Mini Breeding Clarifications

[Fuel]

How many F1 seeds would you guys ideally select from?

As much that you need, in practical breeding it's never something that you decide before having the plants in front of you.

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.

 

[GMT]

Hey Fuel, nice to finally talk.
I would like to clarify that I in no way object to poly-hybrids, in themselves or as a breeding tool. Merely I make the additional observation about the variation in genetic content between siblings. Something that many may not be aware of.
However you are quite right to highlight that conformity of phenotype is not the same thing as homogeneity. Something I am of course aware of, but never entered my mind to point out for some reason.

 

[Fuel]

Shortcuts used to enlighten the passion of the fresh curious is a complicated exercice bro, specially on this matter. And by default i've a big respect for this, no matter what.

I prefered to hijack and to draw the safe perimeter on your efforts to vulgarize. I know how it can be hard in a so much cascading subject don't worry, but also how a single hole can lead to fancy theories in some minds ^^ The next gen growers can be quite binary sometimes and it affect massively the demand, then the offer in genetics. And it's not our shiniest moment as old farts, said in all honesty ^^

 

[GMT]

Quite right. I shall endeavour to do better in the future sir. It is however, gratifying to hear of the next generation being binary, in any aspect of their lives, in this ever increasingly quantum computing world of fluidity; even in their own sexual expressions at times.
The internet message boards are a huge resource of both knowledge and bullshit, leaving holes, as you rightly say, leaves space for the bullshit to accumulate.

 

[Rhizoma]

I am not sure if what I will say doesn't makes sense ( probably) but my idea of diversity and genetic preservation consider the idea to promote hetero more then homo. F2-F3 over stabilisted strains.
Recessive over dominant?

Said that I consider that the strict process of breeding as scientific is crucial to know or better understand what we are doing although with the intent to breed for diversity.

Please also remember that the post was about "mini" which will entail also reduced and scaled down breeding processes.
As said large pheno hunting are not at my level, while other strategies should be considered.

 

[Fuel]

There is some parameters that are applying to change the leverage of breeding, that revolve around numbers. It still parameters, the rules of selection dominate and are the initial equation.

But i take care to modulate my inputs to keep it close to an illegal hobby scale ^^ Micro-scale don't necessary mean easy breeding too, as it's either applying for acres of unique specimens.

The number of plants you can keep alive at a time doesn't affect at all your goals, shared here. But the flow of it and the accuracy of your successive mapping.

If you want to map 1000 seeds in an half square meter, there is no reason to fail by obligation. At the moment you're accepting that it will take let's say 50 rounds in perpetual cycles (12 to 25 years) . Less off course if you cull specimens that you're replacing directly with fresh seedlings. And to take it in count in your methodology of tracking/notation.

my idea of diversity and genetic preservation consider the idea to promote hetero more then homo.

It's not related and i will ask you the self discipline to don't take in count what i will write now, until it blast your mind at the right moment. Maybe years later lol

Adopting a given landrace in your indoor space mean a lot for the genotype. Even in your garden most of the time.

The genotype will fight against it and change its inherent segregations to better fit its new environment. It mean that the destructive phenos will be a lot more numerous, dominant and damaging than in the initial environment.

At this state, you realize fast that if you don't save yourself fast what make the initial soul of the line (a taste, a type of grow, a given potency style ...) you will just lost it in a breeze by adaptation and the inherent leverage that cannabis have to super-perform at this. Remember hemp too, a close cousin that can be crossed with like a charm. It mean a lot in term of range of genetic drift.

Your idea is correct for the direct sourcing. Not to work it. In practice it's the total reverse that should happen, you have to stabilize what you want to save. And quite fast, you don't have ten generations with qualitative practices. So the use of parallel lines and unique pairing is very much advised to don't screw yourself on a line you're just starting to explore. Don't trust the bullshitting excuses of labels trying to convince people that cannabis can't handle inbreeding pressure of two digits generations. It's a pure cynical nonsense.

F2-F3 over stabilisted strains.

It's just Fn+1 buddy, there is no secret sauce behind but hard work and focus on the traits worked and their patterns.

Now if one get a landrace that was multiple times open pollinated during 5 generations ... hell yeah, trying to source directly is a better strategy. But if the line was stabilized on its initial qualities, don't be the one making it more difficult than necessary ... just use it and save decades.

How do you think we got the cannabis of today ? It's multiple layers of genes passed. There is enough stoners making seeds on the planets since ages to don't have to reinvent the wheel at each project ;o)

Recessive over dominant?

During the adaptive segregation, all phenos presenting a form of mutation by example are suppressive as fuck. It don't necessary mean they are dominant, they can just rob the bank of some traits as pure recessive phenos and finish like most of elite cuts : hard to stabilize, very hard to improve from the reference.

Determining the dominants and recessives should stay on the sub-groups of the alive specimens you have under the nose. It's a decisional help, it never write the breeding plan.

This state in regard of the genotype can be radically changed too just by isolation. It's a relative quality, like quantic ^^

Said that I consider that the strict process of breeding as scientific is crucial

Being a careful farmer loving good weed is a first nice step in my opinion, and of course the constancy of this over your journey. It's not easy, sometimes to survive you have to sell a bit of your soul and it affect the plants.