Breeding techniques

Greezzy Guy said:
In your example..Is the Ducks foot homozygous for Ducks foot, or heterozygous?

And same ? for your autoflower.

Or are you trying to find out what i asked?
Click to expand...

Both are heterozygous. Not sure about monogenic. I mean who's done genetic work on this? I looked up monogenic and I'm not sure the word applies. They talk about monogenic as being a disorder and I don't see it as a disorder. From wiki's definition of monogenetic I guess you could say it's Autosomal recessive. I read a post on reptile breeding that had similar characteristics and the numbers were the same. If it will help:
Duck x Duck =Duck
Auto x Auto=Auto
Auto x non auto = non auto
Duck x non Duck = non Duck
 
Last edited:
biteme said:
well, one positive is we are back to you mr. north which is the direction i wanted to follow cause i think we have similar goals. but first, where do you live and i ask because at my 41 degrees i have also been told forever that hazes were out of my range?
peace-biteme
Click to expand...

Biteme, please this ain't about me...i hope anyone here can benefit from all info.
my circumstances just happen to be a bit peculiar.

I'm at 45.5N, more or less, but i have a very short season, 120days. the arctic, and the north American plains control my weather. if i was at 45 in coastal europe...i could run damn near anything i wanted.

nOpe, in answer to your last response...

I've been an OD guerrilla for 25 years now...I've run lot and lots of plants, my personal experience is about a 10% loss rate, the vast majority of that to animals..not human. though i've had a few losses to humans...those are the worst.

Nev, i just wanna say again...and i think 99% of the folks here would agree.

thanksfor the time you put in here and you responses to our questions.

EVERYONE else, Yosemite Sam has it right...stop feeding the freaking trolls. all it does is encourage and prolongs the thread derailings...clouding things for all of us.

I vote this thread stays open...we all move forward with our positive input and ignore any negative posts...leaving them to sit there looking absurd like they are...and allowing the real point of this thread to move forward...for the benefit of all.

if you dont have something positive to say then please just STFU! sit back and learn.
 
Last edited:
hazes

biteme said:
well, one positive is we are back to you mr. north which is the direction i wanted to follow cause i think we have similar goals. but first, where do you live and i ask because at my 41 degrees i have also been told forever that hazes were out of my range?

the last five or six years, my world has seen drastic changes in the weather patterns with one consequence being a need for new genetics. this is supposed to be a general warming pattern and i believe the season has extended in spite of winters still being very cold? one positive is that for the second year in a row a beautiful autumn saved me after a wet, hot summer had done its damage. and also for the second year in a row it was the late season sativas that did the best.

until five years ago, i had never seen mold on a plant. it didn't happen where i lived and with what i planted. and today with a few exceptions it is the indicas that are hurt the worst. so i started trying a few hybrids and soon learned not to fear any 10 week strain. and i also tasted my perception of haze again for the first time since the 70s on plants that i grew!

mr. north has the knack for breeding that i lack but i believe he is on the right track. others have spoken of this sort of "climatic adaption" in the breeding of hybrids. ime as strictly a grower and buyer of seed, most of these hybs will flower and even finish as demanded by the weather but will ultimately show their discontent through shitty yields. did you ever see a six foot plant with a one ounce yield? that has been my results when i push the limits too hard. peace-biteme
Click to expand...
i live at 42 degrees and i was thinking of trying the new early haze hybrids i think i could get to the middle of october dont you. thats when the finish date say now you have me thinking
 
I read the thread at Icmag, thanks Azra'eill. I disagree with Tom Hill, that 1:1 breeding is going to wind up deletariously limiting the genepool, especially since Marijuana is so much more complex genetically than other crops. This is ridiculous. Look at humans for example. We are the most genetically complex creatures on the planet, yet how do we reproduce ourselves? you got it, on 1:1 ratio, so Tom hills argument doesn't really hold water in my opinion. If you look at the higher species on this planet, from insects all the way up to us humans, you will see that we share one thing in common when we reproduce sexually... that's right, we all reproduce according to a 1:1 ratio. Also it appears that Tom hill makes the mistake that most beginners make as a breeder, and for someone who has been breeding as long as he has, I would think he would have outgrown this simple Prejudice, He culls his plants according to the shape of the leaf.
That is really sad.

Using purely open pollination for breeding is akin to taking all of your seeds, and storing them in the same container, on the one hand, that container might have a higher level of genetic diversity, but on the other hand, you won't really know what you have.

If you are breeding for typology, generally speaking, a 1:1 breeding ratio is truly the way to go. There are many techniques you can use in your program to eliminate deletarious alleles and insure that your strains don't become inbred.

It seems evolution has singled out species that use a 1:1 breeding ratio for greatness(take me and my dogs for example).

Perhaps we can learn something from mother nature and help our plants take this apparently superior evolutionary path.
 
rimmeo said:
i live at 42 degrees and i was thinking of trying the new early haze hybrids i think i could get to the middle of october dont you. thats when the finish date say now you have me thinking
Click to expand...
Hi rimmeo :)
The early haze hybrids are definitely very nicely bred lines, our very own Bobby Digital found a particularly fine beast a couple seasons back which I watched with great interest. Maybe he will stop in and share his thoughts with us about his experiences with the line? There are definitely phenotypes to be found within the early haze lines which are quite worthy of working with and I look forward to working with this line in the future one day myself. I think I still have my hands full with other projects for the time being though ha! I would recommend grabbing a couple packs of early haze or hybrids, labeling all plants and taking clones and looking for that gem of a plant like Bobby found back in 09?
 
joshuahazen, I also agree, its sad to cull on leaf shape.

Like I have said befor I keep for length of Greaseyness only.

And like I have said , I have the skinniest leafed plant with a powerfull couchlock/stoned type of Greaseyness, and I have some big braod leafed short squat plants , make me think intergalatic thoughts.

And I also have the reverse.But hell man who are we?
 
not that it matters

Not that it matters, but for anyone that would like another perspective, here gose.

When I make a cross of anything I run,I only will keep anything under 2 hours ,if and only if I see matching traits ,with anything I have kept , everything else becomes, smoke / mid.

But if i come across , a good female that last the same as the mother ,Ill re veg her, and play around, that means run enough, of her to see if she ever lets me down(to see if I always get Greasey)test the lenghth over and over to make sure she is at least as good as the mom, if not , ...latter .

After that its/pest/disease/virus/, susceptibility

After that is basic growth of the plant, What NPK, it likes, how easy to clone exct...

After that, is dose it follow certain structural rules/still after constant cloneing,/breeding.Dose her vigor stay.

But other then that I look for the longest lasting,never let me down/ most constant plant.

The taste ALWAYS...., seems to be there if the genetics are good.

I promis on my heart I will post some pic real soon.

Stay Greezzy all
 
"I disagree with Tom Hill, that 1:1 breeding is going to wind up deletariously limiting the genepool, especially since Marijuana is so much more complex genetically than other crops. This is ridiculous"

It is the fact that marijuana is much more complex than other crops that is the reason Tom makes that statement. Outbreeding crops like cannabis have far greater amounts of deleterious genes than inbreeding crops like peas, wheat, beans etc. Therefore much more care is needed not to fix them into the population.

"Using purely open pollination for breeding is akin to taking all of your seeds, and storing them in the same container, on the one hand, that container might have a higher level of genetic diversity, but on the other hand, you won't really know what you have."

In this thread the term "open pollination" is being misinterpreted to signify no selection. Not a lot of breeders Tom Hill included that argue for breeding with pure open pollination as this is not breeding it is open pollinating. Open pollinating groups of heavily selected plants is what they are promoting i.e. grow out 500 plants select a small portion of the population that most closely reach your goals to be "open pollinated" and this is base for the next generation. these can be progeny tested as 1:1 seedlots prior to open pollination or the seeds from the ones that tested the best mixed prior to carrying to the next generation. Keep in mind the deep chunk seed run that Tom had a thread on was the final end of the breeding program and for certain he did not reach that end by doing full open pollination each generation. In fact he has argued with hyb against this.

I thought this thread was on "breeding techniques" anyways not whether nevil or anyone else is hurting the gene pool. Keeping to the "breeding techniques" topic I find it amazing that anyone is arguing that selecting two individuals of an outcrossing plant species from each generation of a inbreeding program is a more sound technique than using multiple parents. For the final mating to be marketed this is a different matter altogether imo and for sure I agree with Nevil's reasoning for doing so. However if you are talking about a multiple generation inbreeding program (which I believe we were)where potency, disease resistance, yield and flavour are the traits being selected for, 1:1 simply makes no sense as these are all traits that are not controlled by individual genes so not likely you are going to carry ALL of the relevant alleles from generation to generation based on two plants per gen especially early in a breeding program.

I guess the real question is whether Nevil is basing his 1:1 strategy to produce his "bottle neck of quality" as part of a one time selection program or for multiple generations. If it is the latter I could not disagree more.
 
Last edited:
ortega_seeker said:
....In this thread the term "open pollination" is being misinterpreted to signify no selection. Not a lot of breeders Tom Hill included that argue for breeding with pure open pollination as this is not breeding it is open pollinating. Open pollinating groups of heavily selected plants is what they are promoting i.e. grow out 500 plants select a small portion of the population that most closely reach your goals to be "open pollinated" and this is base for the next generation. these can be progeny tested as 1:1 seedlots prior to open pollination or the seeds from the ones that tested the best mixed prior to carrying to the next generation.

I guess the real question is whether Nevil is basing his 1:1 strategy to produce his "bottle neck of quality" as part of a one time selection program or for multiple generations. If it is the latter I could not disagree more.
Click to expand...

Well that sounds more reasonable. Thanks for clarifying. To me "Open Pollination" means open pollination. Using say 10 progeny tested male plants to pollinate one female would be referred to as breeding on a 10:1 ratio would it not?
Anyway that sounds more like a breeding program to me than simple open pollination. However, don't you think you would have more trackable results if you did 10 1:1 breedings, than say a simple 10:1 breeding. Sure it would be more time consuming but in the end you would much better be able track your results allowing for more effective selection, inevitably leading to superior typology. Now you have 10 seperate lines from the same female, paired with male from the same stock. Now when you start inbreeding these lines, at some point down the generational line you can start crossing these seperate lines together, thus preserving genetic integrity and fixing desirable traits.

And hence we are starting to get somewhere in understanding exactly why Nevil's Plants seem to be superior to everyone else's in the dutch scene and in fact, have much fewer genetic defects and problems.

So please continue Nevil, because I am here to learn, and if I am going to learn something from a breeder I might as well learn from the guy who has the best shit, plain and simple.
 
Pack it in!

joshuahazen said:
I read the thread at Icmag, thanks Azra'eill. I disagree with Tom Hill, that 1:1 breeding is going to wind up deletariously limiting the genepool, especially since Marijuana is so much more complex genetically than other crops. This is ridiculous. Look at humans for example. We are the most genetically complex creatures on the planet, yet how do we reproduce ourselves? you got it, on 1:1 ratio, so Tom hills argument doesn't really hold water in my opinion. If you look at the higher species on this planet, from insects all the way up to us humans, you will see that we share one thing in common when we reproduce sexually... that's right, we all reproduce according to a 1:1 ratio. Also it appears that Tom hill makes the mistake that most beginners make as a breeder, and for someone who has been breeding as long as he has, I would think he would have outgrown this simple Prejudice, He culls his plants according to the shape of the leaf.
That is really sad.

Using purely open pollination for breeding is akin to taking all of your seeds, and storing them in the same container, on the one hand, that container might have a higher level of genetic diversity, but on the other hand, you won't really know what you have.

If you are breeding for typology, generally speaking, a 1:1 breeding ratio is truly the way to go. There are many techniques you can use in your program to eliminate deletarious alleles and insure that your strains don't become inbred.

It seems evolution has singled out species that use a 1:1 breeding ratio for greatness(take me and my dogs for example).

Perhaps we can learn something from mother nature and help our plants take this apparently superior evolutionary path.
Click to expand...

First you need to do two things, throw a bucket of cold water on the hard-on you have for Tom Hill, it's getting really boring and only blinkers you!

Second, you need to study the wonderful world of nature, there are many asexual life forms who gave up 1.1 matings long ago if they ever used them at all?.

F*** me Joshua, you didn't know what a 1.1 mating was a day or two ago, now you know more than a proven breeder who forgot more than you'll ever know!
Here, do a little research on these subjects,
# Single gene inheritance
# Mitochondrial inheritance
# Chromosome abnormalities
# Multifactorial inheritance

You might discover it's your post that has no merit!.
But then it was only written to have yet another dig wasn't it!.
 
I asked Tom Hill to explain a little about his latest project, I am sure it won't interest Joshua but anyone with 1/2 a brain can see the method in his madness, not sure where this talk of selecting on a bloody leaf came from? anyway,

First, this is an F2 in the most classical sense, expect it to be variable. Expect it to yield the classic Mendelian ratio. In other words, 25% Haze, 25% DC, and 50% somewhere in between - for all traits.

This is a segregating population, a recombination generation of incredibly distant lines and I am looking for some deal of what we call transgression. IE, I am looking for a line within that has phenotypic values laying outside of either parental population. More frosty than DC, more cerebral than Haze, that type of thing.

This is truly where breeding begins, not ends, and I have tried to price it accordingly. I consider this a part of my breeding program that I happen to have some extra seed of, and I want folks to experience it with that understanding - that it is a beginning, not an end.

The ped reads (F1) 2 outstanding DC phenotypes (2 of 144) pollinated by 10 resinous Haze males. F2 gen was approx 50 F1's left to open pollinate.

The next move (call this generation zero - G0) is planting 3000 F2 seed to finish out 300 females and isolate 15 for genotyping and further breeding. I hope that you all will follow along regardless if you buy any, fun it will be, hopefully educational as well - Tom.
Click to expand...
 
Hazy Lady said:
... not sure where this talk of selecting on a bloody leaf came from?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the reference he speaks of either, but I found this one....
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4104734&postcount=22
TomHill said:
If I could grow just one (in my current situation) it would be this next release (DCxHaze F2), and that's exactly what I intend to do. I'll be culling many of the broadleaf leaning phenotypes early on. Further, I intend to create a somewhat homozygous line from it using reversals, and progeny testing, for this is by far the most efficient tech, imo. And sorry if I rambled. -Tom
Click to expand...

He goes on to clarify in a later post
TomHill said:
"I'll be culling many of the broadleaf leaning phenotypes early on." I have been informed that some are misinterpreting the value/meaning of the above comment. So let's have a sidebar, and discuss it. While it is accepted that vegetative structure will have zero correlation with quality of smoke, it is undeniable that other correlations do exist. This line will be specifically bred for both indoor growing, as well as large plants outdoors. In both scenarios, we want a plant with (among other things) excellent light penetration deep into the canopy. All other things being equal, this is the way to go ime. An example: Let's say that we can evaluate 300 females max. x2 (M/F) is 600 plants for sexing. Assuming the typical Mendelian ratio then, x4. So, if we sprout 2400 seedlings, then only allow 600 with the desired (narrow) vegetative structure to survive for further evaluation, that leaves us with 300 females to evaluate regarding other important traits, after selecting for a known desirable parameter early on. Anytime a breeder can take advantage of selection decisions available to him revolving around traits that are expressed before pollen distribution, he should. All while still maintaining his maximum allowable numbers for evaluating other traits under selection.-Tom
Click to expand...
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4106386&postcount=27
 
Last edited:
If you are trying to stabilise an indica sativa hybrid and you believe the pheno you are looking for is the narrow leafed type, then culling broad leafed types is a perfectly valid tool.
Selecting females for next years crop from open pollinated fields is traditional farming practice. There is little or no selection with males but this is compensated by being able to pick the best females out of often tens of thousands of plants.

Modern growers, limited by prohibition are not able to grow in these kind of numbers, nevertheless, the results achieved by small scale operations has out stripped those achieved by their traditional counterparts. IMO, it is precisely the extreme narrowing of the gene pool which has caused these rapid advancements. It is rare for more than the single best female to get used for breeding each generation. Small numbers allow for much more attention to be given to males.
Bottlenecking is a negatively laden term for intense selection, we call it the latter if it is successful and bottlenecking if we wish to imply that it's not. Heavy inbreeding is the way pure strains are created, not that I see the market flooded with pure strains.

Skunk#1 is a classic case of a heavily inbred strain. I wonder how many 1:1 matings is behind that strain. It has it's problems, but it is still an industry standard. My own skunk line was the result of 5 or 6 generations brother to sister matings. The Early Pearl I used for breeding has been inbred for more than 20 years, starting from about 40 seeds, probably siblings to start with.

Anyone who considers 1:1 F1 hybrids with two unrelated strains bottlenecking, doesn't really know what they are talking about. There is a huge difference between F2s of hybrids and pure strains.

Most of the work I did was with batches of 40-50 seeds at a time. Space constraints did not allow for more. The best plant out of 20 females will be pretty close in quality to the best out of a 1000. Many of my cuttings, still considered elite, came out of similar sized batches.

The fact is that intense selection of small numbers of plants over many generations is what has caused rapid advancement in cannabis genetics and the fixing of type.
N.
 
Does this ring a bell?

Nevil said:
Theoretically, there is someone out there growing better stuff than I am using my seeds. Why? Because tens of thousands of plants are being grown with my stock. Selection from tens of thousands gets phenomenal results, while I can only select from a few hundred. I'm not holding back anything. Any grower in America can experiment with the same stock I do.
Click to expand...

It was the last sentence of the "Inside Cannabis Castle!!!" HT article published in March 87.

Peace.

K.
 
kashrocks said:
Does this ring a bell?

.
Click to expand...
Hi Kash,
Sounds like the Nevil I know! Or is that a yet unnamed Mr. Nice regular poster posing as the true King of Cannabis? lol

tin-foil-hat.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top