sounds like good public relations. Not to be forgotten, there are also many breeders out there that would genuinely like to let buyers know that their genetics have only reached a certain degree of stability without saying "We have no idea what we've sold you", but the current nomenclature doesn't allow for that. If they're given the nomenclature of "H" to designate a multi polyhybrid they'll use it.

The state of cannabis, as it is, amounts to buying a children's book and having the story turn into an armpit hair fetish story 2 pages in. Scientists are starting to breed and genome test strains that are the equivalent of a children's book that matches the book's summary of a happy ending exactly. Are more buyers going to throng to the armpit hair fetish strain or the happy ending strain?

Sticking with our analogy, scientists are currently saying "You need to not put that porno book in the porno section, so we can all go smoke a joint together" and too many in cannabis culture are saying "I'll put my books wherever I damn well please," except we're missing the point that we don't own the bookstore, just a few books we're trying to trade or sell, and we can be easily out competed in emerging markets.
PerfectDay is offline Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2018, 01:17 PM #27
Pepé The Grower
Member

Pepé The Grower's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 306
Pepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to allPepé The Grower is a name known to all
Hi,

Your BBPH schema is wrong as well...if p1 and p2 are heterozygotes you'll struggle to end with those % you wrote.

I always did find it funny when people do this % thingy, just like if breeding is only simple mathematics, or if people did breed for only one trait...and yet nobody have talked about co-dominance or other weird and complicated genetics exceptions.
__________________
"There are no limits to what you can accomplish when you are supposed to be doing something else"



"Flowers everywhere is what he sees, because he is one of Shiva's devotees"
Pepé The Grower is offline Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2018, 06:42 PM #28
PerfectDay
Newbie

Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 11
PerfectDay will become famous soon enoughPerfectDay will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepé The Grower View Post
Your BBPH schema is wrong as well...if p1 and p2 are heterozygotes you'll struggle to end with those % you wrote.
The backcross portion was meant to be overly simplistic. If we make it more in depth then it requires multiple charts with an exponential increase in volume for each variable set we add. That type of discussion is valuable, but was not the intent of the original discussion.

I see value in meandering though and the topic is fascinating, so let's take that path a bit! 😉

(Hopping on a plane shortly, but I'll post an exploration of backcrossing with multi polyhybrids later today, hopefully with a concise graphic for later referencing. I implore anyone interested to expand on any parts of mph BXing you've found fascinating!)
PerfectDay is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2018, 07:13 PM #29
zif
Member

zif's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 228
zif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nicezif is just really nice
Rather than explore the unfortunate depths of cannabis bro science via multiple BX 'strategies', why not spend that energy thinking about real approaches to developing the F1s we are lacking?

Specifically - plant breeders developed strategies like reciprocal recurrent selection so that they could make inbred lines that produced elite F1s. I haven't seen a serious thread on making real F1s for years....
zif is online now Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2018, 04:02 AM #30
Somatek
Member

Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Ontario, the place to grow
Posts: 58
Somatek will become famous soon enoughSomatek will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfectDay View Post
Another thing I'd like to point out, because I think it's being taken defensively, while I believe it is meant more out of respect and deference towards the wisdom and expertise of the cannabis grower/breeder.

View ImageView Image

The scientific community has in effect stated that cannabis is a special plant, both in it's use and in the practice of breeding it. Past and current cannabis breeding has caused cannabis to not fit the old nomenclature regime, probably because it's versatility and usefulness!

The scientific community is basically saying "You cannabis breeders have created this new thing that we want to assimilate into the old nomenclature system, but we need you to name it something that isn't already being used by the old nomenclature system". This is cause for celebration, not alarm. Scientists want to work with us as peers, that's a genuine honor being given to a community of people that have traditionally been outcasts of our greater society.


View Image
I think it's more likely that traditional plant breeders will get involved with Cannabis, take the existing gene pool & stabilise IBL's out of them & continue traditional breeding rather then cannabis breeders defining a new breeding term.

Most breeders/pollen chuckers are restricted by laws, as those laws disappear & breeders can grow fields to make selections from they will. I expect certain "families" (for lack of a better term to convey being related but highly variable) will become the early IBL's; like blueberry, haze, afghan or white widow that have distinct characteristics.
Somatek is offline Quote


2 members found this post helpful.

Post Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:11 PM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.