Breeding techniques

What is surprising ( or perhaps not so surprising) is how many champion Australian greyhounds are closely line bred or even inbred , especially compared to Irish and American dogs . Yet the Australian greyhound is universally acknowledged as the fastest . Reminds me of your theories on Cannabis breeding Nev . A bottleneck isnt necessarily a bad thing if generation after generation is spent weeding out everything but the absolute best . Cheetahs which are the swiftest mammals on earth are also one of if not the most inbred . Cheers All.
Click to expand...

Cheetahs are dying out and they are are the sole member of their genus. they are at a dead end for many reasons, their survival is down to mankind captively breeding them...
 
Shull made the critical observations on the reduction in vigor on inbreeding corn and the subsequent improvement of vigor on crossing corn.
Click to expand...
Although his observations carry some weight, cannabis as opposed to corn, is often about finding the supreme individual, similar in that way to chrysanthemums. Breeding strategies will vary according to the goals.
N.
 
Nevil said:
Although his observations carry some weight, cannabis as opposed to corn, is often about finding the supreme individual, similar in that way to chrysanthemums. Breeding strategies will vary according to the goals.
N.
Click to expand...

Personally I think thats the case because of how some have bred it in the past... ie it hasn't been bred in a population sense, although you can see outstanding individuals that have been plucked from specific families(northern lights, or diesel/chem etc).. my goals are away from 1:1 matings and specifically the reliance on a specific male or female as the sole donar in projects.

you can actually apply it to corn, once the population is showing what the breeder wanted it for on a good percentage scale you can isolate the individuals you see fit and bring in a new tool like selfing to isolate.. and without the reliance on particular individuals.

or go via the clonal route if its just for growing out though I prefer to grow from seed, all IMO of course.
 
I prefer to grow from seed
Click to expand...
Me too. I've never found two plants exactly the same, but clones are best for crops, indoors at least.
In every breeding club I've been to, the battle still rages, the inbreeders vs the out-crossers (hybridisers). They're both right. In the cannabis world, individual plants win cups. Which breeding tek you used isn't all that important.
N.
 
In the cannabis world, individual plants win cups. Which breeding tek you used isn't all that important.
Click to expand...

I'm an odd person cups don't mean shit to me, maybe they were good once now its a marketing scheme, to me the techs are important but the general customer doesn't give a rats.. they want a palnt from the seeds like the one that won the cup.. why in many cases I like the idea of art seeds where you will get just that.
 
Unclepeter said:
Cheetahs are dying out and they are are the sole member of their genus. they are at a dead end for many reasons, their survival is down to mankind captively breeding them...
Click to expand...

that's a bit controversial imoa. i think it has more to do with man hunting wild cheetahs to near extinction and breeding from a limited population. you cant really say that's the same with cannabis. we have strains from wild populations from all over the world today. bottle necking a strain only effects that strain not the population as it dose cheetahs. what your saying is breeding cant be done be people with small population. that imoa is far from true. the more hobby breeders breeding will lead to a better population. it may not be good or cost effective to you who need to grow large population and cover large expenses to prevent bottlenecking. your way is no different then if you used 100 males and 100 females then 100 people breeding there own seeds from a population. i personally would rather put these hundred seeds in the hands of the small hobby breeder then in your field,greenhouse, grow room because i bet they would be all grown out to a better standard because there's not as meany to look after. 100 seeded females is 100 seeded females weather u seeded them or 100 hobby breeder. hobby breeder don't breed because people like you make it look impossible and impractical. its not its exactly the same only your not relying on one person to preserve it for the future. which make more sense when you look at how landraces were lost because they were from small areas of the planet and easy to eradicate. if only a hand full of people like you grow seeds from large population then it would be easy to eradicate cannabis then what have you done to stop cannabis from bottlenecking? i will tell you. nothing you just helped it more than any hobby breeder ever could. i personal think hobby breeder are the way to keep cannabis from inbreeding to much. you or anyone who says breeding large population is the way to go have never proved anything other than its a bigger risk to lose a population and lose valuable genes only wanting to line your pocket. sorry if this post offends you its just my opinion and your entitled to try and change it just as i am yours like it or not. i would be interested to hear how you would do that though. especially with a plant like cannabis which is totally different to corn. it wont be destroyed by the cops for growing large population like cannabis. that's why we don't have meany landraces now after all.
 
that's a bit controversial imoa. i think it has more to do with man hunting wild cheetahs to near extinction and breeding from a limited population. you cant really say that's the same with cannabis. we have strains from wild populations from all over the world today. bottle necking a strain only effects that strain not the population as it dose cheetahs. what your saying is breeding cant be done be people with small population. that imoa is far from true. the more hobby breeders breeding will lead to a better population. it may not be good or cost effective to you who need to grow large population and cover large expenses to prevent bottlenecking. your way is no different then if you used 100 males and 100 females then 100 people breeding there own seeds from a population. i personally would rather put these hundred seeds in the hands of the small hobby breeder then in your field,greenhouse, grow room because i bet they would be all grown out to a better standard because there's not as meany to look after. 100 seeded females is 100 seeded females weather u seeded them or 100 hobby breeder. hobby breeder don't breed because people like you make it look impossible and impractical. its not its exactly the same only your not relying on one person to preserve it for the future. which make more sense when you look at how landraces were lost because they were from small areas of the planet and easy to eradicate. if only a hand full of people like you grow seeds from large population then it would be easy to eradicate cannabis then what have you done to stop cannabis from bottlenecking? i will tell you. nothing you just helped it more than any hobby breeder ever could. i personal think hobby breeder are the way to keep cannabis from inbreeding to much.
you or anyone who says breeding large population is the way to go have never proved anything other than its a bigger risk to lose a population and lose valuable genes only wanting to line your pocket.*
Click to expand...
sorry if this post offends you its just my opinion and your entitled to try and change it just as i am yours like it or not. i would be interested to hear how you would do that though. especially with a plant like cannabis which is totally different to corn. it wont be destroyed by the cops for growing large population like cannabis. that's why we don't have meany landraces now after all.
Click to expand...

They are dying out due to the low Ne, thats a fact you can't get away from!.

*And never sold a seed in my life and never intend too!. don't be so judgemental thanks.

Also corn is very much like cannabis.
 
your way is no different then if you used 100 males and 100 females then 100 people breeding there own seeds from a population. i personally would rather put these hundred seeds in the hands of the small hobby breeder then in your field,greenhouse, grow room because i bet they would be all grown out to a better standard because there's not as meany to look after. 100 seeded females is 100 seeded females weather u seeded them or 100 hobby breeder.
Click to expand...
He makes a pretty good point here, let's not gloss over it and putting genetics into the hands of breeders who will all take a different path, is the way to maintain diversity and save the gene pool.
N.
 
Nevil said:
He makes a pretty good point here, let's not gloss over it and putting genetics into the hands of breeders who will all take a different path, is the way to maintain diversity and save the gene pool.
N.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with people doing their thing... 100 is a big enough number to me.... though it all depend on the starting point...

but I'm not here to say don't do ya thing!!! I'm not here to lecture I have no right to!.
 
GreenintheThumb said:
Josh I don't like you one bit. Here's some of what Allard's peers thought about him. But you never know they might be bloated with self importance. :rolleyes:




.
Click to expand...


Thats OK, I'm not going to say I don't like you, cause I've never met you, but I do find find your reductive and negative view on many important aspects of breeding to be annoying and detrimental.

Thanks for the info on Allard, and by the way I wasn't referring to Allard I was referring to Jules Janick, Ph.D., Professor of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, for his idiotic dismissal of Luther Burbanks' work. He should have stuck to mowing lawns.
But looking back on that post I see now how you misconstrued my words, I wasn't as clear as I should have been, so thanks for clarifying.
 
Last edited:
GreenintheThumb said:
... 'Principles of Plant Breeding' by Robert W Allard. He explained most of the great patterns I've seen in the plant kingdom.
Click to expand...
There's a guy I talk to on another forum that's VERY knowledgeable. This to him is the breeding bible. I believe he likes the second edition better.
I'd like to get it but right now I don't have the money. Most college text books are in this price range. Inter library loan is a good idea.

Just so people understand you can get all, I believe all, of Luthers books at this link for free.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Luther Burbank AND mediatype:texts
I've been scanning through them and haven't found a lot of concrete info yet. Maybe Josh would give us some areas/pages to read to narrow it down. I'm not lazy but it is 12 volumes in one set, 8 volumes in another set, plus several other books.
It may be that academics were bloated with importance about Luther Burbank. They would have to reference the great papers they had written to prove their greatness. Luther just showed them his garden. From my, very, limited reading of Luther he seems to much more of a hands on do it yourself person. Not so inclined to statistical analysis. Academics tend to hate practical people who show results.
I looked at the list of the "Top 10 Most Influential People in Agriculture and Farming History « Agriculture in Ohio- OSU Extension Ag News". What a $#@(*&%%#@ horrible list. Henry A. Wallace. Commie agent. Rachel Carson. A liar who who stopped the production of DDT. Murdering Millions of people from malaria. This is one of those list made by people who love what people say. Never mind what their actions bring about. That's never THEIR concern. Not a problem. Millions dead. An inconvenience. They meant well. EDIT:Yes I know that the rest of the list is very good. Those two I listed give me the creeps though.
 
Last edited:
oscar the rotund said:
There's a guy I talk to on another forum that's VERY knowledgeable. This to him is the breeding bible. I believe he likes the second edition better.
I'd like to get it but right now I don't have the money. Most college text books are in this price range. Inter library loan is a good idea.

Just so people understand you can get all, I believe all, of Luthers books at this link for free.
Internet Archive Search: Luther Burbank
I've been scanning through them and haven't found a lot of concrete info yet. Maybe Josh would give us some areas/pages to read to narrow it down. I'm not lazy but it is 12 volumes in one set, 8 volumes in another set, plus several other books.
It may be that academics were bloated with importance about Luther Burbank. They would have to reference the great papers they had written to prove their greatness. Luther just showed them his garden. From my, very, limited reading of Luther he seems to much more of a hands on do it yourself person. Not so inclined to statistical analysis. Academics tend to hate practical people who show results.
I looked at the list of the "Top 10 Most Influential People in Agriculture and Farming History « Agriculture in Ohio- OSU Extension Ag News". What a $#@(*&%%#@ horrible list. Henry A. Wallace. Commie agent. Rachel Carson. A liar who who stopped the production of DDT. Murdering Millions of people from malaria. This is one of those list made by people who love what people say. Never mind what their actions bring about. That's never THEIR concern. Not a problem. Millions dead. An inconvenience. They meant well. EDIT:Yes I know that the rest of the list is very good. Those two I listed give me the creeps though.
Click to expand...

Thanks Oscar,
That is a great idea, give me a few days, and I will put together a thread on it.
 
hi Nevil, all

so with the sire thing you are saying some lines will give a better male than female breeding stock?

for example: i choose a male from NHM to cross with La Nina. the opposite would not have worked as well since the benefit of the haze "C" sire is diminished. is this right?
 
Can you kindly explain the flawed theory...

Skunkha said:
for example: i choose a male from NHM to cross with La Nina. the opposite would not have worked as well since the benefit of the haze "C" sire is diminished. is this right?
Click to expand...

GreenintheThumb said:
This is true of NO cannabis and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of meiosis and sex linkage.
Click to expand...

Hi GreenintheThumb, nice to meet you...

Maybe better to see what the breeder was first trying to achieve with the cross...

Then we can see why Skunka selected a plant with HzC in and why I and him would think that the male would bring the odds of finding more HzC leaning pheno's in the f2. Though I thought La Nina has what is left of B.

[EIDT:] Or would S, be selecting for more HzB leaning pheno's to give back to the NHM? I guess you would need a pretty nice pheno of La Nina female that exhibits HzB dominance to achieve this?...

What genotype in cannabis carries the dominate/recessive gene for better or worst? I always understood that the the female carries the blue print and the male works out the recessiveness in the female. Or is that just a possibility.

I get landracexHz, SK, or NL) but what about the millions of other possibilities... is it sexed based, or environmental... I personally dont think it is that easy to place. I think like people, some cultures are just better suited for particular environments... but to say one culture can not acclimatize, evolve/degrees or just maintain as a species would be a far statement to make.

CM
 
Last edited:
In complete out crosses, it doesn't seem to matter which parent is the male or female.

I'm not aware of any specific traits that inherit in a sex linked fashon in cannabis, although I believe that some traits relating to the flowering parts of the plants, may be carried on sex chromosomes. My belief that intersex characteristics are carried on the X, stems from the results of many 1:1 matings done with single females mated to many male siblings. It was pretty much an on or off thing depending on the male.
N.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top