Everybody a breeder ?
- Thread starter silverhazefiend
- Start date
- Status
glad to be of service,however,I like to think I contribute at least a sliver of entertainment but here's a few more pic's
hello,
I understand that not every batch of ditch-weed is a good source for a population; however, all the strains/cultivars out there have been collected at some time or another either from a wild population or from traditional farmers' cultivars.
hopefully, someone else can give us an approximate answer in regards the question of how much material/seed is needed to collect in order to have a healthy representation of any given population.
for example, in the past, I've collected seeds out of a half kilo brick of colombian, you can see whole buds from different phenos (if good enough quality brick that is), and you can collect hundreds of healthy seeds from, lets say, ten different bud phenos.
however, if you plant all those seeds, mostly all coming from a reduced representation of said population, lets say, ten different plants; you already have started pretty low in terms of "genetic availability"; so inbreeding this collected population for enough generations can indeed mean "genetic depression" or so-called "bottle-necking".
this is actually a well known thing to happen, and hence traditional farmers have maintained large populations (more in terms of genetic availability than just numbers, as numbers don't mean a lot in the end) in order to provide and preserve good seed.
in Colombia, for example, there are farmers whose job is just that, the preservation and production of good seed; they sell the seed by 'sacks', so if you want to plant healthy vigorous crops, you usually buy as many sacks of good seed from said producers.
if you produce your own seed, you have to have enough numbers that indeed provide enough 'genetic availability', since it does not matter how many plants you can cultivate that come from a small representation of a given population (like the ten pheno out of brick weed example). you can have 10000 plants but they do not have enough 'genetic availability' and depression through inbreeding can happen as fast as two generations or even one.
on the other hand, you can have 50 plants, out of a given population, that represent very well the 'genetic availability' and that will do very well through open pollination, so long as that in each generation, proper selection is made to maintain said 'genetic availability' thus avoiding "inbreeding depression".
that I understand. however, my question is what would be the 'magic' number in terms of plant numbers of any given population that is supposed to carry a good/healthy representation of the whole 'genetic availability' of said population?
peace
hello George,
do you think that before the discovery of certain natural mechanism, that the professions that were born due to said discoveries did not exist, or were just being kept in the dark due to our ignorance of the mechanisms?
this is of course, a rhetorical question.
be good.
Small time
Member
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. When I read a seed description that lists not just two phenotype but a hodge podge, my most often asked question to myself is about the breeder is, "Are you really a Breeder, or just someone that a dabler?" "And you want how much money for your mistakes?"
Breeder honesty should just call it the way it really is. "Lucky mistake #3 crossed with earnest try #15-C." "Phenotypes include short and bushy, tall and stringy, one with questionable buzz, and another we aren't exactly sure of. Buy our 20 seed pack, and for sure one will be a keeper."
i emphatically agree and found your post helpful not only for that but also the pix
BTW 'professional' is defined as having made income from {more or less} so; basically anyone who has earned money from breeding cannabis seeds is a pro ~like w/ ski patrol at a resort; many of the patrol are volunteers but a ski resort typically has a contingent of cadre who are paid & ref'd as "pros" when compared to the volunteers
bombadil; i wish i could speak to your post but it would seem that i could learn from you as well
1 observation i can contribute is that many times this brick weed and similar import does not breed true but i cannot speak to why {i understand if it bred reasonably close to true but i have seen seeds from quality bags grow out rope}
I think this is the central issue for me.
I have no pretensions about being a breeder. I'm a gardener. I grow lots of things besides cannabis although she is my favorite. Like any dirt gardener, I would no more attempt to grow strawberries from seed than try to grow rocks from seed. Strawberry propagation, though, is real easy. Some pro develops the strain somehow and you propagate from runners as much as you want.
On the other hand, I grow several varieties of corn and have a fondness for heirloom seed saving. I know pretty much exactly what I am going to get when I save corn seed that have not cross pollinated with some other variety, likewise beans, etc.
So my question is which type of plant is cannabis, an heirloom seed saving type or a cutting propagating type? We all are probably playing it like both but what is the best way for a gardener like me or a farmer like castout?
said' commercial grower/professional retired at 50' hahaha!
said' commercial grower/professional retired at 50' hahaha!
Fuck the feds an their shitty paycheck huh..
THIS SHOULD BE CALLED THE STS' THREAD!...atleast i and a few get it...
Anyways,GOT A QUESTION TOM?
Using your methods with 2 strong stable strains in a cross,do they cross better?
Using 1.1 it is hell but as you can see in MY PICS most the plants come out pretty
even from my experience choosing a few dozen from each out of a 1000 or so.....
from F1 to F2 to F3's this is how an oldshool farmer makes his seed crops right!!!!
10 seeds become thousands by f3's easy....and even thought they are not perfect
you still get the family gene pool for said strain,skunk,blueberry,hazes right.........
THey are all unique gene pools and even thought they have displayed many pheno's
by f3's they are STILL said strain.....and people buying seeds should know that anyways!
To continue:is there always gonna be a more dominant type even in these stable crosses?
will they blend the best we can do and will they exibit a HYBRID VIGOUR???
a hybrid should be about stronger vigour and a nice blend of genetics right!
CrAzY LOU..
said' commercial grower/professional retired at 50' hahaha!
Fuck the feds an their shitty paycheck huh..
THIS SHOULD BE CALLED THE STS' THREAD!...atleast i and a few get it...
Anyways,GOT A QUESTION TOM?
Using your methods with 2 strong stable strains in a cross,do they cross better?
Using 1.1 it is hell but as you can see in MY PICS most the plants come out pretty
even from my experience choosing a few dozen from each out of a 1000 or so.....
from F1 to F2 to F3's this is how an oldshool farmer makes his seed crops right!!!!
10 seeds become thousands by f3's easy....and even thought they are not perfect
you still get the family gene pool for said strain,skunk,blueberry,hazes right.........
THey are all unique gene pools and even thought they have displayed many pheno's
by f3's they are STILL said strain.....and people buying seeds should know that anyways!
To continue:is there always gonna be a more dominant type even in these stable crosses?
will they blend the best we can do and will they exibit a HYBRID VIGOUR???
a hybrid should be about stronger vigour and a nice blend of genetics right!
CrAzY LOU..
Attachments
Relativity and context change the dynamics every facet of this discussion. Without them much of the value is lost. It has been the dividing line in the thread so let us add some perspective.
let us discuss the preservation of natural diversity.
Do you really think Mendelian selection techniques allow a breeder to preserve natural diversity more effectively than nature does on its own already? Simply put isn't it accurate to say they allow a breeder to improve on chemical phenotype while trying to preserve natural genotype/phenotype diversity.
Understand that when we effect the selection of any breeding population it marks the beginning of the cultivator/cultivar relationship. The bias of selection is no longer natural when we reinforce traits based on our own preference.
Why don't we ask R. Clarke if the land race hazes he first encountered and spoke of have been maintained by breeders exactly as they occurred in the wild. I am willing to bet that most any marijuana strain cultivated today, from autos to Tom's haze populations, have higher mean THC percentages than the naturally occurring races that contributed to their genetic make up.
This is the bias of human selection on the genome
When a cultivar (corn for example) becomes part of the agricultural economy it loses natural diversity while breeding reinforces the traits that make it economically viable as a cultivar in the first place. So while the the objective to maintain diversity lie at one end of the agricultural economy, cultivar value lie on the other. In other words were not growing the plant for the sake of the plant were growing it for the value cultivar value, which in the case of marijuana is its secondary metabolites.
Well before we grew or tried to breed it the thing that made this plant so special wasn't looking at it, or even smelling it but it was the experience of smoking it.
Color, shape, size don't get you high, they don't offer a medical benefit and while I appreciate the preservation of the natural world meeting the needs of humans is no less important or virtuous especially in regards to marijuana since it can adjust one's demeanor in such a way that it can aid in helping find value in nature itself.
in a world with a mentally physically and spiritually healthy human populous preserving natural diversity and working in synergy is more likely outcome than in the state we are in now.
Steve Irwin did great things in the effort to preserve nature but he realized the importance of commercialization and education as well, he never put the animals before people or people before the animals and that balance is what made his preservation efforts so powerful.
a great breeder should be concerned with the cultivator/cultivar relationship not just the propagation of a breed through breeding and this is where the arguments start and the fighting begins
why?
Because people continue to argue breeding for physical phenotypes when the primary objective is specific secondary metabolites for which everyone has their own preference. Phenotype variations, genotype diversity, the quality, quantity and even the makeup of secondary metabolites are highly subject to preference
Case in point some people find some undesirable phenotypes attractive because of the known chemical phenotype that is associated with it.
I think DJ's or the haze brothers highly valued haze pheno are fair examples of highly desirable plants that have outstanding chemical phenotypes and perhaps artistically beautiful phenotypes not necessarily desirable if quick maturation and yield are of prime importance.
This is one of the many disconnects I experience when science is promoted over the preference that drives selection because they are not mutually exclusive.
let us discuss the preservation of natural diversity.
Do you really think Mendelian selection techniques allow a breeder to preserve natural diversity more effectively than nature does on its own already? Simply put isn't it accurate to say they allow a breeder to improve on chemical phenotype while trying to preserve natural genotype/phenotype diversity.
Understand that when we effect the selection of any breeding population it marks the beginning of the cultivator/cultivar relationship. The bias of selection is no longer natural when we reinforce traits based on our own preference.
Why don't we ask R. Clarke if the land race hazes he first encountered and spoke of have been maintained by breeders exactly as they occurred in the wild. I am willing to bet that most any marijuana strain cultivated today, from autos to Tom's haze populations, have higher mean THC percentages than the naturally occurring races that contributed to their genetic make up.
This is the bias of human selection on the genome
When a cultivar (corn for example) becomes part of the agricultural economy it loses natural diversity while breeding reinforces the traits that make it economically viable as a cultivar in the first place. So while the the objective to maintain diversity lie at one end of the agricultural economy, cultivar value lie on the other. In other words were not growing the plant for the sake of the plant were growing it for the value cultivar value, which in the case of marijuana is its secondary metabolites.
Well before we grew or tried to breed it the thing that made this plant so special wasn't looking at it, or even smelling it but it was the experience of smoking it.
Color, shape, size don't get you high, they don't offer a medical benefit and while I appreciate the preservation of the natural world meeting the needs of humans is no less important or virtuous especially in regards to marijuana since it can adjust one's demeanor in such a way that it can aid in helping find value in nature itself.
in a world with a mentally physically and spiritually healthy human populous preserving natural diversity and working in synergy is more likely outcome than in the state we are in now.
Steve Irwin did great things in the effort to preserve nature but he realized the importance of commercialization and education as well, he never put the animals before people or people before the animals and that balance is what made his preservation efforts so powerful.
a great breeder should be concerned with the cultivator/cultivar relationship not just the propagation of a breed through breeding and this is where the arguments start and the fighting begins
why?
Because people continue to argue breeding for physical phenotypes when the primary objective is specific secondary metabolites for which everyone has their own preference. Phenotype variations, genotype diversity, the quality, quantity and even the makeup of secondary metabolites are highly subject to preference
Case in point some people find some undesirable phenotypes attractive because of the known chemical phenotype that is associated with it.
I think DJ's or the haze brothers highly valued haze pheno are fair examples of highly desirable plants that have outstanding chemical phenotypes and perhaps artistically beautiful phenotypes not necessarily desirable if quick maturation and yield are of prime importance.
This is one of the many disconnects I experience when science is promoted over the preference that drives selection because they are not mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
There aren't naturally occurring landraces. They were cultivated. They were selected by man. Naturally occurring races are hemp...
What a horrible bias, we wanted to get high.
Who exactly is arguing this?
Those phenotypes are less desirable because they are inbred, mutated, and lacking vigor. They are harder to grow and more susceptible to abiotic and biotic stress. I wonder how do you improve upon these cultivars? Science would be a good start.
Gitt,
its very simple bro, you want personalize this thread again.
a scientist uses scientific technique to elicit a result and they use scientific technique to measure it, they do not tout the application of the technique without accurately measuring the results, they also posses a PHd which gives them the formal training to work in such a manner.
Ironic because if someone were to argue breeding science within thescientific community without formal training or without providing the measured difference in their partuicular applicaiton of scinece their reustls would be dismissed becase they were being presented by hacks.
Now before you get in offended understand I am not saying this invalidates the results of the person "hacking" science but it does illustrate something else. That judging people based on technique and not proof of performance is absolutely the WRONG METRIC TO JUDGE A BREEDER BY. The argument holds true regardless of what the variables you put into play.
I have a different passion and agenda and that is that everyone should have a full circle relationship with the plant, it starts and ends there and does not conflict with any breeding program regardless.
Counter logic with logic and enlighten us all.
you can try to attack my logic by trying to invalidate my experience but the more you do expect that I will continue to offer evidence that I do know pot including the strains many of you participating in the thread have grown, attack the quality of my work ill put up the proof that makes me think the way I do/ Continue to argue relative truths as if they were universal and I will continue to illustrate those logical disconnects as well.
its very simple bro, you want personalize this thread again.
a scientist uses scientific technique to elicit a result and they use scientific technique to measure it, they do not tout the application of the technique without accurately measuring the results, they also posses a PHd which gives them the formal training to work in such a manner.
Ironic because if someone were to argue breeding science within thescientific community without formal training or without providing the measured difference in their partuicular applicaiton of scinece their reustls would be dismissed becase they were being presented by hacks.
Now before you get in offended understand I am not saying this invalidates the results of the person "hacking" science but it does illustrate something else. That judging people based on technique and not proof of performance is absolutely the WRONG METRIC TO JUDGE A BREEDER BY. The argument holds true regardless of what the variables you put into play.
I have a different passion and agenda and that is that everyone should have a full circle relationship with the plant, it starts and ends there and does not conflict with any breeding program regardless.
Counter logic with logic and enlighten us all.
you can try to attack my logic by trying to invalidate my experience but the more you do expect that I will continue to offer evidence that I do know pot including the strains many of you participating in the thread have grown, attack the quality of my work ill put up the proof that makes me think the way I do/ Continue to argue relative truths as if they were universal and I will continue to illustrate those logical disconnects as well.
Happy to see this thread opened again, already new quality content. When I saw it locked, I just figured that's what happens when proofs of godwin's law show up...
I really dug that watermelon breeding video (thanks greeninthethumb) and think the goals of that guy are actually really important and relevant to this. Statistics, genetics, and bio-science. In the last few years the wealth of quality knowledge available for free online has really grown. In my spare time I hope to sort through the free courses to find the best and most relevant material available to learn about these fields.
statistics
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...&rls=slitaz:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
genetics
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...&rls=slitaz:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
bio-science
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...&rls=slitaz:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
If comparing Tom Hill to German historical figures was worth anything beyond providing brick and mortar for a text wall I would liken his assault on hippie philosophy and the distaste of valuable methods(selfing) to Nietzsche's Zarathustra in his attack on morality-
"His doctrine [...] posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality [...]—Am I understood?—The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.
— Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny", §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann
I really dug that watermelon breeding video (thanks greeninthethumb) and think the goals of that guy are actually really important and relevant to this. Statistics, genetics, and bio-science. In the last few years the wealth of quality knowledge available for free online has really grown. In my spare time I hope to sort through the free courses to find the best and most relevant material available to learn about these fields.
statistics
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...&rls=slitaz:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
genetics
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...&rls=slitaz:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
bio-science
http://www.google.com/search?q=free...&rls=slitaz:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
If comparing Tom Hill to German historical figures was worth anything beyond providing brick and mortar for a text wall I would liken his assault on hippie philosophy and the distaste of valuable methods(selfing) to Nietzsche's Zarathustra in his attack on morality-
"His doctrine [...] posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality [...]—Am I understood?—The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.
— Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny", §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann
Bombadil.360,
What makes for a healthy population is heterozygosity and genetic diversity. As to proper collection of seed/how much material is needed, the answer will change depending on the rareness of genes required to complete the diversity we are after, but the more the better is always the correct answer. Eg if the gene/s required to provide outstanding resistance to X pathogen occurs in one of twenty individuals within the population, then we must collect seed from a high enough number of individuals to provide a high enough probability of capturing that.
OldChuck,
Drug cannabis is clearly more often propagated in the way of strawberries, ie via clone. Breeders may point to it being a diploid, and thus closer to corn, but when we factor in all of the complexities subject to recombination each generation, it may as well be octoploid imo. Hemp for fiber or seed is a much simpler matter, and is closer to corn.
OldproLg,
It helps that you've chosen for the most part homozygous lines to work with in Sk1 etc. But yes, even within those populations it would be wise to find homozygous genotypes giving rise to outstanding phenotypes, to use in the outcross. Eg there will be heterozygous genotypes that also give rise to outstanding phenotypes, but being that these will segregate upon breeding, they are to be rejected in favor of the former.
What makes for a healthy population is heterozygosity and genetic diversity. As to proper collection of seed/how much material is needed, the answer will change depending on the rareness of genes required to complete the diversity we are after, but the more the better is always the correct answer. Eg if the gene/s required to provide outstanding resistance to X pathogen occurs in one of twenty individuals within the population, then we must collect seed from a high enough number of individuals to provide a high enough probability of capturing that.
OldChuck,
Drug cannabis is clearly more often propagated in the way of strawberries, ie via clone. Breeders may point to it being a diploid, and thus closer to corn, but when we factor in all of the complexities subject to recombination each generation, it may as well be octoploid imo. Hemp for fiber or seed is a much simpler matter, and is closer to corn.
OldproLg,
It helps that you've chosen for the most part homozygous lines to work with in Sk1 etc. But yes, even within those populations it would be wise to find homozygous genotypes giving rise to outstanding phenotypes, to use in the outcross. Eg there will be heterozygous genotypes that also give rise to outstanding phenotypes, but being that these will segregate upon breeding, they are to be rejected in favor of the former.
are you saying that there were no naturally occurring chemovars with THC before mankind cultivated hemp? or are you saying that there are no "wild" populations of naturally occurring chemovars containing THC left int he world?
I can see mankind as being the catalyst for improving traits, but not in the creation of them through selection at least (gene splicing is another story).
as far as there being anything but wild feral hemp?
prohibition has removed both in my locale so locally at least I can say neither exist
Weird throughout this thread you've been demanding answers and measurable differences/comparisons between this and that. A more thorough understanding of the science/maths would have prevented you from asking such questions, because you would have already understood that the product will vary according to the inputs. That is the answer to pretty much all comparing and measuring you've been hollering for, pages and pages of you demanding exact scientific measure to ever varying inputs, then thinking you've somehow got one up on science, lol. Yes, sometimes the know-nothing hack will accidently succeed -the maths allow for that- but this is no reason to stop the presses amigo. There are no exceptions, in every case it is better to understand what it is you're doing, than to not.
Word. Peace GS
- Status
