Why don't landraces suffer from inbreeding depression?

O

ocean99

• Aug 2, 2009

• #1

Just thinking about what I've read on breeding today and it occurred to me that "landrace" strains, by definition, are inbred, so why would after so many generations these strains not lose vigor and whatnat?

Just wonderin.

 

BENJI

Between the Devil and the deep blue sea...

ICMag Donor

Veteran

• Aug 2, 2009

• #2

Only the strong survive...

 

Big Beans

Beans Means Highns

ICMag Donor

• Aug 2, 2009

• #3

Also many different mothers and fathers are used maybe 100s - so there are still unique variations that give enough hybrid vigour compared to an inbred line by a breeder who may only use 1 mother in a line of seeds.

 

Mr. Greengenes

Re-incarnated Senior Member

ICMag Donor

Veteran

• Aug 2, 2009

• #4

In Origin of Species, Darwin talks quite a bit about 'island populations' which are any kind of genetically isolated species. Generally, island populations grow more healthy over time because lethal genes are eliminated. Island populations also have the ability to change faster because the smaller population has a less stabilizing effect than a large one. I'm not sure where the ideas about loss of vigor being the automatic consequence of 'inbreeding' in cannabis come from. I've inbred two strains for at least 25 years now with no obvious loss of vigor. In fact, both strains are quite more vigorous than usual, if yield, speed and size are factors. Inbreeding doesn't cause loss of vigor but it does cause loss of fertility according to Mr. Darwin. I haven't seen that yet, but I'm only at about F22 with CB and a bit less with the other. Of course, loss of fertility has been observed by many plant and animal breeders in inbred strains.

 

medmaker420

The Aardvarks LED Grow Show

Veteran

• Aug 2, 2009

• #5

I think it is simply the "inbred" word that makes people believe the genes will be "stupid" if continued.

Look at the royal family, for being so stupid they really aren't doing too bad for themselves either lol.

 

Owl Mirror

Active member

Veteran

• Aug 3, 2009

• #6

medmaker420 said:

I think it is simply the "inbred" word that makes people believe the genes will be "stupid" if continued.

Look at the royal family, for being so stupid they really aren't doing too bad for themselves either lol.

Click to expand...

LOL by George, I think you've got it about right !
In fact, doesn't the Royal Home, reside on an island ?

 

O

ocean99

• Aug 3, 2009

• #7

Fuck, I guess I have a lot to learn.

 

DocLeaf

procreationist

ICMag Donor

Veteran

• Aug 3, 2009

• #8

Fresh genetics are usually bought into the gene-pool by smart breeders. For example Pashtun Afghan farmers introduced Uzbek lines into their region during the soviet war.

Whereas, in places were cannabis was/is intensively cultivated,, like Thailand and Morocco they pit-falls of over inbreeding are clearly visible..

Hope this helps

 

Mr. Greengenes

Re-incarnated Senior Member

ICMag Donor

Veteran

• Aug 3, 2009

• #9

Yeah, to me the word inbreeding is tossed around too generally. I usually make a distinction between linebreeding and inbreeding the same way animal breeders do. That is, I say linebreeding to mean an intergenerational cross, and inbreeding to mean a crossing of brother(s) and sister(s).

A quick look at any performance or commercially bred animals pedigree will reveal multiple instances of both kinds of cross.

The rule concerning any kind of health decline associated with any breeding plan is simple. Don't inbreed or linebreed with animals or plants that have some kind of defect. If you inbreed or linebreed an animal or plant line that is free of health problems you get a large population that is free of health problems. It's all there in OOS, always worth a read.

 

Mr. Stinky

Member

• Aug 3, 2009

• #10

ocean, inbreeding is the selection of traits in a small group, and breeding generation after generation for those selected traits, in order to create a larger, genetically alike progeny. this can be bad of you "bottleneck" or paint yourself in a corner by breeding out too much good along with the bad. "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" you could call it. but if you do it right, keeping the genetic diversity available tor following generations, you can remove or breed out the inferior ones without damage to the rest. it takes smarts, and lots of time/patience, but it can be done. in fact, without genetic selection, we wouldnt have anything to eat. corn would still be grass, beans would still be inedible grasses as well. dogs would be coyotes without diversity, there would be no cows, horses, chickens, or even humans. we have selected ourselves over thousands of years. the group of humans who mastered the potato spread across continents, while those who relied on mother nature solely died off. we are a product of our own making...

 

Weedninja

Member

• Aug 4, 2009

• #11

It helps to not think of inbreeding depression as something that happens to a whole population, suddenly. The breeder of any continuing line has to always select against bad mutations and traits, and select for desirable individuals. IOW, a landrace is never a finished product, but rather an ongoing project.

 

Possum

Member

• Aug 4, 2009

• #12

this whole thread was over after benji posted.

 

Weedninja

Member

• Aug 4, 2009

• #13

Possum said:

this whole thread was over after benji posted.

Click to expand...

Too many big words for ya?

 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites

Veteran

• Aug 4, 2009

• #14

Weedninja said:

It helps to not think of inbreeding depression as something that happens to a whole population, suddenly. The breeder of any continuing line has to always select against bad mutations and traits, and select for desirable individuals. IOW, a landrace is never a finished product, but rather an ongoing project.

Click to expand...

Right... that's exactly what benji said and why the thread was done way back without all the big words IOW nature does well to select against bad mutations and traits without humans to muck it up

 

Mr. Greengenes

Re-incarnated Senior Member

ICMag Donor

Veteran

• Aug 4, 2009

• #15

Humans haven't 'mucked up' any of the thousands of species of plants and animals selectively bred and domesticated since the beginning of recorded history. I don't see why they would do that to cannabis.

 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites

Veteran

• Aug 4, 2009

• #16

No... never.... not during the phylloxera problem with wine rootstocks... certainly humans had nothing to do with the potato famine of Ireland... and I know as a fact that humans were somewhere else during the corn blight of the 70's...

 

O

ocean99

• Aug 4, 2009

• #17

The way you put it made it seem like the entire cannabis gene pool is some how infected with corrosive genes because of humanity. Stop being such an elitist.

 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites

Veteran

• Aug 4, 2009

• #18

You wanted an answer and I give you mine: Nature can breed weed.... who's being an "elitist", the guy saying that humans are infallibly futuring and bettering cannabis or the guy that says everything was fine before we got to it?

 

K

kopite

• Aug 4, 2009

• #19

The way you put it made it seem like the entire cannabis gene pool is some how infected with corrosive genes because of humanity. Stop being such an elitist.

Click to expand...

How many landraces can you name? or know about that exist to this day that are unaffected by humans ?

Kopite

 

Weedninja

Member

• Aug 5, 2009

• #20

Nature doesn't select for the same traits that humans do. Feral Cannabis is not exactly prime smoking material.