Fuel
Active member
As much that you need, in practical breeding it's never something that you decide before having the plants in front of you.How many F1 seeds would you guys ideally select from?
If it is a F1, they should be quite homogenous, so possibly not too much room for selecting outliars or rarely combined traits.
It was the case 30 years ago, and not on all F1. The standard changed since ... to don't say that it's burning in hell actually.
More generally, it's important to don't mix two principles
- a stabilized F1 : it refer to an uniformity of the plants that don't especially mean an homozygous state, but it can be build with two homozygous lines either and enter in the category then. It's more a technical evaluation as a "genetic material" than something automated or "doomed to be".
- the streamlining effect of the heterosis : to stay short and when the lines are enough distant genetically, the meeting of the said lines produce heterosis.
The thing we call the "hybrid vigor" more casually. And it's proper to F1s. It can act as a mirage of stabilization with the right pairing and lure you on the stability of the line, if you don't know well the parents.
I mean the F2 and F3 are far more heterozygous, so i think thats where you want to test the most and really make selections, what is your guys opinion on that theory?
This is how you recognize a work done with unstable lines; this is the chaos within the next generation.
It's much more progressive with a F1 made with stable materials. Almost the same that a BX3 that you inbred, variations are limited because the DNA is solid and the selection plainly complementary.
Each F1 is made of 50% of each parental plant.
I agree on the vulgarizing shortcut, but it's very important to add on it a limit.
Expressions are not made at 50% of both. And it's how are dominating some subgroups on others, to exterminate them from the genotype.
So parental choice requirements aren't a hard rule, it's more important to look at the lines the parental plants came from.
Totally. And it's something that sadly shouldn't look like exceptional, pricey or even singular today.
Polyhybrids require higher numbers to capture the genes they hold, as they are likely to hold more diversity.
I'm against this new mantra against polys, peacefully but i'm radically against. This is the good place i guess to quote one strain on which no one will argue : the skunk.
There is no better contradiction of the "anti poly trend" in discussions that this strain. It's a caricature of polyhybrid and in the same time one of the most used in hybrids since decades to calm wild pairings with its reliability and uniformity.
In practice, everything revolve around the accuracy of the selection. The length of the pedigree doesn't really matter for the stability. It shouldn't be a factor in the considerations, skills have the last word and plants never lie on this point.
Unskilled selections, randomly chunked, and stacked to add another hyped name in the soup ?
Hell yeah, it's a problem but polys are not responsible of this.
Last edited: