Stabilizing desirable traits in heterozygous plants?

[Weird]

I have to play devils advocate here aardwolf so please no offense

full and half sib matings are accepted methods of breeding in plant programs but the choose to use them is based on mode of reproduction which may be the added complexity that makes this somewhat of a grey area since cannabis is capable of both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_methods_in_plant_breeding_based_on_mode_of_reproduction

also breeding improved cultivars by selecting in the local environment is a trend in participatory breeding and this is for a reason, so as much as I appreciate the ability to work in a lab we need to embrace both traditional and modern agriculture to move forward as a whole.

We would be richer as a community as far as information if we simply did not paradigm others by our own methods and results but let everyone represent their ways and means at face value and let the totality of data tell the tale

thanks for your input hoep ti doesn't come off as conflictual

 

[Aardwolf]

It sorts the numbers out VG, less to look at and faster procedures.

It's a short-cut or stepping stone to finding the one that you need, this will help to find the plants that reverse, look at the paper I posted earlier, if Ic mag had a bigger PDF limit instead of one for pictures we would learn faster. Try find the complete paper because citing a paragraph isn't as good as a complete understanding.

S1 is inferior because we loose the non hermi side of the Sporophyte, regardless if people need males they will benefit from what they offer to the Genome. Nothing breeds True using pure classical techniques VG, If two individuals with the same phenotype are crossed through several generations and the offspring always have the same phenotype, then they are called true breeding. When two true breeding organisms are crossed the F1 are all the same. A mono-Hybrid differs in only 1 trait. A breeding experiment where we are considering only one characteristic is called the monohybrid cross. Experimental monohybrid crosses usually start with true breeding parents which have different phenotypes. The goal is to find plants which create the most desirable mono-hybrid.

What you say is there is more of a representation of the clone in the S1 seed because of the lack of outside genetic load in the zygote.
( I am not going to repeat what has been said already about latent disorders)

I say that any plant that is AA or aa or whatever ie the carrier homogeneous for the trait or traits desired for breeding true, is the most likely to breed true. (It don't have to be from the S line).

I do not need to reference simple basic genetics.

 

[VerdantGreen]

.....

I do not need to reference simple basic genetics.

that sounds like a side-step to me. I dont claim to be an expert but what you describe is not the simple basic genetics that i have learnt.

i think most of what you state here about selfing is your opinion rather than accepted genetic science and your reluctance to reference it is because you would have trouble doing so.

i have allard, you cam give me the page number if you like

.....

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What you say is there is more of a representation of the clone in the S1 seed because of the lack of outside genetic load in the zygote.
[/FONT]

that is true, but no, im saying that an S1 that carries the trait i desire is more likely to be homozygous for that trait than the parent the S1 was made from. and an S2 is more likely to be homozygous for the same trait than an S1 and so on.
this is what Tom was outlining early on in the thread.

 

[Aardwolf]

Yes I know it's true.

But what I am saying different from you is that any plant from the parental line would possibly be more beneficial, a) because of the vigour aspect, b) it may be the carrier of the homozygote and the fact now is that you probably don't need a S line. Like I said any AA aa plant is what you need for example, you do not know if you do not test. This is the fact.

You would still need viable males for testing the out-crossing of these traits you think are Homozygous in your S1/2/3, you also need to be competent in what your doing.

I am not using Allard VG but it may have some references. This is no side step I am not a female who needs to create 3 more arguments to increase my odds of winning one. This is win win for each and everyone of us and for the better of cannabis.

What I am saying about basic breeding is exact. It is the same biology that we both learned in horticultural college and is in the textbook that Allard wrote, the basics of inheritance aa AA, read it again. I suggest that you re-read your college work that was marked by a master.

I have no problems with selfing, if it is used correctly it is marvellous. It does what this thread started about which is to stabilize the heterozygote through intensive breeding plans.

People I believe don't understand what is happening yet on all fronts that is all.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_1.htm

Allard is far too advanced this website has videos that can explain it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/biology/inheritance/what_is_inheritance/revision/2/

I am not knocking your breeding practise or your ethics VG or those of Tom Hill for that matter I am not trying to sound insulting I didn't mean things to go like this in this thread.

 

[fadetoclear]

that sounds like a side-step to me. I dont claim to be an expert but what you describe is not the simple basic genetics that i have learnt.

i think most of what you state here about selfing is your opinion rather than accepted genetic science and your reluctance to reference it is because you would have trouble doing so.

i have allard, you cam give me the page number if you like



that is true, but no, im saying that an S1 that carries the trait i desire is more likely to be homozygous for that trait than the parent the S1 was made from. and an S2 is more likely to be homozygous for the same trait than an S1 and so on.
this is what Tom was outlining early on in the thread.

for someone who claims to "not be an expert", you sure speak extra loudly and seem to provide fewer examples than you demand of others.

though i understand the whole "stress induced female" thing is trendy right now as a method for ripping off other people's work, i will stand by my comment that in the long run the results will be more detrimental than beneficial. if those breeders would focus more on introducing fresh genes to the gene pool and coming up with original strains instead of "stress reversing" og kush or GS cookies., we wouldn't be looking at such a large population in the greater gene pool with rampant intersex traits.

i don't think anyone can honestly say that stress reversed plants don't produce larger numbers of hermaphrodites when used in subsequent breeding generations.

 

[Nunsacred]

There are multiple ways of stabilising traits
and there are multiple populations of ganja with unique conditional intersex triggers.

IMO there's really only one golden rule :

Intensive inbreeding such as selfing (or repeated use of same parent plant)
will tend to ruin a line with intersex traits.

Reversing a plant might or might not affect its offspring I think it depends on the "mother" plant itself and whether the pollen is outcrossed or used on 'self'.

In some cases, intensive inbreeding of a pheno is actually the best course.
But you'd be lucky if it was.
Inbreeding is a stress
which throws that hermie switch and it often gets passed down to progeny
in that state.

So if you are lucky enough you can find some parents suited to inbreeding
and for a while it'll be ok
and then the hermies will appear and it won't.

And people a few years later will ask :
"Has anyone got any seeds of that original strain, pre-XXXX? [insert year]".

Or you could inbreed in a more natural way,
with sibling crosses and regular outcrosses,
to slightly more distant strains, or strains with similar environments/strategies.

Can people please stop talking about "the gene pool"?
It's meaningless.
There are populations. Those have gene pools. If it's a small population then talking about its "gene pool" has some meaning, but still it is shadowed by its irrelevance.
It's not really about gene sequences as objects, its more about how they are switched on and off, and why a new version of a switch is inherited in a Mendelian pattern, and for how long.

 

[Aardwolf]

that sounds like a side-step to me. I dont claim to be an expert but what you describe is not the simple basic genetics that i have learnt.

i think most of what you state here about selfing is your opinion rather than accepted genetic science and your reluctance to reference it is because you would have trouble doing so.

i have allard, you cam give me the page number if you like

that is true, but no, im saying that an S1 that carries the trait i desire is more likely to be homozygous for that trait than the parent the S1 was made from. and an S2 is more likely to be homozygous for the same trait than an S1 and so on.
this is what Tom was outlining early on in the thread.

This just sounds like somebody out their depth, hiding behind a method that they don't fully understand, waiting for some one to have a dig so they can join in the troll. I have come to expect nothing less from the egotistical views of cannabis passionate individuals who have not had all the facts available to them to help reach their decision/standpoint to make relevant hypothesis of the point being raised.


How was it supposed to come across?

 

[VerdantGreen]

....... I have come to expect nothing less from the egotistical views of cannabis passionate individuals who have not had all the facts available to them to help reach their decision/standpoint to make relevant hypothesis of the point being raised.......

lol, as i said, im not claiming to be an expert. Im here to learn as much as anything.

you, however, ARE claiming to be an expert. You suggested a while back i should listen and learn from you and not Tom or Stickshift.
For me to do that you'll have be able to string a coherent sentence together. My advice would be to take a module in basic English as well as your plant studies. The way you try to make yourself sound clever, by peppering your diatribe with long words and unnecessary terminology, is ridiculously transparent. Its very clear that you have a patchy understanding of what you're trying to say, and i suppose that's why you are unable to explain it further when asked to do so.

Goodbye.

VG

 

[VerdantGreen]

Welcome to the world of Cannaboy/Mate Dave/many other ID's.

yeah, more fool me for thinking i could have a coherent discussion with him - i should have known better.

in fairness to dave/aardwolf, he does use all the right words,
just not necessarily in the right order. LMAO

VG

 

[Aardwolf]

lol, as i said, im not claiming to be an expert. Im here to learn as much as anything.

you, however, ARE claiming to be an expert. You suggested a while back i should listen and learn from you and not Tom or Stickshift.
For me to do that you'll have be able to string a coherent sentence together. My advice would be to take a module in basic English as well as your plant studies. The way you try to make yourself sound clever, by peppering your diatribe with long words and unnecessary terminology, is ridiculously transparent. Its very clear that you have a patchy understanding of what you're trying to say, and i suppose that's why you are unable to explain it further when asked to do so.

Goodbye.

VG

I suggested you re-read your own work not anything in this thread. The cohesion is a lack on your behalf, it is selective, as you clearly state, I can walk through this all-day with somebody who understands the right words like I do.

If your going to hit below the belt and bring my dyslexia into this, at least I can read.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I never claimed to be an expert, this is you putting words in your own mouth about me, (Made up shit) I am qualified! While your talking about drowning, Coherent discussion[/FONT]s are between individuals that understand the principles of the methods and the outcomes, you are neither, when you grow up and learn manners and a few other things, I will come back and drop the knowledge or walk you through it like your asking for, Goodbye.

 

[Weird]

I have a real issue with anyone who dismisses another persons experience because the have not experienced the same, laboratory or otherwise.

I have my own opinions and experiences in regards to breeding "hermies" and "selfed" individuals both good and bad but purely OBSERVATIONAL, I may have not had lab equipment to analysis my results but i have observed them.

the same with Verdant Green, I do not doubt that IN HIS EXPERIENCE his results have been stable as he reports. This is not to say all breeders with like breeding projects experience the same, but he among many other members are simply giving an honest detail of their experiences.

the genetic differences you would describe do not manifest in a meaningful way for him so why put a negative focus on his efforts in regards to that difference?

I suggest we accept his efforts and results at face value and use that data to help further an understanding of a plant that is far more dynamic than the average cultivar.

I still haven't said anything negative about another person's efforts or techniques

just their critiques against others who have their own testimony.

WHY

because EVERYONE is making a mockery of cannabis thinking that any good that has come from it wasn't already in its genetic makeup

cannabis is THE most dynamic cultivar known to man

in its uses: fuel fibre food medicine

In its prorogation methods: cross pollinate, self pollinate, clone

it its ability to grow anywhere: indoor outdoor most climates and ecosystems

in its ability to transform lives: fill in the blank

add to that the fact that it has been subject to prohibition keep intensive scientific studies from ever being undertaken I think we should all simply be grateful as fuck that this good plant is in all our lives and learn to celebrate how dynamic its applications uses and ability to be bred and cultivated is

THE REAL MAGIC is in the plant, and the real magic is a tailor made relationship between us and it, the more personal, teh more full circle the better.

Notice the most passionate mothers fuckers here have that relationship, scientist and hippy, Australians and Americans, Californians and Canadians, and every other combination of color creed race or religion you meet since marijuana permeates all these lives

much bigger pictures to be painted much bigger mysteries to be solved if we stop judging our reality against that of others opposed to trying to understanding the relative differences between the level of achievements we have all realized

if we made this a celebration of the plant and not our selves this shit wouldnt happen

 

[Weird]

funny that so many people here at odds come from places where the water spins in a different direction when you flush

 

[Weird]

one last item

many of us have learning disabilities, many of us find relief through weed, many of us are more functional because of it.

so it can be an real offense when someone goes after your person and not your logic

you know how hard it is for many of us to express ourselves after years of not being able to because of a disability, and when you do learn to communicate it is questioned or dismissed?

I think we all need to be sensitive to this dynamic because it accounts for a shit ton of but hurt around here and in a way its very valid

autism learning disabilities infirmaries like that are signs of other things as well, none that discount our value as human beings.

We chose this to be our medicine, we need to choose the rest of the dynamics of a happy healthy community if we wish it to manifest

the first part is the meds the rest is on us

im willing to bet the most scientific of us are still very very human

if we all put the focus on the common humanity in us all and we can really more forward as a community

 

[Weird]

Ill be the first to admit I have an underdog comlex

with a bit of the bay jesus to boot

 

[Weird]

an interesting piece I have been saving but I will share it now since it seems relevant

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/suppl_1/211.short

The evolution of breeding systems in plants is often viewed as a balance between the adverse consequences of selfing (inbreeding depression and the loss of opportunities to sire seeds on conspecifics) and the benefits of selfing (a genetic transmission advantage and reproductive assurance when cross pollen limits seed production). In this paper we examine the genetic and environmental causes of variation in the expression of self-incompatibility (SI) in Campanula rapunculoides and explore the consequences of this variation on the breeding system. Campanula rapunculoides has an S-RNase based SI system similar to that described in the Solanaceae. However, our studies of plants from two natural populations have revealed that the flowers of most individuals are self-incompatible when they first open but become more self fertile as the flowers age. Moreover, when both cross and self pollen are deposited onto the stigmas of older flowers, the cross pollen tubes grow faster and sire a disproportionate number of the seeds. In short, self-fertilization occurs only after most opportunities for outcrossing have occurred. We also found that there is significant heritable genetic variation in the population for the strength of SI in young and old flowers and for the amount of breakdown in SI indicating that natural selection could operate on the strength of SI and its breakdown. In a multigenerational study, we used controlled crosses to create families of plants with a range of inbreeding coefficients (0, 0·25, 0·5 and 0·75). We found that fitness declined significantly over the range of inbreeding coefficients and that the decline in fitness was less for families derived from weak SI phenotypes. Consequently, it is only advantageous for C. rapunculoides to produce selfed seed when seed production is limited by the availability of cross pollen. Because of plasticity in the SI system, C. rapunculoides has a breeding system that combines the best of both worlds.

It also raises the question, why does marijuana posses more than one mode of reproduction ? is it so the population will continue to reproduce even if it lacks males?

do natural occurring populations naturally modulate between modes of reproduction?

I have seen a difference in progeny from plants that give off a rare male "survival" flower only under several specific stress conditions and the progeny of those from which expressed far easier. I have found the sensitivity of expression carries over as does the lack thereof. just my humble observations

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

ftc you are plain wrong about your definition of selfing. you are confused between selfing and inbreeding. dont try and blame your wrongness on canna breeding these are universal terms in plant breeding. even wiki will tell you that. really you should check your facts before trying to state them so categorically.
VG

Aardwolf. the tomotoes from the cross were OK but the cross between RL and potatoe leafed variety made for some very odd, confused looking leaves.

VG

im seeking knowledge here:

so how does the whole selfing process occur in the cannabis plant?

please understand me here, I don't wanna start any shit, I seriously am curious and would like to know. I have my own thoughts but that's all they are are thoughts on the topic.

EDIT: found and article, read it, understand it.

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

I have to play devils advocate here aardwolf so please no offense

full and half sib matings are accepted methods of breeding in plant programs but the choose to use them is based on mode of reproduction which may be the added complexity that makes this somewhat of a grey area since cannabis is capable of both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_methods_in_plant_breeding_based_on_mode_of_reproduction

also breeding improved cultivars by selecting in the local environment is a trend in participatory breeding and this is for a reason, so as much as I appreciate the ability to work in a lab we need to embrace both traditional and modern agriculture to move forward as a whole.

We would be richer as a community as far as information if we simply did not paradigm others by our own methods and results but let everyone represent their ways and means at face value and let the totality of data tell the tale

thanks for your input hoep ti doesn't come off as conflictual

completely agree

 

[durbanrift]

selfing

selfing

for someone who claims to "not be an expert", you sure speak extra loudly and seem to provide fewer examples than you demand of others.

though i understand the whole "stress induced female" thing is trendy right now as a method for ripping off other people's work, i will stand by my comment that in the long run the results will be more detrimental than beneficial. if those breeders would focus more on introducing fresh genes to the gene pool and coming up with original strains instead of "stress reversing" og kush or GS cookies., we wouldn't be looking at such a large population in the greater gene pool with rampant intersex traits.

i don't think anyone can honestly say that stress reversed plants don't produce larger numbers of hermaphrodites when used in subsequent breeding generations.

i have to agree only by my expierence...the herm is passed on heavily...lotta good strains dumped because of herm problems from selfing...but im sure lots of strains passed the stress tests...

 

[Bigge]

The original question was how to stabilize traits in hermies...

Self using revesing through self pollination (it's already a hermie remember)...select pool of offspring seeds...breed for traits between offspring, including breed out the hetero trait...a bigger pool from the F1 the less chance for negative effects of inbreeding. This process of breeding to reduce the standard deviation for a trait until you get the traits you want on a stable basis can take years (including removing the hetero trait)...using colloidal silver to "self" a particular line cuts the breeding time down but it is not a good way to remove the hetero trait because you don't know if the plant has the hermie trait until late in flower and the collodial process is done in Veg. Once you breed back in the homo trait you can use CS more...but you still have the chance that you are reversing a ressesive hermie with CS.

The other side discussion- Does selfing with collodial silver change genetics... My OPINION is no....that's why feminized seeds are made from reversed/selfed plants that were reversed using pollen from males created by chemical manipulation with collodial silver instead of making feminized seeds using pollen from males/hermies reversed by stressing the plant (reversing due to stress would pass on the tendency to reverse under stress..this is the trait we absolutely don't want...dicks late in flower after you have sexed are the worst and can mess up a large harvest).

So yes, IMO, selfing by reversing with CS is a good breeding tool....but using colloidal silver may net some unseen traits that have not yet manifested based on age of the reversing subject (like late flower hermies). Just a note for those new to this....Plants treated with CS should not be smoked but seeds are ok to use for meds.

I have only seen proof that reversing using CS does NOT alter the sex trait genetically from homo to hetero. This is backed up by the "feminized" seed industry.

 

[durbanrift]

selfing methods

selfing methods

The original question was how to stabilize traits in hermies...

Self using revesing through self pollination (it's already a hermie remember)...select pool of offspring seeds...breed for traits between offspring, including breed out the hetero trait...a bigger pool from the F1 the less chance for negative effects of inbreeding. This process of breeding to reduce the standard deviation for a trait until you get the traits you want on a stable basis can take years (including removing the hetero trait)...using colloidal silver to "self" a particular line cuts the breeding time down but it is not a good way to remove the hetero trait because you don't know if the plant has the hermie trait until late in flower and the collodial process is done in Veg. Once you breed back in the homo trait you can use CS more...but you still have the chance that you are reversing a ressesive hermie with CS.

The other side discussion- Does selfing with collodial silver change genetics... My OPINION is no....that's why feminized seeds are made from reversed/selfed plants that were reversed using pollen from males created by chemical manipulation with collodial silver instead of making feminized seeds using pollen from males/hermies reversed by stressing the plant (reversing due to stress would pass on the tendency to reverse under stress..this is the trait we absolutely don't want...dicks late in flower after you have sexed are the worst and can mess up a large harvest).

So yes, IMO, selfing by reversing with CS is a good breeding tool....but using colloidal silver may net some unseen traits that have not yet manifested based on age of the reversing subject (like late flower hermies). Just a note for those new to this....Plants treated with CS should not be smoked but seeds are ok to use for meds.

I have only seen proof that reversing using CS does NOT alter the sex trait genetically from homo to hetero. This is backed up by the "feminized" seed industry.

great info man,ive not used the cs but soma is a big fan as well as the whole industry...im always the last to jump the band wagon ,it seems.....and im gonna try some...hey great post....