Is low potency a recessive trait?

[FarmerJoe]

Selective Breeding and testing. Out of a field the breeder could go to each male and female and smoke samples, take note of smell, taste, other traits that seemed to be favorable to them, and those that got the best effects and were most desirable would be bred, others culled, this works the same way as breeding any other kind of plants.

Remember cannabis produces a broad spectrum of traits depending on many variables.

What everyone seems to be passing over it the fact that until recently (past 30-40 years) all drug marijuana produce by todays standards was close to what today some would call schwag in quality, not to say it didn't have favorable effects, smells, and tastes, but it has changed quite a bit since indoor breeding became the standard. Before that marijuana was grown in fields and often harvested for hash quality, not bud quality.

I believe the hybridization of Cannabis Sativa and Indica for indoor cultivation allowed marijuana to exhibit an even wider array of traits than nature ever allowed it to. This is where todays drug marijuana comes from.

 

[The Slickster]

Low potency is not a recessive trait, however high potency is a recessive trait in high potency cannabis. There may be some natural low ground of potency, but even then it cannot be considered a dominating force by nature. Any extreme potency levels that are selected in for a line will naturally sway back towards their balanced state over time in generations if not further selected for. Meaning the majority of offspring will have a lesser potency while the minority will be the ones capable of being highly potent to varying degrees. Trichomes are an expression of the cannabinoid, flavonoid, and terpenoid production potentials that can be selected for. The traits for high potency as we know it today even at 10%, are a rare combination of genes, not likely to reproduce by themselves at such combinations in nature.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

What everyone seems to be passing over it the fact that until recently (past 30-40 years) all drug marijuana produce by todays standards was close to what today some would call schwag in quality, not to say it didn't have favorable effects, smells, and tastes, but it has changed quite a bit since indoor breeding became the standard. Before that marijuana was grown in fields and often harvested for hash quality, not bud quality.

Well I do not believe this at all...
Ganja was grown as sinsemilla in India hundreds of years ago, not for hash.
The best Cannabis 100 years ago could easily be as good as most of what today is considered good. It may not have been a Indica/Sativa hybrid but I am not sure that matters. I prefer pure Sativas, many people do, as well as the folks that prefer pure Indicas. Indoor breeding has focused on yield and potency, while many subtle traits are lost due to the low plant numbers.
Lets be honest to keep a Cannabis seed variety maintained without clones you need to grow 2,000 plants per crop to avoid serious gene loss. I know of no indoor breeders doing this.

-SamS

 

[Hindu Killer]

Interesting topic, and input(s).

 

[bubbl3r]

Sam Skunkman, can you describe what you mean by "subtle traits" that have been lost?




Bubbl3r

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I just mean that if you reproduce a seed variety of Cannabis using low plant numbers then gene loss will happen every reproduction. Gene loss equals trait loss in the end.

See: Crossa, J. et al. 1993. Statistical genetic considerations for maintaining germ plasm collections. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86: 673-678.

"A population size of 2,000 for dioecious accessions is required to ensure that 99% of the gene pool will be preserved (Crossa 1993)."

-SamS

 

[kopite]

I believe the hybridization of Cannabis Sativa and Indica for indoor cultivation allowed marijuana to exhibit an even wider array of traits than nature ever allowed it to. This is where todays drug marijuana comes from.

I don't go with that.. the only reason people used Indica strains is to suit human needs ie Indoor growing... the one trait from an indica that people were predominantly looking for was a reduction in flowering time and to an extent denser buds.... I don't believe it gave way to a greater array of genes...

I have smoked a perfect ie dense frosted bud that didn't get me as high as a schwag looking bud....

 

[Sirius]

Yes it does!

Not necessarily. It is more a question of what develops inside the trichomes.

 

[bubbl3r]

Not necessarily. It is more a question of what develops inside the trichomes.

Sirius, can you believe cannabinoid profile is hereditary?

i.e can offspring have the same high and intensity, as the mother plant for instance?



Bubbl3r

 

[Guest]

Acouple Questions For Sam / I Hope

Acouple Questions For Sam / I Hope

I can easily make high THC varieties that can be grown outdoors in the far north. It is the hand of man not the environment.

-SamS

I would love to know more about this, as i plan on making some crosses for early maturing northern use & also for early maturation (Aug/Sept.) at say 30 degrees latitude. I have several early maturing ibl strains (indica & sativa's) and a few more on the way gifted from veteran northern growers. Could you give any suggestions on breeding for potency & early maturing traits ?


Also Sam, what explains why alot of pure sativas, landrace or not, can't be grown to anywhere close to full potential inside under HID's ? But then some sativas that are fast/early maturing northern outdoor strains (Leb27, Royal Dane etc.) still don't do great under HID's ?




Big Thx

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I don't have much indoor experience.

As for an early high THC variety.
Find the earliest high THC varieties you can Hybridize them with open pollination.
Take the seeds and grow them and pollinate the best and earliest females with an extra early wild Cannabis variety from as far north as you can find, like the artic circle, no THC required.
Take the F1 THC/EARLY seeds and self them with a large population.
Grow the F2 seeds and select individuals that are the earliest with the most THC.
Clone and keep both males and females alive that are the best. Progeny testing is required to confirm the males are also high THC.
It is a lot of work, but it works for sure.

-SamS

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I don't have much indoor experience.

As for an early high THC variety.
Find the earliest high THC varieties you can Hybridize them with open pollination.
Take the seeds and grow them and pollinate the best and earliest females with an extra early wild Cannabis variety from as far north as you can find, like the artic circle, no THC required.
Take the F1 THC/EARLY seeds and self them with a large population.
Grow the F2 seeds and select individuals that are the earliest with the most THC.
Clone and keep both males and females alive that are the best. Progeny testing is required to confirm the males are also high THC.
It is a lot of work, but it works for sure.

-SamS

Sounds like a workable plan to me...
One note... alot of people seem to think that selfing means reversing a plant and pollinating a female clone of that plant with the reversed pollen. I see here that you are using it correctly, as I understand it, pollenating females from a generation with males from the same generation, Thus creating an F2 generation, not anything which could be labled 'S1'.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Correct, and the more males and females the better.

-SamS

 

[Scoobs]

THC and CBD have been shown to be codominant with regards to chemotype.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=16193&highlight=cbd+thc+codominance

But potency is more than just THC. Terpenes, THCV, Trichome quantity etc... are all factors as well.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

No problem, Scoobs, You can co-factor in the Terpenes, THCV, Trichome quantity, and even the CBD. But in the end you still need to do what I said above.
It is no problem to eliminate CBD in the F2 generation. (by smoking the females and by smoking progeny from the males to test the males)
You do not want THCV. But I don't think you can test for it anyway.
You do want trichome quantity. That is easy to see.
You can pick the terpenes you like and give the high you like.
I didn't think anyone would do much else.
-SamS

 

[chubbynugs]

Thanks for this thread. I have learned so much reading it.

 

[Bluebeard]

Sam Skunkman, if that is true, that cannabis is losing alleles and traits, then can I float the idea that, at some stage, there must have been one "GOD" plant, that was supremely potent, and had all the alleles, and every high potency trait you refer too.

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of genetics, genetic diversity does not translate into phenotypic diversity nor does it translate into allelic frequencies or vice versa. These are 3 very different things.

Every one of the numerous and diverse dog breeds are descended from a fairly homogenous group of wolves. That doesn't mean that there were wolves that looked like teacup chihuahuas and great danes, it just means that most of the genes that define these breeds are, or at least were contained in wolf populations that look and behave largely like the wolves of today. Of course, mutation is a factor, but can only account for a very small amount of traits.

 

[suzycremecheese]

Another thing I don't see mentioned here...

Genetic inheritance isn't an either/or issue. It isn't "the allele(s) for this trait is(are) either dominant or recessive." There are many other ways that genes/alleles interact to give us the final results that we enjoy so much.

I don't think that I will get to many arguments if I say that potency, or the lack of it, is the result of an undetermined number of genes... certainly more than one... I think Sam said it above... this is much more complicated than dominance vs recessiveness.

 

[blackone]

Dominant or Recessive has nothing at all to do with wether a trait will be favored or disappear in natural selection. Both dominant and recessive traits can be selected for by the environment. Also as Sam pointed out there are many genes affecting potency - this is easily realised when you observe the great range of different thc levels (I'll just stick with THC - won't even go into other cannabinoids or terpenes - but if I did it would just make the point even clearer).
If potency was controlled by a single allele you would only see a low and a high THC level + a single intermediate level if we're talking codominance. Not the continous range that is easily observed.

Perhaps quantitative genetics provide a better understanding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_genetics

Anyway ... you're not necessarily restricted to reshuffling the genepool - mutants have always played a role not just in evelution, but also breeding. You need high plant counts (And for non-visual traits a very active selection process...) to get lucky with mutations though But I can easily see how, if in a big field of ganja 1 plant mutates and becomes more potent it would be noticed by the consumer, and seeds would be saved.
THC and other cannabinoids have also been in the cannabis plant long before man discovered it. They're there for a reason, and serve a purpose for the plant - I don't think anyone will argue that. I've read speculations of THC as a UV protection and thus favored in alpine environments but I won't postulate that myself. I'm pretty sure though that locations with natural varieties higher in THC than others existed before cannabis was discovered by man though.




I don't know if these articles have been linked here before, they probably have - they might contain some relevant results with regards to trichome density vs. potency.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2442328?seq=2
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9122(198011/12)67:10<1397:TACCOD>2.0.CO;2-L

 

[Pops]

At a certain time, an enzyme is released that will cause CBG to turn into THC or CBD(or both), depending which alleles(Bt or Bt) are present. Some potency variation will occur in sister plants as there are variants of this enzyme.I have no idea how much variation there is, but I am still reading and learning.