Sorry for posting in the wrong spot.
2 Likes
Don’t, better to try than to be frustrated to don’t try.
3 Likes
I’m not frustrated, life is a long learning experience, if all went well I learn something that maybe a little alcohol won’t erase 
, thanks @Fuel
3 Likes
How in the world does this first post only have nine likes!? We need to sticky this thing.
Good looks @Fuel
5 Likes
New ref added ;o) A polemic one with proof of concept lol ^^
3 Likes
Ah I didnt see this before, Thanks for this
I am interested to know about GMO in cannabis, beginning to believe its not a story
3 Likes
It’s a reality since years, yes. The reference of the iranian experiment is mostly there for its quality and its interresting details; you will be surprised at which point it’s a concrete subject in seeing all others within one hour of researches.
They are at the point to extract “working” DNA from hashish and to work with it. You have a lot of inter-species experiments also (vegetables with cannabis DNA etc …).
I bet than within five years, no one will be able to “buy genetics” anymore. It’s allready a challenge btw without the democratization of GMO sterile lines (the fem 3.0 in a way). People are not ready yet for that, but i’m sure than they will massively enjoy the disparition of this freedom later. Again.
7 Likes
Problem is with DNA from seeds is that the one with the oldest seeds wins pretty much. If you have landrace seeds you might luck out. But seeds all come from only a few places.
3 Likes
Awesome thank you sir
Anyone looking for these books a couple of them are on one of the PDF links on the historical cannabis terms thread I started
3 Likes
I think if you S4 like a deep chunk x S4 Haze = heterosis? I wonder if get into S5?S6? If survive then seems very homozygous maybe no more degeneration then what?
2 Likes
Actually this comment was concerning the genetic gap between hemp and cannabis, and the role/place of THCA and CBDA in the dynamic of the genotype concerned (even in hybrids of both).
The strains mentioned and the selfing process doesn’t really concern the comment.
For the core of the question, i’m radical and mostly hated today for my positions about it, when i’m sharing it. Until i pass the blunt ^^ I know you can handle it perfectly bro, it’s just the usual tedious disclaimer of this new age.
Heterosis
From my various experience (even with industrial hemp strains), the manipulation of one or both sources of genetic never affect the “heterosis effect”. Selfed, artificially triploïd, hardly naturally mutated … when you shoot a genome with one another, you get the core of the fusion reactor.
I’m pretty much in the inbreeding side of the force and i’m never using reversed lines for genetic. It’s a radical opinion but for me it’s not only a waste of time, it’s also a waste of decades of longevity and potentiality. And it perfectly make sense for me that it’s not a problem for those that never work traits in all their “allelic presence” in the plant but rather choose to hunt a finished standard directly.
So, i will call “fake heterosis” when i maintain twos parralel lines that come from the same P1 and that i regularly cross each half decade to revigorate/chock the genome i’m working with. Even in this case you get the dynamic and the blender is active. It’s just a lot less powerfull that with a true outcross.
In this vein, this scenario is possible to seek a (diluted) heterosis effect:
Clone A-F1 → Selfing → Seeds A-F2-S1
Splitting the seed stock in twos subgroup-selections that get : Line A1-F3-S2 and Line A2-F3-S2
When you cross them in F5-S4, they are totally washed since a while. From my experience beyond S3, with a ton of different type of strains and sources, even landraces.
So this “fake heterosis” will appear a lot more strong than with an usual IBL, but just because the state of the initial material actually. Still more visible.
Outcrossing a S4 will make more impact, because the S4 is barely “empty” in term of genetic adaptation. It’s what i call an “all-in” that must be done with a serious strategy behind, and mostly with pure recessive phenotypes on the Deep Chunk side to don’t make a blank round. You’re pretty much interrested in transgressive breeding, in this case you’re in a plain context from my point of view.
My high score in term of outcross is F21 x pure landrace. I cross my fingers to have a germination this year by the way ^^ It’s not selfed at all but the genetic context is the same for my conclusion : you have virtually no limit in generation, to generate a true heterosis.
Degeneration
It’s the rage about IBL methodism since decades. But actually, and it have never changed since, it’s just an excuse to don’t pay the price (time and accuracy) to make some, and to push “one-shot works”.
Degeneration and the famous “IBL depression” (presented like a curse) only come from the human selection. Extended : from the artificial pressure, epigenetic or not. So acclimatization enter also in this context for me.
For the selfing process, it’s an additional layer. If I totally reject this method to generate genetic material, it’s technically not different from an IBL. It’s just way more fast in all in the sense that each sucess or failures are exponential each generation. And you’re mostly doomed to use only phenotypes that are able to be reversed, so that offer a big risk in term of predictability at long term.
In the absolute, if you have mapped entirely the clone that will be the P1 of your selfed generations, there is no methodological reason to push in S6. I’m calling it a breeding failure beyond S3, at this stage you’re supposed to have locked everything. Or your initial selection is failed/randomized, better to use the time machine and to germinate some S1 seeds again.
The term homozygosity is the new rage also, but it’s not specially hard or very technical to obtain for a trait. The difficulty is to don’t waste the quality of the weed in the process, that rely on many traits and sometimes on surprising linked traits.
Just my twos polemic and radical cents ^^
3 Likes
Yep!
I guess if I were to do anything good for this plant, the first thing I would do is find a really great type, Deep Chunk, Haze, Kush whatever. Find the types that you really like and preserve them for you might be the only one growing the stuff in another 10 yrs and boy sure glad you saved seeds. Thes are good wise words that make a lot of sense and I believe.
I think you would have to be a fool to think that a 5% chance at finding something amazing is pretty amazing. I think that is where a lot of people get lost on this trip in trying to find and keep something without giving heed to the amount of loss that went into it. Kinda like the goose that lays the golden egg. The variability in the line is where the gold is and I think if we want to just breed it to one type and think that is the best well it better be for you can’t go back. Got to keep the lines varied and healthy need those unique combos!
Yea the transgressive segregation is very interesting but I think going and staying within the established lines would probably be more my style. Some worked types Tropical x Tropical or Afghan x Paki could produce something amazing?
A person can do the apomixis on something they absolutely can’t live without and there you go.
2 Likes
Traits that have a terpene precursor? Read that part of the genetic map of cannabis and THC/CBD acid synthase locus. Lot of info generated there can’t really make too many comments, richly detailed.
2 Likes
Personnally I’m not unable to spot a terpen precursor in real time, face to the plant. I wish i could with super powers but i can’t lol Like sequencing the plant just in watching them ^^
It’s more about this gigantic machine with a bazillion leverages, sometimes in reducing the flowering time you’re just killing the potency. Sometimes in improving the cloning performances, you can kill a genuine taste. etc …
4 Likes