Breeding techniques

Wow, this thread's a mess.


I'm with ortega. At the very least you shouldn't use 1:1 matings when working your lines. IMO you shouldn't even do it at the end when you commercially release them. If you're doing things properly it serves no purpose. We aren't breeding dogs here. This is an outcrossing species and everything of interest to us is controlled by many genes. This is polygenic inheritance you best not look to Mendel to save our favorite plant.

I want to know whose job it is to protect our pool.
 
i think he means don't pull the leash too tight,-the bottleneck too small, the metaphore too wacky..
sorry- i just jumped in- haven't found the time to read thru it yet, so if i'm off base, just ignore this..
 
It's everyone's job to do their bit to protect the genepool. Thanks to the War On Drugs, it's a risk to your freedom for 99% of people to grow or even smoke weed so it's wrong to look down on people too much for preferring to be realistic and do more cultivation for consumption than preservation. In an ideal world we'd all be able to plant fields of heirlooms and do preservation projects but that would need a drastic change in the legal situation and should such a change occur I have little doubt some people would do exactly that but I'm not holding my breath. Besides, it's 30 years too late for a large part of the genepool.
 
that's it.. the different approaches yield differing opportunities, advantages, drawbacks.. results.. so what's the fuss? that's how the job get's done. all of y'all, doin it different ways- we're all playin our part, whether intentional or not... that's the process. the big picture, aint it? not by a solitary hero with a cape...

tho' false messiahs will rise from time to time!! tee hee

sorry bout the rant- but i was like, just let the man speak. - but now he's gone. so i guessn i'm just here typin to myself!?
 
Last edited:
GreenintheThumb said:
Wow, this thread's a mess.


I'm with ortega. At the very least you shouldn't use 1:1 matings when working your lines. IMO you shouldn't even do it at the end when you commercially release them. If you're doing things properly it serves no purpose. We aren't breeding dogs here. This is an outcrossing species and everything of interest to us is controlled by many genes. This is polygenic inheritance you best not look to Mendel to save our favorite plant.

I want to know whose job it is to protect our pool.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to an opinion Gitt, but if you disagree with my methods, then explain yours. This thread is not titled "saving the gene pool", it's about how to get the best out of it.
As Mel Gibson would say, "have you got a dog in this fight?"
N.
 
I am a bit gobsmacked people seem to expect/demand that Nev preserve the genepool for us.

It seems that people are thinking in idealised rather than practical terms. Nev did what he could with what he had during a few bright years of legality in Holland.

The illegal situation is why the genepool is screwed, that is reality, unless the legal situation changes, very little will be done to rectify things, we can only hope the politicians do see sence before it's too late for the diversity of the cannabis species.

Nev, do you think that, if the genepool becomes bottlenecked to a great extent, that we could still put diversity back in to some extent with skillful breeding because cannabis, by nature, as an outcrossing species is always capable of diversity?
 
Nev, do you think that, if the genepool becomes bottlenecked to a great extent, that we could still put diversity back in to some extent with skillful breeding because cannabis, by nature, as an outcrossing species is always capable of diversity?
Click to expand...
How much diversity do you want in a packet of seeds. I want as many top notch plants as possible and a fairly uniform crop. For those wanting diversity I sold Chi P Variabilis.

If we must talk about saving the gene pool, I made several batches of the few land race varieties that I encountered and donated them, to The University of Wageningen. I think Rob Clark got some too. I donated Maple Leaf, Ruderalis and a few others. I know that there are more articles, but all I can find is this;
Genetic evidence for speciation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae)
by KW Hillig - 2005 - Cited by 25 - Related articles
[authorship attributed to N. Schoenmakers.] Bócsa I. 1999. ... Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The. Netherlands. de Meijer E.P.M. 1995. ...
SpringerLink - Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, Volume 52, Number 2

In order to keep diversity, I used all the males and females to produce seed excepting the obvious rejects. This is not selective breeding and is only good for those wishing to start from scratch, or for research.

The whole saving the gene pool issue is being raised to derail things. It's the old "crabs in a bucket" syndrome. One starts to get out and the others pull him down.

What I did for cannabis genetics was to offer more choice of high quality genetics, not less. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about saving poor genetics.
N.
 
I agree with everything you just said mate. I'll go read that article, sounds intriguing.

By diversity, I was meaning keeping a range of different tastes and highs. I go to Amsterdam and see how generic everything is these days in the shops, and meet other growers and see how generic all the highs are of the strains they grow, most of what people give me to smoke these days has a similar flat stony high, ocassionally someone grows a haze hybrid, but it's all cheese and other skunks and now kushes. Of course, there is still diversity in the Mr nice catalogue and I reckon I could be quite happy exploring the ample diversity wherein for years, but it worries me that slowly but surely we are creeping towards a lack of diversity in the commercial genepool as a whole.

What will accelerate homogenisation is the way 'breeders' today are choosing to work with the same small number of over-hyped 'elite' cuttings, that worries me as much as feminising does.
 
Homoginisation is exactly what I see happening. This is what I'd expect from open pollinations or groups of male siblings being used.
Any kid will tell you that if you mix all your coloured plasticine together, it'll end up brown.

Contrary to what our learned friend Gitt thinks, breeding cannabis is much like breeding dogs or horses or anything else with two sexes and if you want to move forward with your complex polyhybrids, you are going to have to deal with things like pedigrees and linebreeding. Pedigrees don't make sense if you are not dealing with individual ancestors. It's not sufficient to say that the grandfather came from a group in that gene pool.

I could offer seeds,
lot A; progeny tested 1:1 mating of the best of the best,
lot B; Gene pool special of all the inferior matings mixed together.
Give me a break. Who wants to buy lot B?
N.
 
Open pollinators are a joke. Unless you're trying to preserve inferior genetics.

I bet you people arguing against 1:1 mating haven't studied genetics. Why have an inferior seed? It would only hold back breeding programs. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I'd rather have the best genetics available.

What you learn in science in the end is it's not what is wrong and what is right. It's what works, and you go from there. In this case it seems what works is Nevils breeding techniques, so take those and go from there :)

Might have a look back now and see if there's any merit in arguments against 1:1 mating. I certainly can't think of any though.
 
Nevil said:
Homoginisation is exactly what I see happening. This is what I'd expect from open pollinations or groups of male siblings being used.
Any kid will tell you that if you mix all your coloured plasticine together, it'll end up brown.

Contrary to what our learned friend Gitt thinks, breeding cannabis is much like breeding dogs or horses or anything else with two sexes and if you want to move forward with your complex polyhybrids, you are going to have to deal with things like pedigrees and linebreeding. Pedigrees don't make sense if you are not dealing with individual ancestors. It's not sufficient to say that the grandfather came from a group in that gene pool.

I could offer seeds,
lot A; progeny tested 1:1 mating of the best of the best,
lot B; Gene pool special of all the inferior matings mixed together.
Give me a break. Who wants to buy lot B?
N.
Click to expand...

Hi m8
lot A; progeny tested 1:1 mating of the best of the best...
Mostly those who grow for the best final end product/ flowers to suit their needs would buy these, and rightfully so. Specific needs require specific breeding

lot B; Genepool special of all the inferior matings mixed together.....
Well if you included the best of the best plants along with all the rest, best, inferior and everything in between, this line would be a great purchase to the folks looking to start breeding but have no stock. They could then find their own maybe different but maybe as valid interpritation of the best of the best and create through mostly inbreeding teks, a great lot A..( we would see alot less "hacks" if the new next gen of breeders had oppurtunities like this, anyone wanting to start breeding but without their own starting pools would give their left nut to get a hold of even a single lot B nev line, hell they would give you both nuts, and would be mad not to)

I believe both are right again ( i know it must seem i am a fence sitter but this case it is especialy true). Breeders can use high parental numbers to maintain their own Lot B's , so they may go back and live and love that search for the true champion plants yet again, but maybe at a later point in life with a different perspective.

Op
1:1
fem teks
they are all just tools, the true art or travisties is in the variablity of those different folks using said tools, i personaly use 1:1 and op, and different teks inbetween. I dont use fem except a few experiments but have as little problem with fem tools, as i do 1:1 tools or op tools. Different tools suit different folks end goals, styles.
We must not focus on the tools as being the problem, Just the missuse of said tools.
Just my opinion though
much respect all
moonunit
 
Preserving cannabis genes. Thanx shanti for preserving nevilles lines and working them respect. Neville respect that you gave shanti your lines and forssen something disasterous if you didn`t. NOW THATS CANNABIS PRESERVATION!!. It takes balls to go to afghanistan when you did for the sake of cannabis genetics. Respect that you worked so many lines in a short space of time thats passion and dedication. Ah! The breeders of today have alot to live up to i suppose. THATS A FACT!
 
Nevil, is there any chance to back late herm to straight.
Since many landraces can and are herms,so I believe you was in touch with herms.

So what you doing if its herm but high potent, early finishing, not so great mold resistance but high yielder ?

I trying to do that with selection (40 first time) and cross with another male.Second time it was 30+ but backcrossed.
3rd time it was selection beetween 24 plants and its backcrossed.
I cant it isnt better but still some of them can herm in late flow.
 
GreenintheThumb said:
Wow, this thread's a mess.


I'm with ortega. At the very least you shouldn't use 1:1 matings when working your lines. IMO you shouldn't even do it at the end when you commercially release them. If you're doing things properly it serves no purpose. We aren't breeding dogs here. This is an outcrossing species and everything of interest to us is controlled by many genes. This is polygenic inheritance you best not look to Mendel to save our favorite plant.

I want to know whose job it is to protect our pool.
Click to expand...

I know people talk negatively about bottlenecking but would you like to tell us all (at a Mendelian genetic level) why a 1 to 1 mating is 'bad' if in that cross you produce progeny with your desired outcome?

In the great outdoors this can be very bad, principally regards resistance to insect and pathogenic attack but indoors, hmmm?


I'm growing VERY bottlenecked genetics in that all the progeny are from a single female, not even a male/female mating involved and no, they are not femmed but a normal population and are as healthy as any indoors so what's the problem, please explain?

Incidentally, when I made F2's I did indeed do a 6 male x 13 female open pollination as I most certainly did not want to further 'tighten the leash', that would be silly!
 
Last edited:
BucketBong said:
Great Post Joshuahazen . Greyhounds are a classic example of highly inbred dogs that have been closely linebred over many generations for nothing other than speed and temperament . Unlike other purebred dogs that are bred for looks , colour and a certain physical shape . Ive often wondered if the worlds best cannabis breeders actually kept pedigrees of their plants and whether techniques such as Rasmussen breeding , close linebreeding to certain star sire or dam in the first three lines eg a 3-3 cross or a 2-3 cross are used . Cheers Mate . Really interesting stuff .
Click to expand...

bucktbong i think you have got it wrong mate. i have read lots on greyhounds and most other running dogs. well they have like lots off breeds been overly bottle necked. not to long back they had bull blood added to them because off defects ect because the greyhound gene pool became to small. the result was a much faster dog then the original greyhound and because off it we see brindle in greyhounds today. we also have whippets that are faster than greyhound that are a subspecies with terrier in them. the whippet cant keep the speed like a greyhound though. that's my point when people say inbreeding bottlenecks there right. however we don't have one breed off dog and we can mend it because of this by adding another breed when the gene pool get bottle necked to bad a little doesn't harm anything. its the same with most living thing. we can look at most old British breeds off dog under the UK kennel club and see how bottle necked they are. bull dogs that cant keep there eyes in there heads and struggle to breath something that wasn't a problem with them. all that need doing to sort this out is introduce some new genes from other breeds and to breed back for the original traits. we cant do this because off the kennel club and its rules were you need there permission to cross an unrelated breed in to the breed. i know there's a few bull dog fans in the UK that breed dogs that are more true to the old bull dogs of years gone then the ones you get with a kc paper today. mostly because of the disgusting state the kennel club as left this breed in like Lot's of other pure breed dog's. some times a few more genes are all that's needed to save the gene pool. its the same with most things how meany strain off cannabis are there? and were doomed there's no diversity in the gene pool because off bottle necking lol. i was always told to look to the past for answers to the future. sometime greed like kc papers getting you a extra thousand pound a pup can be the only reason we put these dog through so much bottle necking when population become low. nothing more its so sad people pay more because the breed is rare some times only because the survival rate at birth and life span is suffering from bottle necking. its the same with most things. the only problem is if it can be fixed it should and a price drop because of a health population isn't a bad thing if you really love a breed. its the same with most living things if there's lots off breed able types them there isn't much bottle necking over the entire population like the dog as a animal its self. we can mend bottle necking as long as there's other strain to do so.
 
Nevil said:
Contrary to what our learned friend Gitt thinks, breeding cannabis is much like breeding dogs or horses or anything else with two sexes and if you want to move forward with your complex polyhybrids, you are going to have to deal with things like pedigrees and linebreeding.
Click to expand...

So why isn't corn bred like horses and dogs?

If it isn't a breeder's job to protect our drug pool then whose job is it Nevil?

You need to Open Pollinate to "back up your work" and maintain variation for future selections.

You need to use recurrent selection to create superior truebreeding lines.

Then you can use reciprocal recurrent selection to create healthy F1 hybrids.


If you go through the math of it you see keeping your N so low does you no good. Even selecting your best 4 ladies and using only one male to pollinate them all doesn't open up the pool enough.

Without a doubt 1:1 matings are detrimental to our shared pool and this is and issue that should be of grave concern to all of us.


Dr. Rockstar- The breeding methodology for an outcrossed species isn't influenced by if it's grown outdoors or indoors. They have the same detrimental effect even if your progeny is under lights. It still leads to tossing out favorable alleles and a population with less adaptability.
 
Last edited:
Not to step on Nevil's toes but... initially I had some confusion as to the purpose of this thread until I teased out the difference between Breeding and Growing. ATM I'm unable to take advantage of the valuable information provided here that specifically targets the enhansement (bottlenecking) of specific traits of the cannabis plant, i.e. breeding. One must understand that 'breeding' intentionally reduces variety.
On the other hand, I bide my time growing and seeding MJ varieties (mostly landrace) using open pollination with little or no selection in order to retain as much of the available gene pool in those few starter seeds as possible.
Feral MJ is, imo, hugely abundant and widespread and it's gene pool is hardly threatened by breeders. If cannabis ever becomes overly domesticated, perhaps then we'll need to consider the potential bottlenecking threat to it's overall gene pool.
GreenintheThumb said:
So why isn't corn bred like horses and dogs?
If it isn't a breeder's job to protect our drug pool then whose job is it Nevil?
You need to Open Pollinate to "back up your work" and maintain variation for future selections.
You need to use recurrent selection to create superior truebreeding lines.
Then you can use reciprocal recurrent selection to create healthy F1 hybrids.
If you go through the math of it you see keeping your N so low does you no good. Even selecting your best 4 ladies and using only one male to pollinate them all doesn't open up the pool enough.
Without a doubt 1:1 matings are detrimental to our shared pool and this is and issue that should be of grave concern to all of us.
Dr. Rockstar- The breeding methodology for an outcrossed species isn't influenced by if it's grown outdoors or indoors. They have the same detrimental effect even if your progeny is under lights. It still leads to tossing out favorable alleles and a population with less adaptability.
Click to expand...
 
two posts in this very thread i made the same statement reiterated by bh and dr. rockster namely, why is it nevil's job to preserve the gene pool as stated by gitt, chimera and others? fuck that! as a grower/consumer i sincerely hope he stays his path and focus as he stated. why should he not be allowed to pursue a dream? how real is the danger should he realize his dream? peace-biteme
 
You all crack me up with this "preserve the gene pool" stuff. It's so humanly selfish of you to want to preserve every single little aspect of something. It's like my dead grandpa, I can't have him back! I might want to hang out with him again, but I never will. I have myself to look at as a reflection of him. Neville did an outstanding job at preserving something none of the rest of you complaining even thought about while he was doing it. He's one fucking man, you just wish you were there and could have taken part. It's the human in all of us, it's why we're all HERE. We question EVERYTHING, at least I do. I know Neville deserves credit, and not flack. You have the best of what he could preserve, stop complaining and do something with it.

Thank you Neville, and Shantibaba.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top