Breeding discussion

[abirdintheair]

okay i have a question h3ad...

lets say you start some bagseed(complete unknown origin) and end up with say six females. would those be f1s since you dont know where they came from or f2s, f3s? if one of said six females hermie'd from light stress and pollinated 3 of the other five, would those beans be the f2s, f3s or something else? considering the plant was female and then hermie'd would the beans tend to be female, female/male mix, or sterile? what about if it pollinated itself?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

okay i have a question h3ad...

lets say you start some bagseed(complete unknown origin) and end up with say six females. would those be f1s since you dont know where they came from or f2s, f3s? if one of said six females hermie'd from light stress and pollinated 3 of the other five, would those beans be the f2s, f3s or something else? considering the plant was female and then hermie'd would the beans tend to be female, female/male mix, or sterile? what about if it pollinated itself?

They would not be F1s.
F1s are only the product of crossing two unrelated inbred lines.

You could not legitimately call them F anything, unless you knew their linage and the cross originated from two unrelated inbred lines and had never been back crossed or out crossed.

The beans would go in the trash if they were mine... breeding with seeds gotten from stressed intersex plants is a difficult proposition, and should only be bothered with in extreme cases, imho... The beans would tend to be more intersex plants, more than likely, and it would take much work and many generations to breed it out...

I wouldn't bother growing selfed seeds, personally...

 

[abirdintheair]

okay thanks, its was purely hypothetical, was just unsure where the unknown variable would start, if at all, with the f generation. plus you see lots of threads with people starting bagseed so...

 

[XyZ]

~lol Ghead, you really like eating corn flakes with sour milk?

"XyZ... if a line is homozygous, then there is not going to be any difference at all in the average genetic profile in successive generations

~sorry but that's again incomplete! what you say now is true only IF the line is homozygous for ALL traits (like deep chunk and similar pure-lines)... i already told that, please read my posts again. Don't forget that not all inbred-lines are true-breeding for all traits. long time ago, that was already well explained from Chimera and it's logical ...so i don't know why i have to repeat my self again... i have a lot of important work during the week and don't have time to make 100 similar posts per day on the forums just because someones ego is blind for a few simple facts.

other than that, there are a few more irregularities in your last posts but it's relative ok... as they have nothing to with the initial discussed point, which should be clear now for the others. anything else is irrelevant. i could correct you again on some points from your last posts... but it's useless if you ignore and i'm really so busy now in 08 that i don't want to go into this, as we already wasted nearly the half weekend just because of your words that "an ibl can't F-anything"

Feel free to play the teacher here on the forum, that's good for the folks as long as your posts are a bit more accurate, so that the incomplete info is not potentially confusing the others.

i plan to make at least one or 2 ibls in my life... but i will start when time and finances allow to set-up a few more rooms. i know what i have to do during the inbreeding process and practice will show my results. for this year i still prefer to play with different hybrids though ...can't wait to explore the progeny from Cocoa Kush and a Deep chunky female :wink:

peace folk & happy growing (and thanks for the all +rep)

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

lol, Xyz, you really are a dumbass, eh... If a line is not homozygous for most traits, then it is not an inbred line... A line that is only stable for one or two traits is not an inbred line... It may be a line that has been inbred, but if it doesn't breed true then it is not an ibl. True for one or two traits is NOT true breeding... lmao... This is the problem, I think... you have no understanding of what really constitutes an true breeding line. If the line does not breed true it is not an IBL, Get it?? Just because some inbreeding has taken place does not mean that there is an inbred ine... If it won't breed true, then where's the line, eh? you just have a semi-stable F'whatever generation' hybrid, not an IBL. Get an education and stop using the same idiotic 'sour milk' phrase... Feel free to play student here on the forums and in the rest of life... you've OBVIOUSLY got alot to learn, though your head may be to thick for reason to creep in.

Hint... documenting your position, and backing yourself up with sources would give you a bit more credibility... but when I've got the academic and scientific communities to support my side of the argument, and all you have is the phrase 'sour milk' and an imagination of how things should work... Hmmmmm....

 

[esbe]

support for xyz! for his work and exelent way of presenting it here on icm. i really like when ppl show their work so full of entusiasm and pure devotion, and love for the plant.

i dont give a fuk about whos wrong or rite in all this, but nice reading anyway!

suppose we can all learn a thing or 2 before we leave this place, soon.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

support for xyz! for his work and exelent way of presenting it here on icm. i really like when ppl show their work so full of entusiasm and pure devotion, and love for the plant.

i dont give a fuk about whos wrong or rite in all this, but nice reading anyway!

suppose we can all learn a thing or 2 before we leave this place, soon.

I'm glad for his work, and what not...
I'm not glad for his misleading comments about how scientist name plant generations. It may matter to some how many generations(filial or otherwise) removed from the original parent stock a homozygous inbred line is... Some may want to call any line which breeds stable for two traits an IBL... Some may want to call the progeny of any cross (F1 or otherwise) F2s, F3s, etc... but that doesn't make it the proper way plant scientists do it...

Great for XyZ if he wants to defy convention and continue to label things as he wants to, but booo for trying to deny that the way the botanical community at large does it is correct.... No worries... anyone with access to a library or google can figure out the real deal with what constitutes an inbred line... If anyone want's to grow out his two trait ibls(they all have thin leaves and short internodes, must be an inbred line, lol), I'd love to see the thread...

Other than that, if anyone needs to know my thoughts on the subject... re-read the thread...

 

[muddy waters]

between the short buses, the corn flakes, and the sour milk, this thread is starting to resemble some lousy summer camp for retarded kids...

said it once, will say it again--this topic is not worth such a personal argument #1.

#2. like tom, XyZ, and h3ad ALL have written at some point, there is flexibility in naming conventions especially in unorthadox situations, and most people will just do it their own way. as long as the other people working with that person understand the labeling system being used, does it really matter if they are following the convention to the t? hardly imo.

(i would still like to know though if IX or IC for 'incross' is proper terminology when one produces a generation from an inbred line... i noticed BC stopped calling some of their reproductions F2 opting for IX instead... would like the thoughts of the breeders here)

 

[Charles Xavier]

Greetings muddy waters

I asked myself...why bother?
The answer...because muddy waters might be reading this
(you, and though admittedly few, other members like you).

this topic is not worth such a personal argument....muddy waters

I am wholehearted in my agreement.

there is flexibility in naming conventions especially in unorthadox situations, and most people will just do it their own way....muddy waters

True. However, I believe a legitimate problem is raised when accepted terminology is used with disregard to its specific definition. The entire point of nomenclature is the establishment of commonality of language. In this respect it does matter if the convention is not followed to the letter, especially if the use of convention was opted for and public discourse was invited.

Now I understand that you are facilitating the role of mediator, and in some instances harmony is more important than discourse (especially when the discourse isn't civil and the points of contention are small), but I would not be able to accurately respond to your query if I disregarded definition. That is to say: if I hope for comprehension, an excellent starting point would be an assurance we're speaking the same language.

So...
Definition (standard simple)
Incross: Mating between individuals from the same inbred line.

Definition (standard particular)
Incross: Progeny resulting from the mating of specimens from different inbred lines within the same genetic population i.e. the crossing of divergent lines stemming from a common ancestry.

Therefore: it may not be entirely accurate, but it is acceptable (and recognized) to describe a generation produced from an inbred line as an Incross. It is completely inaccurate to describe it as an F2.

Sincerely,
Charles.

p.s. An aside: IBL (inbred line) means no additional/outside genetic material was introduced into a breeding population for at least five (5) generations; and that's all it means.

p.p.s. A note: On this forum the designate 'IBL' is idiomatic.

An inbred line is designated 'IL' and is rarely used as a descriptor because it doesn't really convey much pertinent information.

'IBL' stands for Inbred Backcrossed Line; which is considered proper after three (3) generations.

C.X.

 

[REZDOG]

1) like tom, XyZ, and h3ad ALL have written at some point, there is flexibility in naming conventions especially in unorthadox situations, and most people will just do it their own way. as long as the other people working with that person understand the labeling system being used, does it really matter if they are following the convention to the t? hardly imo.

2) (i would still like to know though if IX or IC for 'incross' is proper terminology when one produces a generation from an inbred line... i noticed BC stopped calling some of their reproductions F2 opting for IX instead... would like the thoughts of the breeders here)

1) Label however the phuck you like,but don't push something that's flat-out wrong as being 'the Right Way' to do things,because it's,simply, not.
I could care less how someone's grow looks,when they're spouting a pile of shite,and again,he's Wrong.
When I say he comes off like a kid,it's because he does-I've met 8 year olds that provided better dialogue than this sad argument.


2) I originated the use of 'IX' as a label for an in-crossed,marijuana seed line. I also added the 'IBL' tag to 'inbred line' marijuana seeds....When something makes sense,other people tend to pick up on it and use it. If it helps the grower make an informed decision,imo you can't label concisely enough.

I'm just here,reading,with a big :smile:
....you guys have fun....

Carry On....


Cheers!

 

[Raco]

support for xyz! for his work and exelent way of presenting it here on icm. i really like when ppl show their work so full of entusiasm and pure devotion, and love for the plant.

i dont give a fuk about whos wrong or rite in all this, but nice reading anyway!

suppose we can all learn a thing or 2 before we leave this place, soon.

What he said ^^^
Peace

 

[jimbroker]

I am really having a tough time following what point you are trying to make xyz. Grapepunched nicely summarizes what Head has been saying in his signature:

An Ibl can't be F-anything, btw... that only applies to hybrids...
Ibl x Ibl = Ibl.
IblA x IblB = F1 Hybrid
HybridA x HybridA = F2 generation
HybridA x HybridB (or IblC) = polyhybrid
F2 x F2 = F3
F2 x F1 = Filial Back Cross
F1 (or F2+) x IblA = Parental Back Cross...
So... An 'S1' of (enter non-IBL strain here) would be a polyhybrid F2, and there is not a botanist out there who will disagree...

Xyz, I am all about defining terms in their usage but from what I read their isn't much consistency with what you are saying and what I have read about genetics for animals/plants. So far... I am confused as to even what your point is. Could you please break it down in very simple terms and use accepted nomenclature like in Grapepunched's signature? Head wrote a nice template you could just modify.

"If I talk and no one understands me.. who benefits? I may as well be masturbating."

 

[REZDOG]

Jim,
He can't do that because he can't do that.
Hell,he can label everything 'german shepard shit #1-100 for all I care.
What I despise is misinformation being propagated as fact.
To debate (even) semantics is One Thing,but by God,man,this guy hasn't posted a rational piece yet.
(Referencing chimera and DJ Short does not a Clue,make.)
Anyhow,my attorney & myself,here on business, rented this old-school,huge red cadillac convertible about an hour ago,on the outskirts of Havana,and I'm going to get out of this room,ingest some mushrooms and see the island,sideways.


Cheers!

 

[Guest]

I'm a new grower and I am fascinated by this discussion
I'm also an old guy and like arguments that supported by facts and where logical analysis prevails.

That puts me in Grat3fulh3ad's camp. I like using standardized terminology where possible. Not only is it the correct thing to do, it makes life much easier for newbies like me.

pedro

 

[REZDOG]

Standardized term-in-f*cking-ology is right.
Why confuse people arbitrarily?
It's not,as I said before,even arguing quasi-valid semantics,it's just bullshit rhetoric with No Value as a Discussion,at all.

Great Fun,this.

.

 

[bloodeye]

I'm also with Grat3fulh3ad because

Referencing chimera and DJ Short does not a Clue,make.

funny characters on this forum..

Keep On Keepin' On

 

[jimbroker]

I hate to see people getting bogged down in semantics. It is very important to be sure that the definition in the speakers mind is the same definition in the hearers mind. Alfred Korzybski had a lot to say about that.

I had the feeling that as rez says this is just rhetoric. On the surface, it seems like a really good discussion (hell it got me and a bunch of other people here and it keeps head coming back) but my intuition tells me it is nothing but running in circles. I don't want to dismiss xyz and I want to give him a fair shot to simply explain his point.... in terms EVERYONE can understand.

The reason I want to give xyz the benefit of the doubt is that real, informative questions and arguments can seem confrontational in nature.
However, people who mix facts with half-truths are very dangerous to people who want to truly understand. That is why I want xyz to give a clear explanation of what he is saying so we can debate the merits. Xyz.. you have said too much and mixed too many terms for me to follow. I know from pedro's comments I am not the only one who is confused. For clarification, I am not taking sides with anybody.

BTW, for a great reading on semantics check out "Drive Yourself Sane" by Susan Kodish.

 

[REZDOG]

xyz's posts read: What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?

I know The Answer,but why hand out that kind of enlightenment?


Selah.

 

[esbe]

you can write FUCK again rez! word ban is raised!

hope this discussion will go on and some more great breeders will give their comments on the issue

 

[Guest]

I gave up having any interest in learning the proper nomenclature and learning complex biological knowledge about alleles etc.

Why?

Because I know for a fact that none of that knowledge is really needed to breed, I much prefer to learn from the plants, not from the books.

I'm working on a hybrid at the moment where both parents are of unknown origin, one is from seeds I personally collected in Mexico from brickweed, the other was collected by a friend in Afghanistan. I have no idea if these lines are IBLS, what traits they are truebreeding for, no idea what F-number or other shorthand they should be labelled with.

What I do know is that the male plant passes on the intense purple colour and large flowers (big buds) that are the most desirable traits in that seedline. I am yet to betermine what other traits he passes on, further work with him will determine this, I have crossed him to several diferent female clones I know inside and out, growing out these progeny will show me what traits this male passes on. Just wish I could grow out the kind of colossal numbers Sam the Skunkman did when doing progeny testing, but hey, I'm doing what I can with what I got.

The female plant I am using has three desirable traits I would like her to pass on to her progey - huge flower formation (massive yield), speeding, soaring pure high with no stone at all and very little elongation when flowering, the nodes stay close rather than stretching out. Now, I have no idea if she is truebreedign for these traits or if she will pass any of all of them onto her progeny. So the next step is to grow out her progeny to discover what traits she has passed on. Other folks growing out test batches for me helps a huge amount in this regard, but it's a slow process due to the small number, if I could grow out thousands of plants, it would be a much faster process.

So as long as I study the plants and keep records for my own reference, where does the need for correct biological terminology come into play? I just don't see the need to have an in-depth knowledge of the 'correct' terminology, just study the damn plants and they will tech you everything you need to know.

It took me years to find the two very special plants I have chosen to work with, I have a clear goal that I want to get to, I know which traits I want from each parent and am very clear on what I want the end result to be like. I'm not at all clear what particular path will get me to the desired end result, possibly crossing the two parents and then linebreeding for several gens will get me there, or perhaps one or more backcrosses to either parent wil lbe needed, I really don't know, but I will discover the answers through careful and well thought out experimentation and progeny testing.

I think I've made the task a lot simpler by my selection of parents, the traits I'm trying to stabilise aren't complex, they are pretty basic, the high and yield from the mother and the colour and yield from the father. It helps that the father has a similar high to the mother and that the father is purple through and through whereas the mother is thoroughly green, so any occurences of purple colouring in the progeny are a clear indication of the father's influence, so selecting for clour is pretty simple. With both parents having the large/huge yield I also want my hybrid to have, that one should take care of itself pretty much, although I might be wrong about that and have to do some careful selection, again, the plants will teach me what I need to know in this regard.

So I've carefully thought out my initial parental selections, and being very conscious of my limited facilities and space, meaning I can only grow small numbers, I have deliberately chosen to work with plants that have basic desirable traits rather than using something like Cheese to breed with, which would be very much more involved and difficult as the desirable trait of Cheese is a unique (and very elusive) terpenoid profile, in other aspects it's just Skunk #1. Trying to linebreed in order to stabilise that terpenoid profile would be a hugely difficult and complex task, so for folks like me, it is surely better to chose other parents with traits more easy to see in the progeny and stabilise. It's far simpler to spot the progeny with purple colouring that progeny with a certain elusive terpenoid profile. I'm very happy to say that Raco and esbe have some seeds from the early stages of my work as the more plants grown, the more data I can gather to aid my work and seeing plants grown in very diferent locations with different methods is also highly informative.

Anyways, I found this thread slightly informative but hugely amusing.