Is low potency a recessive trait?

[bubbl3r]

Originally Posted by Grat3fulh3ad
"WTF are they teaching in school nowadays?"

Intelligent design?

Can anyone here tell us, what exactly is the theory, or current day thinking on "Intelligent design"?

Is it a Law, theory, hypothesis etc etc, and is there any shred of proof attached to it?

I've heard it's very big in the USA, being taught everywhere...Is it some occult offering, or something more mainstream?

Hopefully someone here, will have some experience of it.


Are there any recessive traits mentioned in it?



Bubbl3r

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Well I don't know about space, but I am definitely a spaced brother...
PS When the space Bros were here last they looked me up and got some original Haze, they told me it was worth the 500 light year trip just to have a few bongs, and a few seeds...... they wanted clones, but I told them no, so they added recessive low potency genes to the worlds Cannabis Drug gene-pools. It is all my fault!
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Did you know that in the beginning the very first Cannabis plant had recessive low potency genes, but they were perfect.

-SamS

 

[bubbl3r]

Well I don't know about space, but I am definitely a spaced brother...
PS When the space Bros were here last they looked me up and got some original Haze, they told me it was worth the 500 light year trip just to have a few bongs, and a few seeds...... they wanted clones, but I told them no, so they added recessive low potency genes to the worlds Cannabis Drug gene-pools. It is all my fault!
-SamS

LOL so funny Sam, I'm almost tempted!.....how much are those beans anyway?




Bubbl3r

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

$1 each was my price back then...

-SamS

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Sam, come on, tell the guy the truth, it is 1$, sure, but it is 1 space dollar, a dollar so special that it contains all the dollars in space contained within it, and all recessive interests go directly into the bank :wink:

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well I don't know about space, but I am definitely a spaced brother...
PS When the space Bros were here last they looked me up and got some original Haze, they told me it was worth the 500 light year trip just to have a few bongs, and a few seeds...... they wanted clones, but I told them no, so they added recessive low potency genes to the worlds Cannabis Drug gene-pools. It is all my fault!
-SamS

 

[wisco61]

Ok, I believe as previously stated that there was once a supreme cannabis plant that was super potent, had a finite number of genes, all dominant and non of which were recessive.

Then at some stage, as a result of a combination of environment and mutation, or a mutagen being introduced, there was a number of gene variations, which facilitated the rise in more variation by design. At the same time, there was another unpredictable occurance of genes becoming codependently linked together, resulting in a series of recessive traits, that used shared resources and chemical processes. The environment and particulary environmental stress, then played a larger role in natural selection in harsh environments. Cannabis would have to use its precious resouces to survive, rather than on the concerns of reproduction, and hence population would have fallen. The natural evolutionary process of survival of the fittest, would determine factors like the size and shape, yield and potency, and how the plant allocated the resources to each. With dwindling numbers then limiting the increased genepool to only a select few, most of which were of low potency.

So the path was one of mutation, followed by an increase of diversity, then by natural environment selection, resulting in favour of low potency plants.

Since then man has seeked to increase the potency, by diversifying the now existing genepool, and selecting out the undesireable traits and results.

I predict potency will reach a plateau, because of the genetic restraints now present in the genepool, make it almost impossible to regain the original genetic configurations. I say almost impossible, because I believe scientists will someday be able to accurately measure and trace the cannabis genepool, all the way back to the early times, and maybe even find a suitable dna donor to inpart, manipulate and recreate. Maybe one day they will find a seed encrusted in some rock, preserved in ice, or dare I say it, trapped in amber.





Bubbl3r

and they said I did too much acid in high school.

 

[simple gardener]

you laugh at Bubbl3r now, but the joke will be on you when the Space Bro's return in 100 years or so, they wouldn't have aged at all due to travelling at warp speed, and they have all our women and 10 pack of haze seeds in cryo-freeze.

 

[bubbl3r]

Well I don't know about space, but I am definitely a spaced brother...
PS When the space Bros were here last they looked me up and got some original Haze, they told me it was worth the 500 light year trip just to have a few bongs, and a few seeds...... they wanted clones, but I told them no, so they added recessive low potency genes to the worlds Cannabis Drug gene-pools. It is all my fault!
-SamS

Ok, and how much are those intergalactic beans going for these days?




Bubbl3r

 

[Pops]

With the economy going the way it is, even a Space Buck ain't what it used to be!

 

[RockyMountainHi]

Canine breeds and cannabis are quite similar actually, IMO - both have been bred and adapted to suit the desires of the breeder.

The breeder is the one that chooses the parents, sorts the offspring and begins again.

In canine terms – we have variety from St Bernard to Dachshund , German Shepard to Chihuahua - they all started with a wild mongrel dog. - Well a few wild mongrel dogs.


In cannabis terms - potency, flowering period size and yield are all possible traits - along with flavor/aroma to name a few.


As far a dominate and recessive traits – I believe that is part of the genetic code - some plants may display traits always true and those same traits are rare or only seen occasionally in other strains/breeds.


now about my 2 cents,,,,,

 

[bubbl3r]

Canine breeds and cannabis are quite similar actually, IMO - both have been bred and adapted to suit the desires of the breeder.

The breeder is the one that chooses the parents, sorts the offspring and begins again.

In canine terms – we have variety from St Bernard to Dachshund , German Shepard to Chihuahua - they all started with a wild mongrel dog. - Well a few wild mongrel dogs.


In cannabis terms - potency, flowering period size and yield are all possible traits - along with flavor/aroma to name a few.


As far a dominate and recessive traits – I believe that is part of the genetic code - some plants may display traits always true and those same traits are rare or only seen occasionally in other strains/breeds.


now about my 2 cents,,,,,

Yes have to agree, the true traits are becoming more and more rare, and what we have now is a mish mash. There are so many recessive traits in the mix right now, that dominant true breeding traits, need to be selected individually.




Bubbl3r

 

[kopite]

As far a dominate and recessive traits – I believe that is part of the genetic code - some plants may display traits always true and those same traits are rare or only seen occasionally in other strains/breeds.

Yes have to agree, the true traits are becoming more and more rare, and what we have now is a mish mash. There are so many recessive traits in the mix right now, that dominant true breeding traits, need to be selected individually.

you just have some so called "breeders" that have bred poorly then people trying to breed with these genes usually small numbers hence things get lost...

also many recessive alleles for strains bred this way to stop hacks etc..... hence they mask with dom ... this is with hybrids that we buy


its common for people to breed for a true trait and not a true breeding plant

someone mentioned dog breeding which made me think of vic high.... and his guide to true breeding

How do I create a true breeding strain? (65 views)
Contributed by Vic High:

I've been hearing a fair bit of confusion from many on how to create a true breeding strain and so I'm writing this page to try and help shed some light on the subject. There are a few situations where a plant breeder would want to create a true breeding strain (IBL) and a few ways of accomplishing the task. But understanding the subtle differences of the various techniques is not so easy. This paper will attempt to give a basic understanding of what is actually happening with each technique and then apply what is learned to actual projetcs. As a friend worked overtime making sure I didn't forget, breeding is not a black and white subject and as a whole, it would be too complex to put on paper in an easily understood form. Therefore, I will create small fictional examples to reinforce various concepts and then we will take those examples and concepts and apply some reality to them. Try not to get hung up on the erroneous assumptions used here such as flavour being monogenic, the assumption is simply used to make it easier to learn a certain concept.


Just What Is It That We Are Doing?

Before we dive in, maybe we should take the time to understand what we are trying to accomplish when we set out to create a true breeding strain. There are hundreds of possible phenotypic traits that we could observe within a cannabis population. Are we trying to make all of them the same and remove ALL variation? Not likely, the genetic code is just too complex to try. Plus, since phenotype (what we see) is 1/2 genotype + 1/2 environment, everytime the population was grown under new conditions, new heterozygous traits would be observed. Basically, all we are trying to create is an overall uniformity while not worrying about the minor individual variations. No different than a dog breed. You can look at a german shepard and recognise it as belonging to a discrete breed. But if you look closer at several german shepards all at the same time, you will find variations with each and every one of them. Some will be a little taller, some a little wider, some more agressive, some a little fatter, some darker, etc. But they would all fall within an acceptable range for the various traits. Generally speaking, this is what a plant breeder is trying to accomplish when creating a true breeding strain, or IBL.

However this isn't always the case. Sometimes a breeder will just concentrate on a specific trait, like say outdoor harvest date, or mite resistance. You could still have a population where some are 2' bushes and some 10' trees. In this case, you would say that the strain was true breeding for the particular trait, but you wouldn't consider it true breeding strain per se. In genetics, wording plays a big part in meaning and understanding. As does point of reference as my F1 vs F2 comparison page illustrates.

Ok, so we want to make a cannabis population fairly uniform over a few phenotypically important traits, like say flavour for instance. For simplicity sake, we'll just deal with the single trait flavour, it's complex enough. And although flavour is controlled by several gene pairs (polygenic), we'll make the simplistic assumption that it's controlled by a single gene pair (monogenic) for many of the models and examples in this paper. There are many flavours such as chocolate, vanilla, musky, skunky, blueberry, etc, but in this paper we'll just deal with two flavours, pine and pineapple. Either gene in the gene pair can code for either of the flavours. If both genes code for pineapple or both genes code for pine flavour, we say that the gene pair (and individual plant) is homozygous for flavour. If the one gene codes for pine and the other codes for pineapple, we say that the gene pair (and individual plant) is heterozyous with respect to flavour. The heterozygous individual can create gametes (pollen or ovules) that can code for either pine flavour or pineapple flavour, the homozygous individuals can only create gametes that code for one OR the other. A homozygous individual is considered true breeding and a heterozygous individual is not.

However, as the words imply, when we are creating a true breeding strain, we are looking at a population, not individuals. We are trying to make all the individuals in the population homozygous for a particular trait or group of traits. Lets say we have a population of 50 individual plants, and each plant has has a gene pair coding for flavour. That means that 100 flavour genes make up the flavour genepool (reality is much more complex). When trying to create a true breeding strain, we are in fact trying to make all 100 of those genes code for the same trait ( pineapple flavour in our case). The closer our population comes getting all 100 genes the same, the more homozygous or true breeding it becomes. We use the terminology gene frequency to measure and describe this concept, where gene frequency is simply the ratio or percentage of the population that actually contains a specific gene. The higher the gene frequency, the more true breeding the population is. A fixed trait is where the gene frequency of the trait reaches 100%.

And folks, this is the basic backbone of what breeding is all about, manipulating gene frequencies. It doesn't matter if your making IBL, F1s, F2s, selecting for this or selecting for that, all you are really doing is manipulating gene frequencies. Therefore, to ever really understand what is happening in any breeding project, the breeder must pay attention to gene frequencies and assess how his selective pressures and models are influencing them. They are his measure of success.


What are we trying to create a true breeding strain from?

This a good question. Sometimes a gardener will notice a sport or unique individual in an F2 population, like say it has pineapple flavour when the rest have pine flavour. For one reason or another he decides he wants to preserve this new trait or combination of traits from that single individual. For the sake of ease of comprehension, we tend to call this special unique individual the P1 mom. He could start by selfing the individual OR breeding that individual with another and create what can be described as F1 offspring. If the F1 route was chosen, then breeders can diverge down two new paths. Some breeders will take the progeny of the F1 crossing and breed it back to the P1 mom, and then repeat for a couple more generations. This is referred to as backcrossing or cubing by cannabis breeders. Another common strategy is to make F2 progeny from the F1 population and then look for individuals that match the P1 mom. They would repeat the process for a few generations. We can call this filial or generational inbreeding since the parents from each cross belong to the same generation.

In another situation, sometimes a farmer will notice a few individuals in his fields that stand out from the crowd in a possitive manner. Like say the are resistant to a problem pest like powdery mildew. In this case, he will collect the best of the individuals and his starting population will contain several similar individuals and not a unique single individual as in the previous example. He would skip the hybridizing step (making the F1s) and go straight to the generational inbreeding step. Links to pages going into detail of each of these basic techniques and their impact on influencing gene frequencies are at:

A) Selfing the individual

B) Backcrossing and Cubing

C) Filial or Generational Inbreeding from an individual

D) Filial or Generational Inbreeding from a group


Applying the Pressure
Another excellent method to influence gene frequencies is to apply selective pressure. The idea here is to select only individuals that carry the desireable genes, and discard the rest.


A) Principles of selection
B) Progeny tests

Link To Original Article

http://growfaq.net/index.php?action=artikel&cat=21&id=181&artlang=en

anyway I'm now going to transcend into outer space .... btw its great to see suzy cremecheese posting

 

[suzycremecheese]

btw its great to see suzy cremecheese posting

Thanks for that. I can't believe this is the thread that grabbed me.

Yes have to agree, the true traits are becoming more and more rare,

What is a true trait? Will you define that? Instead of the word rare infrequent might suit the conversation better but I get your point.

and what we have now is a mish mash.

What do you mean by mish mash? I think I know but I'd like to hear you elaborate on it.

There are so many recessive traits in the mix right now, that dominant true breeding traits, need to be selected individually.

I will be the first to admit that the majority of cannabis breeders and seed makers aren't doing Cannabis any good... but this idea that you have that dominant traits are good and recessive traits (I still think you mean allele variations) are all bad just perplexes me. If that was true there would never have been a need or desire to breed... like you said we started with the perfect Cannabis for every situation.

First there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" when it comes to traits, genes, alleles, whatever. There is only our perception of what is good and bad. Every allele in Cannabis is in there because it either aided in survival at one time or another. Even recessive alleles. They are all good for Cannabis and if they aren't in use right now they will hang out until they are needed or selected against. If they are detrimental to a line in some particular condition they will be selected against until they are eliminated or occurring at a very low frequency.

Breeders and seed makers don't "make" alleles. They may move them from one line to another, increase the frequency of them, but more importantly they may accidentally, and unknowingly lose some... forever.

Sure "mishmashes" suck if you're trying to get back to some ancestor that might be partially hiding in some line you may be working with but I'd rather have a mash of all the allele possibilities than lose any one forever.

See how I did that? I don't even know how I warp everything towards preservation... it just happens.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

bubbl3r, to make you happy, I will confess that I believe that before cannabis and man crossed destinies, that
cannabis expressed many potent strains and phenotypes useful to man for various purposes. I believe this was the way it was because either way man would have not became interested in domesticating the plant and hence selecting the best wild specimens they found to later breed with them.
Furthermore, in this process of breeding man has made the plant express the traits man is after, but such sought after traits not always present themselves
after breeders have done their work, although plenty of times they actually do. This means that man-made breeding has had a positive as well as negative impact upon the current genepool that most people work on. I believe that the impact man can make upon the species by breeding is not too big, so whatever damage or good man can do, it is neither too heroic or too tragic; unless our intent is to do real damage of course though.

However, I still do not know what your theories are... I know what some of your opinions are though, but theories? where?

Paz

 

[petal]

Thanks for that. I can't believe this is the thread that grabbed me.

it's like driving past a car crash,lol.

good to see you back.

I'm still reading Genetics for Dummies, which I bought on your recommendation & have found to be informative.

many thanks

regards

petal

 

[Pops]

Any discussion about dominant or recessive traits depends on whether the trait is favorable to us or to the plant. If you want huge buds, that is favorable to us. it may not be favorable to the plants,as it may be harder to pollinate(if the cola is bent way over) or the stalks may break.

I have blue eyes, a homozygous recessive trait. My wife had brown eyes, a homozygous dominant trait. My children all have brown eyes, but carry a dominant brown allele and a recessive blue allele. There is no advantage to the dominant or recessive allele,especially if you are a blonde with extremely large breasts. In that case, most folks won't be looking at your eyes anyway.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Any discussion about dominant or recessive traits depends on whether the trait is favorable to us or to the plant. If you want huge buds, that is favorable to us. it may not be favorable to the plants,as it may be harder to pollinate(if the cola is bent way over) or the stalks may break.

I have blue eyes, a homozygous recessive trait. My wife had brown eyes, a homozygous dominant trait. My children all have brown eyes, but carry a dominant brown allele and a recessive blue allele. There is no advantage to the dominant or recessive allele,especially if you are a blonde with extremely large breasts. In that case, most folks won't be looking at your eyes anyway.

Sorry pops... brown eyed homozygous people are perfect, and the nasty recessive blue eye gene bearers are intended to be our servants...

 

[mosca negra]

LOL!!!