I collect the male flowers that haven’t opened into a pollen shaker purchased from a head shop. I think its for dry sifting bud. Wooden box with top lid for the dried flowers, center section of silk screen, lower lid collects pollen or kief onto a mirror. Basically I pluck the closed male flowers, toss them in the top on the screen, place in cool dark until flowers are sufficiently dry. When ready, a few days or week, place coin in the box and shake that mug. This has yielded small amounts of pollen where there is none visibly dropping. YMMV and good luck!
4 Likes
Totally understand that’s why I mentioned if only needed a few.
1 Like
was thinking i was not leaving them in/under the bigger lights long enough, but this round i have left one in the 4x4 which i check several times each day. at this point just like the ones in the bathroom under regular lighting its just not doing much, it looks great just like the other three just no action.
very strange indeed …
1 Like
Sometimes if they aren’t dropping pollen and you wait long enough, the last flowers seem to finally dump sometimes. I heard a reasonable theory that you can over reverse them too and they’ll make tons of flowers with no pollen. Also, males in general will sometimes drop all their flowers if they aren’t happy. I’ve had it happen a couple of times when isolating a male into a new spot he doesn’t like as much. It seems that flowering males gotta be kept happy for best results.
sometimes they got plenty of pollen and just dont open. So for sure check if thats maybe happening. Its pretty easy to extract the pollen if thats all it is.
2 Likes
What was the germination rate on those?What was the quality ?Was it fat beans and tiger stripes or was there any white duds?
2 Likes
all clones.
peace …
1 Like
I have not sprouted any of those yet. I can’t remember while shucking those if there were any duds/whites. I usually only keep and count the mature looking seeds. I was also telling jaws that I reversed the appy f3 and she almost wouldn’t self, I got 6 or 7 seeds from her. But the golden triangle I pollinated with the same appy f3 reversed pollen took great and I got about 60 seeds from a small branch I pollinated.
2 Likes
@CapnCannabis sorry dude thought that Question was for me, need to pay better attention before answering.
sorry …
2 Likes
I’m waiting germination of old seeds again, turning in circles like a dog in cage. Sorry by advance for the wall of text that is coming. Have fun.
No. Historic cultivars and traditional hash production are there to remember us why.
But when you’re used to grow for weed and have a few good motherplants from seeds under the belt, the equation can become biased. Some realize at one point that they know nothing on a subgroup they are growing aside their stash since a while : the expression of males. To roll the best cones you can, traits of these useless specimens in term of final product are totally ignored generally.
But like everything, there is always a first stone. Like you very first dank female of your life of grower. It took the same effort to understand how to get the most of it. It’s the same with males, remember that until you see them flowering you’re most of the time unable to differentiate males from females. Same plants with a vast majority of traits shared.
Absolutely not.
But i understand what you mean : the productivity of a specimen literally selfed on itself. A donor that is also the receiver.
To don’t enter in boring practical details, i will say that the best way is to “simulate” a natural pollination with two specimens (even if it’s the same plant). This way, only one plant is suffering and not the one that will spend the most energy (to produce a shit ton of seeds). Also the female flowers, future home of the seeds, will not contain any reversal agent. Then the shell, even superficial.
If you really want do it in one shot, just cut the trunk and develop twos main secondaries. Protect one, treat the other. Each time. When pollen is released, cut the reversed stem when the pistils are mostly taken. It’s not a bulletproof solution at all, but it can make it more easier and more productive in all aspects.
In term of productivity, the main problem is the quantity of pollen produced by the reversed plant. Here, yes, you can encounter a limitation. But only if you need to pollinate multiple females with this unique reversed female, mostly. One single grammer of fresh and mature pollen can output a bunch of 10bags.
It’s biased in fact because you generate a kind of artificial genotype entirely drived by human hands.
To keep it simple and fast : Let’s say you launch 100 seeds and only one specimen is expressing a whole combo that you like/want. You’re already in front of a damned recessive expression in term of ratio.
If you self it, you spread it in a new population that is no longer recessive technically. But made from it genetically (with its traps in term of selection).
So yes, the consideration in term of selection is fucking complicated to expose. You’re no longer fighting against the dominant expression and its variations, but in another hand you don’t changed the initial recessive statut with its risk to have a couple of alleles that fuck everything like a breeze.
Failing to stabilize an “elite cut” in selfing it is more a common case than the reverse. But it’s not related to a kind of exponentiation in term of recessivity, because you artificially generated the reverse.
It’s a shitty subject, even more when extended to the specific tactics of selection implied to face it.
True.It’s a fact.
It will mostly destroy your efforts done, specially if you are in the case of this super recessive pheno i was talking about. I think that in this case, the best strategy is to start a BX program (at least two rounds) on the initial reference (the female cut choosen to be a double P1). So in a way, a mixed strategy.
But it will be hard to compete with a line fully developed naturally, and selected with cares on both sex. It’s an opinion, not a conclusion.
A S1 line is an IBL. A F2 is an IBL. A BX1 line is an IBL. It just mean “inbred line”, nothing more.
My strain 13, being an IBL F13. The mention IBL is mostly used for all and nothing in our stoned world.
I think you focus too much on the generation, and not on the point to drive them at this point.
But I totally vouch the strategy to split your lines, even more … to eventually specialize them.
Without mentioning why you’re introducing suddenly this diversity at this supposed stable point, i don’t see any other result than shuffling the cards for the pleasure. Why not, if it’s for the sport of it.
It’s a far more legit strategy i think, instead to shuffle the card just before. When you’re selfing something, it’s generally to lock a phenotype’s occurence. So it make more sense.
I don’t have any utility of fems seeds, and it’s the same equation you know : what you need for what you want. There is no reason to convince yourself to anything, just fill the need and enjoy the ride.
I don’t know who have introduced this “F6/F7” thing but i’m curious to know. Too much occurences in discussions to don’t have been injected at some point.
This step of inbreeding doesn’t imply to insure to output a stable line, at all. Stabilization revolve around the quality of the selection and the understanding of the genetic balance of the line, and this… at each step. You can fuck up a stable F5 by an unique bad choice and finish with a cluster fuck within a single generation. And the more the genotype you’re working is narrowed, the more this balance require cares.
I’ve enough produced them to dislike them. This polarization doesn’t have any sense buddy, you’re not a troll if fems don’t fit your needs. And you’re not a troll if regs don’t fit your needs. Let the best cone you can get just win, no matter what it is.
Not a specific fan of the guy, or a follower. But i respect pioneers and the shitty battleground they are generally facing when they are exploring new horizons. If it’s about very recent releases i don’t know, in this case yes … it’s a bit more problematic considering how many water have passed under the bridge.
A S1 can be a F2, a F3 … a F45
Stopping to keep a track of the generation is problematic for me.
Sx and Fx are twos independent notations. One don’t replace the other, it’s just two different things.
I select a F3, that i self. I have a S1 F4 line.
I select a F1, that i self. I have a S1 F2 line.
It’s not the same ride in selection between a S1 F2 and S1 F4. At all.
At first, to understand the cost of the color you’re hunting. Your idea to outcross it first is good. You can quickly see what are the phenos not showing the wanted color and trying to understand why, in linking it with specific expressions.
And to stay on the subject of the topic, to find the best pheno (helped by your previous experience) as a starting point (in the original strain producing it).
And this, for the practical details.
Agreed, stacking look like the most reliable way.
Knowing a bit his releases since a while, i’m prudent too. Not the most shiny star in the sky on lines, but for sure on of the more colored ones ^^
You discover that his X wasn’t a joke and automated to a condition ^^
Yes, but you have to almost burn him in PK amendment to optimize your chances to can germinate the output.
Regulars are not insured 50/50. It can vary a lot from a line to another. In both sense.
^^ i will say a strong yX dynamic as fuck, and a strong xXY dynamic as fuck (it’s cryptic on purpose, and absolutely not a scientific nomenclature). But it’s hard to generalise an accident without any selection behind, just throwing it.
No. Because the expression doesn’t needed any help. It’s a dynamic that will be carried.
If the plant need absolutely help to express it … it’s obvious that the genetic combination will be different.
Just like fems, there is a reason why some labels output good/reliable ones (sic) and others just random shit that are triggered for all and nothing.
Totally agree. Pure inbreeding (IBL) is hacking the averages (math), selfing is hacking directly the number used in the averages.
The cheese is the most shitty clone i’ve ever met at this job. And to don’t get a diluted release that is worth nothing, you have to use it as donor in bonus even with strategic outcrosses. It’s when i discovered that the feeding of the motherplant used then the clone vegged later was helping. Just feed the motherplant like it’s in mid flo, and it’s less the hell after. Even if it appear illogic, continue the PK boost with the clone as soon than you can and continue during the reversal at the maximum she can handle it.
After this, almost each clone have a different way to be heavenly reversed : strenght of the STS, procedure, timing. But this is not something that can be shared as a miracle recipe, it’s just the normal constraint to optimize productivity. And i’ve preached enough against my church already : the “anti-club”.
12 Likes
lots of good reading in this post.
this i warm up to for-sure.
I select a F3, that i self. I have a S1 F4 line.
I select a F1, that i self. I have a S1 F2 line.
It’s not the same ride in selection between a S1 F2 and S1 F4. At all.
that makes sense to me …
4 Likes
Yes, this is true. The F1 S1 will have a larger segregation then the F3 S1 will have.
Pz 
4 Likes
Sounds like you found a true female! The TK is like this and so is my SSDD F2 #1 girl.
CS/STS is not a viable way to get pollen from them. I’ve been looking at cobalt chloride…
Tho I’ve heard maybe “injecting” STS may work but no idea.
3 Likes
Can you expand on this a bit? My current understanding I would call either F1 or F3 self as S1. The filial generation it comes from doesn’t matter to me. Reasoning is, that S1 generation in theory should be displaying mostly dominant traits, no? Traits dominant to the mother since the mother is who got selfed? In order to get an F2 expression you could then take an S1 and breed to a different S1 (or self it again) and then the resulting seeds should have the variance you would expect to see in the F2 generation from a normal cross. Am I incorrect in my understanding of inheritance?
Normal Filial procession - P1 + P2 = F1 → F1 + F1 = F2 → F2 + F2 = F3, etc
Selfing would be (name) selfed = (name) S1 → S1 + S1 = S2
The thing is S1 + S1 doesn’t equal S2 because that’s not quite right, but compared to what you’re looking for the in filial example (in terms of genetic diversity) that’s kind of what you could call it. In your theory it would be an… assuming we start with an S1 F3 – wouldn’t it be an S2 F3?
It becomes a nightmare to me to think about what an S1 F3 + S1 F3 = (???) compared to a when all I really care about is “am I getting that F2 variance to give me the possibility of finding that recessive pheno?” S1 + S1 = S2 to me is simple and designates the goal I’m going for.
Maybe I’m biased because I’m looking for triple and quadruple recessive phenotypes, which affect leaf morphology and flower formations. Let’s not even get into rare and unique 'noids. 
If not for finding recessive phenotypes what exactly is the purpose of selfing so many times?
1 Like
Wellll… s1 doesn’t exist in traditional plant breeding nomenclature sooo… we’re doomed lol
2 Likes
Nice input buddy, let’s speak bolts and screws then.
But consider first my first bias : I don’t even consider fems as a genetic material, and i hate to see the seeds renamed “regular/photoperiod” to justify any alternate product. There are just seeds, like they are since the humanity know cannabis. Just to show my colors clearly.
It’s clear for me too. I consider the term “selfed” as absolutely not related with the generation and just as an additional notation.
It can make sense for me if you don’t have any constraints for the output.
but
In an EU growshop, the vast majority of sales are fems seeds. And even if there is plenty of growers and goals, the (very) regular customers of this product is pretty stable in their needs and express it in a very stable way :
- They don’t want to have males and herms. To optimize their space and to don’t waste consumables/time on them.
- They want the final product described by the label, for each specimen germinated.
- They want plants with the same timing, the same need in nutrients (not only in hydro) and the same height.
But the gap between a label offering this and that is building a loyal base (in need of big support in production to never fall out of stock), against a large number of label experienced only one time is bigger that the noise of the cannaweb is displaying.
And most of these successful labels are offering fems built with lines (that are not fems) specifically made for it. Most of the time F1, but not only.
It’s not because customers choose it, they never know or are asking what they’re buying now; for an obscure reason (it’s sarcastic). But they are very more prone now to throw on all social medias a “go buy blindly there, never failed, it’s my cult” or a “never buy there, shitty catalog, they sux” with just one old freebies germinated.
The rules of breeding in reversal stay the same, it’s not a magic spell that fix everything and bring something bad to a high standard just by the spray. And it concern also the generation, just like any breeding project.
If you reverse a F1 on another F1, you have more chance to satisfy someone than just hacking a F1 reg release with twos females. Reversing a female don’t annihilate the heterosis phenomenom too.
Not for me. A S1 break the balance inside the genotype into a new one based entirely on an unique phenotype. If the female is the unique expression of a combo of terpens, you’re not using a time machine that change how the DNA was built in selfing the female. And your female is not only containing an unique way to express this combo of terpens. But a given potential able to express it. With a S1 you just annihilate everything outside this potential, but not the potential of the phenotype to output something else, variations or not.
And of course, you get more variations and diluted phenos with a F2 than with the original “recipe”. If you reverse a white widow F1 and cross it with a jack herer F1, it’ will be always better than a jack widow reversed on itself or even another sister to offer the initial standard of the Jack Widow F1. The genetic constraints aren’t so different that with a old fashioned BX.
And if we don’t swim in an ocean of elite cuts stabilized in seeds, it’s specially because selfing or backcrossing a specimen is not doing an army of clones of it in seeds.
Dominance is 100% contextual, i’m very not a cultist of the Vic High theory. Your pheno can be very dominant over a strain A, very recessive over a strain B, very dominant over a sister A, very recessive over a sister B … and it’s the same thing on herself but with just a limited risk to have to deal with an exogenous import to map.
The singularity of selfing a pheno on himself, over all others techniques (BX included) is to restrict the datas collected by the plant with nothing else than herself. If you can’t expect better method to explore her latent potential, you’re not restricting how she can create new expressions before a long time. And the more it last, the most skills required to set the balance exactly where you want.
But you have to be really good at it, so to have yourself the potential to stabilize any cut around and also the potential to become one of the most wealthy breeder of the world ^^ Don’t imagine that the biggest players of this game have not thinked about it allready since a while, with a firepower that is at a light year from an hobbyist.
Now don’t get me wrong, most of elite cuts are not created, but found. Which make them the perfect example that selfing is not making them magically stable or dominant. But in most of the good cases, diluted.
Beside it, creating a genetic pool able to be reinforced, catalyzed or generated later in the form of a fem release is not a matter of magic spell. And not so different than creating a strain traditionally. It’s just more a matter of luck if you choose to ignore what say the initial genotype as a whole.
Got it. In this angle there is no F2s “particular expression”, but more an “absence of heterosis” that increase with further generations until a pivot point is reached in inbreeding (by human hands and selection, not mechanically). It don’t mean necessary “unstability” (landraces are a good example), but more the range of a given spectrum. Your plants can look like clones to the F3, but express totally different potency. Just an example.
Now reversing a F1 to any other distant line will always output the same thing : a F1 line. Same thing in reversing a F10 to generate heterosis with it.
And a F1a-S1 x F1b-S1 = F1, a F14a-S1 x F5b-S1 = F1 …
Now a S1 is a F2 if the initial pheno is a F1 only. If you self a F5, you get F6 seeds and so on … the variance you get depend on your work in selection but also from where you’re working in this selection.
After this, in your example you can even make a kind of backcross without using the P1. Let’s say you reverse a F1 that become a F2-S1, you select one pheno and cross it with a further F8-S1 pheno to bring back something … it become a BX1 ^^ It’s not necessary a simple F2. The context and your own choices are deciding it.
Now for the differences of work on a traditionnal IBL, a BX, injections of reversed plants in a line etc … let’s say it depend on the skills of the breeder and the factual results. You can’t smoke a breeding plan, let the cones talk at one point.
Agreed, at least it’s how i use it.
It’s not algebra, it’s notation. To note S2 is just a mnemonic manner to say :
- first step i’ve isolated a pheno that i’ve selfed in S1 seeds
- second step i’ve isolated a pheno from the said S1 seeds then pollinated back with the initial female
It’s more an indication of the successive level of pressure applied, and yes i think that it’s a valuable practice.
Like keeping the track of which generation/line you’re working with. Specially when you spread the genotype worked in multiple parallel lines.
It’s not a theory, it’s how Fn+1 is used since ages. If you pollinate a F3 with a F3 from the same line, it’s a F4. I don’t understand why it look fancy ^^
S1-F3 Line A Pheno 01 x S1-F3 Line A Pheno 02 = S1-F4 Line A seeds
S1-F3 Line A Pheno 01 x S1-F3 Line A Pheno 01 = S2-F4 Line A seeds
S1-F3 Line A Pheno 01 x S1-F3 Line B Pheno 01 = F1 … and if you’re an honest breeder, you prevent your customers that it’s 100% from reversed genetic materials if their aren’t fems.
No sense, sorry. The opportunity to get this pheno is determined by what you know on its expression, your goal and your knowledge on the genotype(s) that has/have generated it. Not on a specific generation. You can also select a very recessive pheno on an ultra stable generation … just to get the most potent you can from this generation.
You don’t even need to note anything if it’s useless for your selections. If the weed is very competitive, it’s the last thing stoners will ask ^^
I don’t really figure out what is a triple or a quadruple, make me thing more about p0rn.
Actually, it’s generally used specifically to increase the occurences of the phenotypes you’re talking about. Or also to print something usually too recessive to don’t cost a shit ton of time.
Not my church at all, i prefer evolution over involution.
6 Likes
Love the response and discussion! Let’s get into it:
Consider me “TEAM Y” as well. Seeds are seeds. I’m with you there.
This is an important distinction for us to make. There’s a retail market for returning customers. This fact alone means there must be businesses solely designed to fill this need of the market. When currency or money is concerned, I think we lose sight of what’s best for the plant. We get into this modality of thinking where a plant is only as good as the value it generates. This is the flaw in my opinion.
When purchasing a seed you’re purchasing access to that entire plant’s DNA. Most people don’t care because they just want some good bud to smoke. If they can grow some female plants that give them good bud, they don’t worry about specifics. They don’t care about beneficial male traits or expressions. All they care about is ultra-resinous buds that finish in 8-9 weeks. Meh…
I think fundamentally here we operate a little differently in terms of what we look for as breeders.
The reason I’m biased here is the mutant phenotypes I’m interested in are all highly recessive. I also have a believe that throughout time all of the ‘special’ plants anyone has found has been recessive. I have no proofs for my claim, just my belief.
We’ve all smoked dominant expressing plants and it’s all more of the same. But if you find that once-in-a-lifetime female, there’s never another one just like her. It’s always the black pearl that’s the most sought after. While I do believe it’s also possible to find one-in-a-life males typically they aren’t coveted because only a breeder would find use in such a specimen. The average hobby breeder or home grower would never be set up to capitalize on a male like a big seed company would.
I think this is the very important point to remember. There’s a bigger fish out there with more firepower than you. Be humble and do what you can with what you have. It is enough if you let it be. 
It’s also a stark indication that this plant is now governed by currency. Whatever avenues generate the most currency are those that will be explored. Whatever methods that got cannabis to where it is today, those methods will be lost with time. We’re already seeing it in the long-flower sativas being replaced by modern hybrids. Why would a country who’s main export is cannabis, why would they only harvest 1 time per year when they could switch up genetics and now get 3-4 harvests a year? The currency is now the driving factor for moving plants forward. Yikes. 
This is where I need to build my understanding. I’m not sure we’re on the same page here or reading from the same book even. I have a cultivar which is recessive, Freakshow. I can’t be 100% certain due to the lack of information but I believe I received it at F3. All specimen in the F3 generation show the leaf type mutation. At the bare minimum when outcrossing it will never show up in the F1 generation because it’s recessive. In any outcross to a dominant expressing plant, the F1 generation has no possibility to express the recessive phenotypes. F1s must be taken to F2 for those recessive types to be granted an appearance.
Like I said, I’m biased because I’m hunting exclusively for rare traits. I don’t care about 95% of the dominant traits in cannabis. Why? 95% of those dominant traits are available in literally any strain you could buy. I’m looking for rare traits like strange leaf types, purple flowers, red/pink stigmas, red/purple stems, ability to vine, etc. In addition to that I also have a goal of combining these unique plants into a new line to create new leaf morphologies.
Obviously my breeding goals are a bit different than most. Most people don’t care about recessives, but I’m actively hunting them.
See that’s kind of the same thing that happens to me when I think about selfing and breeding with selfed generations. Here’s something to think about. I have a plant called Giant Pur Pur at F2. It’s a lanceolate strain which means there’s only 1 finger to each fan leaf. This trait is recessive. This plant is also decently potent and very high yielding. The flower structure foxtails like crazy, but it’s completely natural. It also has red/pink stigmas. Now, since I wasn’t fortunate enough to find a male like her in the F2 generation, I did not take the generation to F3. I should also mention this particular female is unstable. A bit of stress and she will herm.
My question is, how can I isolate the lanceolate leaf type, the large foxtailing bud structure, AND the red/pink stigmas through breeding? It’s a nightmare thinking about trying to isolate all of the traits I want. The best I can do is take each line to F5 (to get ‘close to’ homozygosity) and select for those traits along the way. I also have to plant enough seeds so that I can discard the dominant plants.
Everyone who seems to have a good grasp on selfing also says it’s a very good way to isolate phenotypes but I still can’t grasp how it works. In the Sx generations I will be able to find recessives like you say, but as soon as I try to outcross them it blows up the whole sequence and you have to hunt for the recessive again in the F2 gen. No amount of selfing is going to protect my recessives in an outcross.
Maybe the deal is the recessives are too much time and work but you know what? That’s what drives me to make new crosses and find those hidden gems.
Also, Fuel, thanks for the well thought out responses! Much appreciated.
5 Likes
I wonder if someone tried to inbreed this customer line to select for more expressions and instability?
Interesting thread here, keep on throwing knowledge please, I’m sorta understanding things a bit more, thanks!
2 Likes
I think i will launch another pack of old seeds today, let’s call it summer cleaning.
Happy to meet an ally in a battle already losted then. We have already won the war anyway, they are giving us the final victory in a silver plate, themselves. Not only in lowering the standards each fucking year, but also in making each year of our resistance more bankable professionally ^^
I got you. My grid of reading is a bit different.
For the money first, I’ve nothing against at all. I’m pretty much liberal, the old fashioned way (not Marxist either). I think Americans call it libertarian but i don’t like their libertarians at all ^^
So i hate freebies, because i know what they are costing in the whole equation. Inflation included ^^ I also hate mechanisms that are destructing money, we work our ass of to get it … seeing freebie’s lovers burning it to roll a fatty make me crazy. Free seeds are for me belonging to the international community, not something that have to be linked with any kind of market or niche. It’s also a mine’s canary that we need.
Now let’s speak true, fems are a fucking gold mine specifically because it put in a spiraling jail the stoners. I like democracy too, if the overwhelming majority want it so bad … so be it. This gold can be invested for the long term too, to buy time, firepower, and to repair the damages done.
Seeds-to-smoke can become the R&D investors that are no longer interested to wait 3-5 years for an unique release. And let’s speak true, I’ve more often met (real) breeders disgusted to be forced by the customers to release fems to pay the bills, than the reverse.
Not much people realize it for now i think, but the true dynamic generated by this rat race … is the insane inflation of the genetic creativity and of its “know how”. Its privatization too. What we were buying in old days as a promise to have a stunning motherplant per pack, is now mostly a B2B trade.
But i’m believing in the efficiency of the market, when all decent genetic materials will be retailed 250-500 bucks as the standard price … people will not have any choice but returning to think a couple of seconds before giving their ass to a few business-school-smart-ass. Trust me or not, in Spain the wholesalers are mostly coming from stock market trading and banks ^^
I appreciate Kevin Jodrey by example (more in the 2016-2018 era than now) to give a coin, he was the voice i was surprised to see popping up from the ashes. True practical talk, true vision of the big picture and passion. He’s not perfect, i don’t idealize, but he still get my support today for the initial dynamic behind.
Practically i disagree partially, i consider all kind of mutagen factors (natural or artificial) as more than dominant. I also treat the herms in our cannabis as a dominant expression of a mutation, i got this far.
You’re not wrong at all in your described belief, most of the special plants referenced were “found” and not created. But they are all coming from created lines initially, no matter if it’s from a modern hybrid (that, unfortunately i consider as classics now) or from a cultivar of ancestral farmers that loved to get high.
By default, we are all hunting the exception in the chaos. Now for my philosophy, the difference between making this exception a stabilized expression or just a comet is the same difference between selecting a nice motherplant to smoke/sell as weed, and breeding.
Considering this, i can even dare to take a shortcut and say that cannabis breeding is mostly a pure recessive breeding affair initially. And without blushing. It’s also something not well understood and digested in the empirical approach of Mendel, the concept of dominance and recessivity is fully contextual. And not an absolute paradigm of any form of determinism.
No, and it’s why i fell in the breeding’s cauldron younger. I wanted to have at home this coffeeshop menu of the Dampkring ^^ Specially their jack herer lol Also the tangerine haze of Barney, but i digress.
The input get a ton of torque from here, and give me the opportunity to expose a methodological problematic not very well understood by “starting wannabe”, that by default don’t have enough teeths broken by major failures.
I understand the thinking behind the sentence, but in all honesty it’s for me the expression of a methodological problem not solved. Replace “once-in-a-lifetime female” per “once-in-a-whole-line female”, and we are on the same page.
Today, it wasn’t the case even just 20 years ago. Breeding was a “survival” purpose, on which you injected sometimes an investment. Seeds weren’t yet a product on the shelves of a saturated supermarket. I don’t blame or talk about it with the tears of the nostalgia, it’s how all popularization work. And the vulgarization of cannabis is in my book a good thing.
I just find sad that a lot of new breeders don’t resist much to pair all their stuff with an unique male, showing this way that the potential of their work is just in fact a motherplant’s dance. I’ve a big respect for the fools maintaining truly isolated strains in their catalog with unique pairing, even if i don’t like their work as weed. Because it’s simply how i see the things, it don’t mean that it’s the only one way to make a fire weed. But lasting in this game … it can be fairly debated by the facts ^^ How many breeders trapped by an unique cut (male or female) or an unique flagship … a bunch.
A big seed company will never capitalize on a male, it’s a management of a genpool that is completely different at this scale. Sometimes (often, to be honest) a single strain of the catalog represent a kind of white label on its own, but sold under the brand. Just like i don’t know, cars that can use an engine not made by the company.
I’m a raver-punk in the fiber, i like to show proudly to goliath how he’s weak for a single stupid detail he’s too tall to figure out. The single grain of sand that can fuck up the whole machine ^^
Don’t be humble, no way. Go fight with your objective allies, show your colors and be proud of your wounds. It’s the proof you’re not just dreaming.
Nah, sorry to say this like it (without bad intentions) but i find it pretty naive. Weed was always a currency itself, and a nice asset on itself. Prohibition or not. The hands playing with this green money have just not the same head, so the ambient changed naturally.
It maybe one of the rare market that never fail and that showed his great resilience even during world crisis, it’s a stellar horse for money lol
The methods used to make the cannabis what it is today don’t have any “doomsday” treat. Nothing is lost or disappearing, but the people lasting in this game and the rate of their renewal. Transmission too, harder than ever. Being dedicated to breeding is not an easy ride and mean a lot in term of sacrifice and compromises. You need stainless steel balls too ^^ It’s only a dream job when you’re more fascinated by the plant than by the blunt.
Here they stay the most expensive and constantly out of stock luxury buds of the black market, nothing changed.
Ancestral hash makers of Maroc don’t waited “autos” (sic) to operate multiple harvest a year. Question of point of view, but i understand what you mean about the recreational CBD rush.
Here you can find books/readings that count for me. I mean, practically.
I consider the Duckfoot and its contemporary competitor the Freakshow, as breeding exploits. I’ve only played with specific mutations revolving around the natural double ovary phenomenon of cannabis to learn the genetic cost of a mutation on the long run. Phyllotaxie too. It’s all my science on the subject, and not included in my priorities in breeding at all. Not my game ^^
My opinion : if you can’t determine what is the generation of the starting point you’re working with, just ignore it and replace it by a neutral notation. Like i don’t know, Freakshow Gen1. Something like this. Searching absolutely to label it without the insurance it’s wrong or true will more arm your methodology than helping it, specially for genetic material born initially from a mutation. Each mutation shuffle the cards on his point of generation anyway, better to map the new dynamic directly.
I think you’re mixing correlation specially because the reason i just explained. Your Freakshow material don’t “breed-true” (to please the Vic adorators) in F1 just because the balance permitting this singular expression is specifically an exploit born from an unplanned singularity that is touching the main vital functions of the plant. Maintaining this type of expression after the initial mutation is absolutely not different that creating an “auto” strain in practice.
In your equation it’s not about the recessivity as it, it’s because you have not “reverse engineered” what is creating this mutation. Even if it require a very structured system of notation, pheno-tracking and a specialized method for this job … it’s possible to understand the segregations in game (that revert back the genotype) by different kind of pressures. To stay on the subject, selfing is one of the wrenches in the toolbox. You can also spend this energy and time to just try to make it an expression not rejected by the genotype, all roads lead to Rome.
We all are buddy. Don’t feel alone like this, you have a lot more friends that you’re thinking.
I personally don’t think that what make a skunk, a skunk is the same thing that what make a white widow a withe widow. I totally disagree then.
We are used to call it breeding plans. But if it’s really your poison, go play with GA3 or any proven mutagen tools to operate a quantitative breeding to find the right firestarter. Then make your own Freakshow/Duckfoot.
In my opinion, it’s better to prepare your genetic material before : the purple bud / red stigmas / purple stem / vineyard line. Only to stabilize it in a single line is a bit expensive in term of lifespan to be honest ^^ Let’s call it the Ara line lol
People just don’t care about breeding and its realities in general, sincerely. I’m not saying it as a rant, there is people very good to pilot sport cars and that know nothing on engines. And engineers very good to build fabulous engines and that are unable to don’t crash with them. It’s the human nature in all its beauty, and the mystery of DNA combinations a little bit also ^^
It’s just a question of methodology, based on the “know how” to set different levels of selection in accordance with the ratios expressed in a given generation.
The first priority in your example is to screen out the herms from the potential. Herms that are triggering naturally are fucking chaos agent shuffling the cards each generation, so that are signing you for an infinite and spiraling mapping each generation. Running with a broken leg to be simple.
The second priority is to play Black Jack until the casino is blacklisting you ^^ The analogy is not even fancy actually.
The more you’re charging on you the constraints of results, the less you have chances to win the game. Because you depend on an unique exceptional case regrouping the constraints. Better to play the delta, and even more efficient, including the failures of the croupier in your factor of success.
Split your efforts, create three specialized lines and work the traits independently with this strategy in mind. But before everything, write down in a piece of paper what it represent in term of work and time. To rationalize your goals and the efforts that need to be developed. How many time and money cost one round of screening ? Can I afford it considering the dead line ? What is the ratio of occurrences per round ? Is it increasing each time or i’m making mistake ? … a good breeding plan always start with good down-to-earth questions ^^
I’ve spotted a hint of Vic High cult ^^ Homozygosity is not related with any given generation, it’s just an award or a curse of a given work of selection applied correctly. Yes, you can engrave fucking bad things for good in doing rightly the job too. Homozygosity is also this, and is this most of the time by the way : what we are fighting most of the time to get the sexy exception or the given refinement.
Split your efforts, choose a quantitative approach is you don’t really want to know what is generating these traits and don’t lost time on the sex of angels : just rush methodologically until the results are coming. But never forget to evaluate the progress with ratios at each step, one good perfect pheno per round isn’t a victory. In term of ratios it’s the reverse actually ^^
Because it’s generally poorly expressed on the practical aspect, masked by a shit ton of cascading technical veils. Now, for one time, this is a personal judgement i permit to myself ^^
Selfing is one way to isolate a phenotype, but the only one practical way to generate a new genotype in one round with this phenotype. That’s the real thing to understand actually.
In printing the phenotype on itself, you reveal clearly the weight of the hunted traits for the progeny.
Reinforced ? Diluted ? Annihilated ?
Don’t fall too much in the passion of some, it’s not an automated manner to suddenly produce an army of the “saved” phenotype. Breeding requirement still around the quality of the results, and it start at the selection of the initial said phenotype.
No, these recessives phenotypes are no longer recessives. The concept alone of recessivity doesn’t even exist in a S1 progeny, because there is no longer a genotype on which is based this recessivity but the artificial one you have “handcrafted”. For the better and the baddest.
In a second layer you have the concept of genetic sturdiness. If the phenotype heavenly fit on itself without much letting room in term of priorities, he will eat everything or at least suddenly stabilize the outcross. Just like a well operated backcross (not based on a mutation). Will it last forever ? No. And generally selfed and BX injections vanish very fast while inbred. But it’s like with an IBL, maintaining a line require cares and to know the variations like your kids. It’s why it’s also important to write decent, practical and rationnal breeding plans before launching any single seed.
I totally hate what i will say, but yes it’s possible. But we are talking about a kind of skills set that represent a fair amount of digits per year on the paycheck ^^ And we are not talking about a stakhanovist method limited to self in chain one cut, but a mix of technics used in a dedicated method for the project, that is evolving in real time with the plants. Not even something that can be asked to the best “Vic High or DJ Short” of the world, because it’s just impossible to write black on white.
Like asking to a rallye pilot how he exactly turn, brake, accelerate, transfer the mass … the whole time each second. It’s just impossible to replicate, even in recording every single action in real time.
Good philosophy, stick to it.
You’re just lucky to catch my trolling while i’m waiting for these fucking seeds, in a very little corner of the big OG ^^ Time to launch the next oldie by the way. Nice talk, thanks for the stimulation ;o)
Marketing and vicious AstroTurf is a fabulous inbreeding tool 
, it remove fast the most annoying scories of the phenos : the free will ^^
8 Likes
Precisely what I was thinking about this thread. Reversing is a tool like many others in the breeder’s toolbox, and one can use it when it suits the situation and more importantly, the objectives. It doesn’t solve everything by itself.
I second Fuel (mostly) on their statement regarding nowadays breeding, or breeding techniques/strategies in general. Maybe that’s because my fiber is close (hardcore-punk) but I don’t trust the market though, I’m more in the anarchist mindest 
5 Likes