IBL's list

[MJPassion]

ut

How about a legit college level biology 101 text written by real scientists? Then maybe you'll know when you're being taken for a ride or not... ed rosenthal? Lol...

Quite honestly, biology 101 would encompas too broad of an education base... Biology doesnt really deal w "breeding" per say
but rather the study of living things in general.

A botany book would serve the purpose far better.

And if you read... All I said is that I had Eds book as well as a few others. It wasn't a specific recomendation at all... matter of fact, I recomend reading as much ad you can while pondering what you desire
in your final creation/s.


Btw... for those of you seeking breeding information... pay very close attention to how the information being presented is worded... if a person wants good solid information, there's no real reason to look further than the Big Boys forums... These folks are more than willing to share their knowledge. Not only that... I'm under the impression that with some of the information that has already been put out, a person could walk away from ICmag with a near college level education in breeding and botany.

That said... this thread has already got a bunch of misinformation tangled up in some long winded posts.

I strongly suggest hitting up folks that have been in the bizz for a while... BOG, Tom Hill, DJ Short, Chimera... there are some other great breeders out there but there are some that don't have a clue either.

 

[Only Ornamental]

Btw... for those of you seeking breeding information... pay very close attention to how the information being presented is worded... if a person wants good solid information, there's no real reason to look further than the Big Boys forums... These folks are more than willing to share their knowledge. Not only that... I'm under the impression that with some of the information that has already been put out, a person could walk away from ICmag with a near college level education in breeding and botany.

That said... this thread has already got a bunch of misinformation tangled up in some long winded posts.

I strongly suggest hitting up folks that have been in the bizz for a while... BOG, Tom Hill, DJ Short, Chimera... there are some other great breeders out there but there are some that don't have a clue either.

Hi MJ,

- What's that Big Brother forum?

- It would be really nice if you could (at least quickly) point out the misinformation in this thread! I'd truly appreciate some well-founded criticism.

- 'BOG, Tom Hill, DJ Short, Chimera' my words . The best book, theoretical education and so on does little with lacking experience.

 

[oldchuck]

I thought we were having a pretty good discussion, OO. It is pretty theoretical and not particularly concerned with growing killer weed. If MJ has some specific criticism I also would like to hear it.

 

[LightDog]

Mighty Might

 

[LightDog]

Most of bog's stuff should be stable, according to the breeding section in his book

 

[MJPassion]

All you need for a stable F1 is a stable parental line or two. Some breeders call stabilised lines also IBL (even if that is not scientifically correct).

If you take a male and a female from the same stable line and cross them, the offspring will be an F1
An F1 is produced by crossing genetically different plants. An F2 would be the result of 2 or more F1siblings being mated.

P# is used only to designate PARENTS in a cross. They can come from any (F)ilial generation.

but because it is the same line, you can also name it P2 (assuming that the parents are from the same generation and would get the rather arbitrary label P1 as first parent generation). Cross the siblings or cross back to a parent will always result in the same stable line .
the itallicised sentence is false. The line(s) produced are a result of available genetic code and the selection criteria put forth by the person making the seeds.

That's what you do to maintain a landrace variety like Hindu Kush r Durban Poison once it's been selected and adapted for indoor or a simple fibre hemp variety. But, the higher the variability within the line (that isn't the same variability like the one from two different lines...) the healthier your plants.
^this statement on variability makes no sense to me. Please expand what you mean here. Hetrozygos plants are not inherently healthier than homozygos plants.

It's better to use several plants for such a cross and avoid inbreeding depression.
I absolutely agree with ya on this point.

If you take two closely related stable lines, you get a stable F1 as well and the offspring is likely similar to the parents.
I understand this to be the way Shantibaba created Black Widow. It mostly makes sense but there will still be some hetrozygosity in the line no matter how closely the parents are related, ime.

The only two reasons I can see not to do this is A) you don't get something new and exciting, just a mix of the parents with slight differences and B) due to the close relation of the parents the F1 will not profit from a great heterosis effect (aka hybrid vigour). That doesn't need to be bad, a good cross is still good without that (likely even better if the parents start showing inbreeding depression; every little bit of heterosis is better than non).
hetrozygos plants do not breed true. Heterozygoz plants will only show traits that are dominant while all the desirable recessives are masked.

One can only guess what you have to cross to get the best heterosis effect
yep... poly x poly x poly x poly or basically any of todays available hybrids should result in hetrozygos plants.
and that's why people often take very different parents (like from different continents or an indica with a sativa) and thereby increase their chances.

If you like Blueberry, why not buy two from two different breeders so that you get some differences between the parents and then cross them? The offspring will still be a BB like you know it but with a slight boost of hybrid vigour if the parents were bred tightly for several generations. If the parents were very healthy, then you simply get a healthy BB as well, day saved .

Lets say that your NL is only available as clone or you just have one mother, you could self it. That way, the offspring will be very similar to the mother. One or two generations of selfing shouldn't cause too much troubles with a healthy parent... there won't be any profit from heterosis and if you keep on doing the selfing for some more generations, you end up with crap but one seed run to get your 100 seeds for the next 10 years will be no problem. Many commercial fem strains are actually S1's.
I was under the impression that mist fem seed was made by stressing a female to produce pollen then using the resultant pollen on other cultivars thereby creating a new strain entirely. S1 is typically labeled as such.

Just cross your plants, get some seeds and see what grows. How hard can that be? Even if you get 4 different phenos and only one is worth it; trash the others, the seeds didn't cost you anything. Would be good though if you could recognise the bad phenos at an early stage to safe time, space and light .

I'm looking through since you requested this but it is a pain in my ass...

 

[MJPassion]

Thanks for the nitpicking .
I know, it would be a parental or P generation as well, like I stated later in that post. But this is all pure nomenclature; the principles and practical aspects concerning the questions remain the same, that's why I intentionally used the wrong term. (I thought to myself 'no one will remark that'... LoL)
Besides, Mendel's peas were from the same species only differing in one allele for flower colour and we call both parental lines P1 and the offspring F1 etc. It's one single point mutation! (I can be nitpicking too, you know.)

This post leads me to believe that you do not have a problem spreading misinformation and that it is excusable!
WTF gives?

NOMENCLATURE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WHEN DISCUSSING BREEDING...

So why are you going to jump on this individual for pointing out your purportedly intentional piece of misinformation then ask me to do the same...

If you're only looking for an argument, please step away from the boards.

 

[MJPassion]

Thank you, OO. My horticultural knowledge is slim so please keep educating me.

Okay, I guess I am not after IBL varieties. What I want are "stable lines." A stable line is like an heirloom variety? I grow mostly heirlooms of veggies and grains and I save seeds that yield pretty much like the parents. That's basically what I am looking for in Cannabis seeds but, given all the hype and BS in the seed market who can tell what's what?

It would be nearly impossible to stabilise anything without "line breeding", aka, IBLs

IBL quite simply means InBreed Line.
It is typically associated with homozygos, stabil, true breeding cultivars but stability is not always the case.

IBLs can be derived in several ways.
The fastest and most detrimental being selfing beyond S1. While fixing desirable traits undesirable traits are also fixed, to be passed to the next generation.

The next fastest method for producing an IBL line would be the back cross. Back crossing can be performed in a few ways as well. It is not as detrimental to the gene pool being worked and has both advantages & disadvantages like selfing. A bx is simply "cross generational breeding within a line."

Next in line, for rapidity in producing IBL lines would be using any combination of the above and below mentioned breeding methods.

The next method for producing an IBL line would be simple filial generational matings using 1:1 sibling matings.

The absolute slowest method for producing IBLs would be open pollenated generational breeding.

I hope this clears some of the air as well...

Next...

 

[hush]

^ That's very helpful, thank you.

 

[MJPassion]

And now guess why not everyone is a good breeder and why even good breeders can't put a dozen new and great varieties on the market each year

Breeders dont make dozens of strains anyway... Pollen Chuckers do!

I'm a pollen chucker for the time being... been studying genetics, on my own, for the last decade or so. I feel like I've got a damn good understanding of the fundamentals but there is still much for me to learn.

 

[oldchuck]

I have no interest in breeding an IBL either slowly or quickly. I have an interest in growing genetically diverse open pollinated stable varieties that can produce F1s that demonstrate strong heterosis.

For example, I grow a little winter wheat, a heritage variety from Europe. The more years I grow it the closer it will become landrace in my own Northern New England environment. This variety would not fit well with modern agronomy. Each seed produces multiple stems and they vary widely from one to another. They are tall and short and every where in between. The seed heads vary a lot too. Some are large and prolific and some small and thin. I assume these multiple expressions are due to genetic diversity. I'm happy with that. If I was to try and make an IBL of this variety then I would need to narrow the gene pool so that all the stems were short and very fat headed. It would become, actually has become, a modern variety that stands up in the rain and is easy to combine.

It seems like it is similar to Cannabis. Producing an IBL would represent a narrowing of the gene pool.

 

[bigshrimp]

Some tom hill posts on selfing and homozygosity.

Here you go Pip from that other thread,

Originally Posted by pip313 View Post
Lets say I have a clone of a strain who's seed is no longer for sale, lets call it galaxy god bud.

I do not wish to use a male as I do not have access to a ggb male.

If i self it, grow the seeds, find plants with the wanted traits, and self those plants will the resulting plants loose any vigor? Will I be able to start identifying which traits are breeding true? Can i go to generation 10 of selfing without causing new problems? I have 5 traits I care about, in order of importance, suppressing a late flowering hermie tendency, keeping the funky rotten lemon smell, shortening internode length, keeping the hardness of buds, and maybe going for bigger buds (surprisingly last on my list )

I do not care if it takes years to do this, I need to put this into seed so I dont have to worry about loosing it which I almost have over the many years ive had it. And if i seed it I should seed the best possible version I can.

It's probably one of the most asked questions on the site and though there are many ways to get there, I do not feel it has ever been successfully answered to any great degree. So I'll offer a more detailed explanation/example, of a modification on line selection/pedigree method here that was briefly outlined earlier.

First, "vigor" mostly revolves around heterozygosity, let's just call that Aa. This is true from everything to growth characteristics, to the adaptive ability of a particular line when we introduce it into new environments. Aa survives better than AA or aa in new environments because Aa is still flexible - able to morph into many things yet, AA and aa are true breeding, and are not flexible anymore until you outcross.

The trick (science really ), is to seek differing genotypes that give rise to the same phenotype (then blend them together) in creating a lasting, flexible line that will readily adapt and thrive in numerous environments.

On to an example:

Self the individual, and grow out at least 100 progeny. Select (self) the top 5% (5 individuals) of those.

So those 5 individuals have now given rise to 5 families, let's call them red, gold, back, green, and blue I guess . Grow out these 5 families in 5 separate plots. These plots should contain at least 30 individuals each (some math folk me included, but not all) feel that 30 is a number where statistics begin to have some real value.

Repeat, that is to say, select (self) the top 5 individuals (phenotypically speaking) from those plots without regard to which plot they came from. The blue family didn't produce anything so it's canned right away. That leaves us with the red, gold, back and green families.

As this goes on (rinse and repeat), yes, we will begin to see which of these families are more homozygous than others (true breeding), by about the S3 this will become readily apparent.

We might decide by the time we get to observing the S3 families that the black and gold families are the most outstanding, nearly 50% of their progenies are very similar to their outstanding (respective) parents. We can also assume that they do not have the exact same genes (differing genotypes), though they are very similar in phenotype.

So we can then back up and cross the black s2 mom, to the gold s2 mom. In doing so, we have restored some vigor (and fitness, adaptive ability etc) to the end product (we'll get some Aa from this cross), while still retaining the outstanding properties of the line.

So that is one way we can go about it, while minimizing the effects of intensive inbreeding. -Tom

lazy, here guys...

The most useful measure of homozygosity is the inbreeding coefficient, F. This coefficient takes a value near zero in most large random-mating populations, and the coefficient increases toward unity under sustained genetic assortive mating. Self-fertilization (one individual in each generation in each family) leads to very rapid increases in homozygosity. Starting with a heterozygote (F=0.50), F takes the values 0.75, 0.875, 0.9375, 0.9688, 0.9844, 0.9922, ... in successive generations of selfing, thus exceeding 0.90 in the third generation. Under continued mating of 2 individuals per family (full sibs) each generation, F is not expected to exceed 0.90 until the eighth generation. With continued mating of 4 individuals per family (double first cousins), F is not expected to exceed 0.90 until the seventeenth generation and rates of increase in F with 8 individuals per family (quadruple second cousins) and 16 individuals per family (octuple third cousins) are much slower yet. The rate of increase in F is so slow with more than 16 mating individuals per family per generation that such matings are of essentially no consequence in concentrating favorable alleles in selection programs in outcrossing species. It is therefore not at all surprising that breeders of plant species nearly always choose schemes featuring very close inbreeding. Selfing schemes (one parent/generation) are by far the most common in breeding outcrossing plants, and the usual goal is to develop numerous highly homozygous lines that are first evaluated by top crossing to identify lines with good general combining ability, followed by testing specific combinations of pairs of lines to identify the very few pairs that have the potential to produce truly excellent single-cross hybrids

 

[MJPassion]

What you want are lines created & maintained as seed varieties that still show some desirable variation. Done with that in mind, back crossing & inbreeding narrow variation. Taken too far, vigor suffers. The whole idea runs contrary to the modern concept of hybridization, selection & clone propagation, although those techniques are used in the establishment of such lines.

Commercial growers using clone propagation don't care if the genetics are stable or not. The mother plants they want are the exception rather than the rule within a given batch of seeds. The greater the variation, the greater the chances of having exceptional individuals. Or so it seems to me.

I, too, am interested in having & disseminating relatively stable & predictable seed varieties. Seeds I've acquired with that in mind include cantaloupe skunk, eldorado, double fun & santa maria. I also have autoflowering Spyder, which looks to be a stabilized line. Others that interest me include yumbolt, maple leaf, pck, panama & queen mother. Skunk#1 & some other old lines fit in there, as well. Northern Lights if you like it, which I don't particularly. I'm sure there are others like X-18 & some of the dutch haze hybrids.

As you say, it's hard to tell w/o first hand experience, breeder descriptions being what they are. Obvious F1's are clearly not what we want.

Excellent post.

Make an Filial cross w that Spyder using a few Mothers & a dad or two.
You'll know within a few weeks of popping the seed how stable the line is.

 

[MJPassion]

Hi MJ,

- What's that Big Brother forum?

https://www.icmag.com/ic/forumdisplay.php?f=65768

 

[MJPassion]

I thought we were having a pretty good discussion, OO. It is pretty theoretical and not particularly concerned with growing killer weed. If MJ has some specific criticism I also would like to hear it.

I thought it was a good convo until it got derailed by all this breeding discussion which is completely off topic from the thread title.

just sayin

 

[MJPassion]

Most of bog's stuff should be stable, according to the breeding section in his book

I believe that his Sour Bubble bx's are his only somewhat stable lines.

The remainder are F1s as far as I can tell.

So long as his parents aren't polyhybrids, his F1 will be uniform but I'd venture a guess that they're far from stable.

Folks, if you are obtaining F1 seed stock you should see genetic diversity in the F2, if you take them there.

Polyhybrids, which are rampant in todays market, may not be uniform in the F1 generation. If your F1 plants are not uniform you can almost be sure that at least one of the parents was a polyhybrid.


I'd like to conclude with a quote from Luther Burbank on selection...
"Select the very best and reject all others."

 

[Only Ornamental]

I'm looking through since you requested this but it is a pain in my ass...

Thanks for your efforts and masochism!
Can't see much real errors though (in the first answer, not yet through all your posts)... lack in comprehensibility, yes, sometimes...
Anyway, I love nitpicking, like monkeys 'I pick yours and you pick mine', so here we go
Though, it's getting complicated with those citations of citations of citations with me being on holiday and the internet doesn't work as it's suppose to do... so no different colours or font sizes, sorry!
___________________________________________

Me: All you need for a stable F1 is a stable parental line or two. Some breeders call stabilised lines also IBL (even if that is not scientifically correct).
You: If you take a male and a female from the same stable line and cross them, the offspring will be an F1 An F1 is produced by crossing genetically different plants. An F2 would be the result of 2 or more F1siblings being mated.
P# is used only to designate PARENTS in a cross. They can come from any (F)ilial generation.
Me again: True, I already said earlier that it was an example using the wrong terminology for the right reasons . Also, I said somewhere along the lines 'If you take a male and a female from the same stable line and cross them, the offspring will be an F1 but because it is the same line, you can also name it P2 (assuming that the parents are from the same generation and would get the rather arbitrary label P1 as first parent generation).' It is legit, because Mendel the father of this terminology did so too, to use the term F1 for an offspring of the same cultivar as soon as only one nucleotide between the two parents is different (and that's always the case). The parental line is often numbered according to their generation so that the breeder or researcher (this nomenclature's usually only used in science) knows how long he's been growing the (usually +/- stable) parental line. Mostly, this is done with cell lines or micro organisms where one passage (and not true generation) takes place every few days or so . I guess, In cannabis breeding, no one apart from The Tropical Seed Company uses a P2 or so to tell people how long they've been reproducing the landrace (p. ex. their Ciskei, got P5 regular seeds and P4 rem seeds; the latter are an S1 of the P3). Most breeders use the F terminology instead no matter if they use several plants from different parents or only siblings from one or whatever... It's marketing and money, no scientific publication .
________________________________________

Me: but because it is the same line, you can also name it P2 (assuming that the parents are from the same generation and would get the rather arbitrary label P1 as first parent generation). Cross the siblings or cross back to a parent will always result in the same stable line .
You: the itallicised sentence is false. The line(s) produced are a result of available genetic code and the selection criteria put forth by the person making the seeds.
Me again: Unfortunately, the entire citation is italicised ;( . Still don't see what's wrong... Maybe a gardener uses the same nomenclature differently than a scientist? Then again, a stable line is not true breeding or homozygous for all alleles. It is only recognisable as such and within a given margin. Besides, we're talking cultivars, varieties, and even strains (although a strain does not exist with whole plants, it does only in micro organisms and cell cultures) which don't follow any real regulations or nomenclatures. It's the breeders and growers who decide when, what, which...
_________________________________

Me: That's what you do to maintain a landrace variety like Hindu Kush r Durban Poison once it's been selected and adapted for indoor or a simple fibre hemp variety. But, the higher the variability within the line (that isn't the same variability like the one from two different lines...) the healthier your plants.
You: ^this statement on variability makes no sense to me. Please expand what you mean here. Hetrozygos plants are not inherently healthier than homozygos plants.
Me again: There's homo- and heterozygosity and there are for example more additional genes, epigenetic mechanisms, and more or less diverse gene cassettes under the control of the concerning gene (the one we speak about being homo- or heterozygous) resulting for example in a different splice variant or complete metabolome or proteome all within a seemingly homozygous plant (remember, there's no true IBL and no plant is completely homozygous). I never said that heterozygous plants are always healthier and even stated that stable lines can be very healthy if done properly. You just have a way better chance for a healthier plant when it has a higher genetic diversity. Sure, it could be a broad range of shitty genes v.s. a homozygous 'super-gene'... The main thing behind this diversity is that the plant (and animal) immune system requires a good diversity to better and quicker react and adapt to pathogens and preferably two different copies of one allele to compensate an eventually faulty one (two copies of a super-duper allele would be even better in that case). Genetics, inheritance, and breeding are complex and multi-faceted and we can't (at least I can't) reduce it without loosing something somewhere or even 'becoming wrong' with something while explaining a general rule.
____________________________________

Me: If you take two closely related stable lines, you get a stable F1 as well and the offspring is likely similar to the parents.
You: I understand this to be the way Shantibaba created Black Widow. It mostly makes sense but there will still be some hetrozygosity in the line no matter how closely the parents are related, ime.
Me again: You're right (with the second phrase, I don't know anything about the first). The small gain in heterozygosity may be the reason why people do that sort of things to avoid inbreeding depression without loosing the loved parental traits.
________________________________

Me: The only two reasons I can see not to do this is A) you don't get something new and exciting, just a mix of the parents with slight differences and B) due to the close relation of the parents the F1 will not profit from a great heterosis effect (aka hybrid vigour). That doesn't need to be bad, a good cross is still good without that (likely even better if the parents start showing inbreeding depression; every little bit of heterosis is better than non).
You: hetrozygos plants do not breed true. Heterozygoz plants will only show traits that are dominant while all the desirable recessives are masked.
Me again: Sorry, I don't really get what you mean... It's about the same as the statement just before. 'True breeding for a certain trait' means exactly the same as 'homozygous for a certain trait'; it's kind of a synonym, the former more agricultural, the latter more scientific. Besides, for reason unknown, the wild forms are dominant most of the time meaning that most recessive traits are less common mutations. There's no telling which version is 'desirable'. Besides loss in heterogeneity, inbreeding depression is also caused by undesirable alleles becoming homozygous (and therefore become 'visible' or 'expressed'). Maybe we're talking about two completely different things here and we're both right?
_________________________________

Me: One can only guess what you have to cross to get the best heterosis effect
You: yep... poly x poly x poly x poly or basically any of todays available hybrids should result in hetrozygos plants.
Me again: It's not done with being heterozygous to get a useful heterosis effect. Don't have it at hand, there's a publication about diversity in hemp and cannabis cultivars showing that modern drug type cannabis has a smaller variability (although bias possible). Only certain combinations result in a boost and we don't know which ones (or at least I don't; the good breeders should have a feeling for these things although lacking the scientific proof... but who care as long as it works, right?). The lack in diversity has nothing to do with zygosity but with the diversity. And here I start to turn in a circle with phrases in the beginning of this post .
_____________________________________

Me: and that's why people often take very different parents (like from different continents or an indica with a sativa) and thereby increase their chances.
If you like Blueberry, why not buy two from two different breeders so that you get some differences between the parents and then cross them? The offspring will still be a BB like you know it but with a slight boost of hybrid vigour if the parents were bred tightly for several generations. If the parents were very healthy, then you simply get a healthy BB as well, day saved .
Lets say that your NL is only available as clone or you just have one mother, you could self it. That way, the offspring will be very similar to the mother. One or two generations of selfing shouldn't cause too much troubles with a healthy parent... there won't be any profit from heterosis and if you keep on doing the selfing for some more generations, you end up with crap but one seed run to get your 100 seeds for the next 10 years will be no problem. Many commercial fem strains are actually S1's.
You: I was under the impression that mist fem seed was made by stressing a female to produce pollen then using the resultant pollen on other cultivars thereby creating a new strain entirely. S1 is typically labeled as such.
Me again: What's that mist in 'mist fem seeds'?
An S stands for selfed like an 'F1' between two clones from the same mom. Using pollen from a reversed female (no matter if obtained with stress, spontaneously, or with chemicals) on a different plant results in common 'feminised seeds'. The terminology remains the same like with 'normal' parents but folks just don't do that and talk only about S this and that... You can have an S, P, and F nomination of one single plant at the same time, imagine that!

 

[MJPassion]

I have no interest in breeding an IBL either slowly or quickly. I have an interest in growing genetically diverse open pollinated stable varieties that can produce F1s that demonstrate strong heterosis.

For example, I grow a little winter wheat, a heritage variety from Europe. The more years I grow it the closer it will become landrace in my own Northern New England environment. This variety would not fit well with modern agronomy. Each seed produces multiple stems and they vary widely from one to another. They are tall and short and every where in between. The seed heads vary a lot too. Some are large and prolific and some small and thin. I assume these multiple expressions are due to genetic diversity. I'm happy with that. If I was to try and make an IBL of this variety then I would need to narrow the gene pool so that all the stems were short and very fat headed. It would become, actually has become, a modern variety that stands up in the rain and is easy to combine.

It seems like it is similar to Cannabis. Producing an IBL would represent a narrowing of the gene pool.

I'm literaly surounded by fields of dry land winter wheat but I'd guess it is a bit more stablized since there are acres upon acres of the stuff all exactly the same height.

Do you use a combine for harvest?
If so, and you want a particular plant type, you should go out and observe and collect seed from the plants that best represent what you would like to see in future generations. Go collect a 50lb sack and reseed your field with just those seeds and see how you like the results.

If you were to collect two distinct types if expressions (tall vs short) you could potentally work out a stable F1 as OO had mentioned in a previous post (think Black Widow).
I honestly don't know if those would be considered F1 or not but it is yhe best description I can think of for the cross...

 

[MJPassion]

Anyway, I love nitpicking, like monkeys 'I pick yours and you pick mine', so here we go

^^^ that got me lmao.^^^

However, now I must ask you to edit the remainder of that so that your words are not mixed with mine making my message seem convoluted & incomprehensible.

I refuse, at this time, to labor through that post trying to figure out what got mixed up. I don't need anything more than the quotes to be separated such that they are not mixed up like they currently are.

Sorry... just the way it is.

 

[oldchuck]

^
Maybe wait till he comes back from vacationland with poor internet.