Breeding with females

[Fuel]

@BCC

Not really sure what you are saying here. I’m talking about creating an S1 and then backcrossing to the mom. How am I getting a wider genotype? The point is that the mom is the reference.

It’s exactly the same problematic that with a normal backcross (without selfed intermediary), but in far more radical context (because the selfed intermediary). Because with the S1 you have forced the phenotype to intensify its expression “totally” and in one shot, at this point you’re knowing the inherent equilibrium of the phenotype in term of traits prevalence. But not its potential in term of segregative dynamic, which is locked and catalyzed by the process itself.

I’m supposing in the example that your reference is a given elite clone that you want to produce in a stable form in seeds (just because it’s the most tryed option since ages, it add indirectly an extra of rationality in the discussion). So, the genotype carryed by the reference is wider initially, not allready narrowed by the potential of an unique phenotype.

@BCC

My goal is preserve the best crosses that I make as a hobbyist breeder. Like most home growers, I don’t have space to keep clones long-term and I have sometimes found really exceptional plants in my pollen-chuck crosses.

Always the same mantra. You don’t have to justify your methods to anyone if you’re obtaining decent results; seriously if the growers/friends/yourself testing it are happy and that the weed is good : no one give a fck how it’s made ^^

@BCC

Obviously, the S1s that I then make from those plants have a fair amount of variation. So the goal is to stabilize them a little bit.

I think that i’m seeing the pattern of the bias now. The choice to use selfed specimens is specifically to reduce drastically the need to deal with variations. Even with a simple BX process the difference is enormous.

You’re already stabilizing what you’re doing, just because the process itself. The “variations” are the allelic dynamic you have locked in one shot. They are not really variations, but the direct output of your selection in its purest form. It’s why to cumulate it with a backcross is counter-productive if you think that the variation is carried in this case by the S1, and not the P1. How to read the output rightly in this case and to improve your selection of S1 ?

As I’ve said, selfing is an effective tool to study the homozygosity dynamics in optimal conditions. But you have to decypher the trait and their leverage for that.

If every single plant of your S1 have citrus scents, it’s not the garantee that the P1 will pass directly to your S1 the intensive form of expression of this scent.

@BCC

I’ve read a lot of people discuss doing this by creating successive feminized generations using the offspring of the mom, but creating a BX seems like it would be a whole lot easier.

Not easier. The easier way is to stabilize the traits before locking it, with genotypes already streamlined in term of stability. And it become barely industrial, but it’s another subject.

[BCC]

@Fuel

Because with the S1 you have forced the phenotype to intensify its expression “totally” and in one shot, at this point you’re knowing the inherent equilibrium of the phenotype in term of traits prevalence. But not its potential in term of segregative dynamic, which is locked and catalyzed by the process itself.

I appreciate your trying to answer my question, but if you want to be helpful, you will need to dumb it down. As I said, I’m not a professional breeder, just a home grower trying to preserve strains with minimal space and time.

@fuel or anyone else who cares to answer… Let me rephrase the question:

There is a well established procedure of stabilizing strains thru back-crosses e.g. Cindy 99. The process involves creating an F1, selecting a male from the offspring, and crossing it back to the mom. My question is very simple, would the same process work with a feminized line? i.e. create an S1, select the offspring that most resembles the mom, reverse it and pollinate the mom. Rinse, repeat. Works as well as a traditional BX, better, worse, does not work at all?

@Fuel

It’s exactly the same problematic that with a normal backcross

Is your argument that back-crosses also do not work? There seem to be quite a few examples in the cannabis world where it has been done successfully.

@Fuel

I’m supposing in the example that your reference is a given elite clone that you want to produce in a stable form in seeds (just because it’s the most tryed option since ages, it add indirectly an extra of rationality in the discussion). So, the genotype carryed by the reference is wider initially, not allready narrowed by the potential of an unique phenotype.

Why not use the example of my actual use case? No idea what the last sentence means, sorry. Maybe you are saying that by creating an S1, I’m making it more genetically diverse?, but that is why I want to then do a BX.

@Fuel

Always the same mantra. You don’t have to justify your methods to anyone if you’re obtaining decent results; seriously

I appreciate that sentiment, but I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m trying to explain what I want to do and how I’m hoping to achieve it. I’m doing that in the hopes of getting a clear direct answer from someone who knows, such as yourself.

Again, I really appreciate you taking the time to write a long detailed reply, but it does not help if I can’t understand it or apply it to what I want to achieve.

[Fuel]

@BCC

There is a well established procedure of stabilizing strains thru back-crosses e.g. Cindy 99.

This is not a well established procedure. And we are not swimming in an ocean of rock stable strains made this way.

The C99 is an unique equation involving specific P1s, specific manner to select the BX offspring and the specific profile of the operator (taste/will/methodology).

Yes, the Sweet Tooth #3 and the C99 are twos BX programs. But that’s the only thing they have in common.

@BCC

The process involves creating an F1, selecting a male from the offspring, and crossing it back to the mom.

No.
A BX program doesn’t necessary start with P1 than are in F1.
A BX program doesn’t necessary involve a female as the backcross reference.
A BX program simply imply to cross a generation with the previous generation.

@BCC

My question is very simple, would the same process work with a feminized line?

Yes, you will have seeds.
No, a (BX1 x P1) is not the same thing that a (S1 x P1). The constraint of selection are totally different.

@BCC

create an S1

→ Reversing a female and let her produce seeds from his own pollen.

@BCC

select the offspring that most resembles the mom

It’s not a selection. A selection imply a combo of identified traits, I’ve already said that selecting an entire phenotype is not humanly possible.

To self a specimen permit also an additional layer of information : to qualify the individual answer of a phenotype. Actually, it’s initially a method used for that.

@BCC

reverse it and pollinate the mom

If the S1 are not enough satisfying, why wasting time and money to operate a BX1. You will just dilute more your reference.

@BCC

Rinse, repeat.

And prey. Strongly, because each time you’re increasing exponentially the problematic you’re supposed to stabilize/fix.

@BCC

Works as well as a traditional BX, better, worse, does not work at all?

BX and Selfing a specimen have in common the concept. Nothing else.
Better : It depend 100% on the operator and on his methods of selection.
Worse : It depend 100% on the operator and on his methods of selection.

@BCC

Is your argument that back-crosses also do not work?

No. A very personal input is exposing in depth my love for a BX.

@BCC

Why not use the example of my actual use case?

Because to inject the elite’s clones in the discussion permit to avoid the “isolated island” syndrome. A lot of people have already put in practice since a while the questions you’re just starting to explore. With success, or not. Available strains have the last word.

@BCC

you are saying that by creating an S1, I’m making it more genetically diverse?

No, the strict reverse.

[BCC]

Thanks for the replies @Fuel.

[amumayuk]

@RomulanGenetics

I’m really glad you all brought up the clean male, because that is totally a thing that any good breeder looks for (as long as they know things like that exist). A perfect male or perfect female, that pass on little to zero genetics is extremely rare to find.

trying to understand this as I’m starting to dabble into breeding , and im trying to soak up as much knowledge as i can gather
my question is more about what are those perfect male female plants how are they pinpointed in a pheno hunt

[HolyAngel]

@amumayuk

my question is more about what are those perfect male female plants how are they pinpointed in a pheno hunt

Progeny testing

[Collie]

Surely xx X xx can never make xy? Pollen contamination or that rare instance when a female plant reverses fully to display as a male but really it is still female. No?

[Fuel]

Second time i’m crossing the path of this ref now … I remember, here :

Best way to collect, store, use and mail pollen?

Snapped this from @RomulanGenetics IG. It is completely incorrect. I have successfully pollinated flowers with pollen kept at room temp in my top drawer more than half a dozen times and the pollens have been anywhere from a few weeks old to over 6 months old. [Screenshot_20230311_153134_Instagram]

On “clean” specimens, this answer of RG is making a wide and wild generality. I can turn this in another way, and in being 100% honest in bonus : for me a clean perfect female is a female that can’t be reversed ^^ Is it an useful information, absolutely not.

For your evasive question, i think that the best answer is the one of HolyAngel and not the one of RG.

[amumayuk]

my question was not meant to be evasive i was just seing the terms transparent males then perfect males and females’ so i wanted to understand what they were i might not have formulated it corectly

[amumayuk]

@Blu-Tri

A transparent male is a gem.
It could be bred to clones to offer them in seed form without altering their terp profiles. Plus it can be breed to fem seeds to re introduced the male gene into them. What an asset brother.
I also see that you are on your way to proving him as a breeding tool. This is the type of work that I like to see being done.
You could see how he affect vigor, yield, potency, side branching.
I know plants like yours exist because I have had autos from clone only strains that did not showed no the autos influence when it came to terps. I’m sure the yields suffered some, but they were still impressive for autos.
Good find brother, good job

@Fuel this was just before the part @RomulanGenetics replied

[Fuel]

The question is evasive because the concept on which is built the question is more than evasive.

It’s not even a critic in my mouth. I’m learning a lot on the actual problematic of hobbyists, their trends also, from all these discussions with all of you. It’s pushing me to get out from the comfy submarine and i appreciate it. For a ton of different reasons.

Short and raw : If you don’t have any determined destination, talking about the best vehicles to buy is just venting. Yes 911 are nice and sturdy, but to reach the top of a mountain without roads, it’s better to bet on a light jeep.

@amumayuk

my question is more about what are those perfect male female plants

They don’t exist. It’s just story telling.

Be rational. Do you seriously think that to build a competitive haze, a competitive yielder and a competitive stone-hammer … an unique phenotype profile can be applyed to these three cases universally ? For both sex ? And in adding the inherent constraints to release a stable feminized line on the top of that ?

@amumayuk

how are they pinpointed in a pheno hunt

By the accurate goals you have in mind, before launching the seeds. No goal, no control, no errors, no experience built.

“A transparent male is a gem”

It’s not a gem. Not even something rare and that “only the best can find”. It’s just a matter of education on strains. And i will not wipe the ass on that, no way.

Studying the main pedigrees and to highlight recurrent patterns from it is far enough, and everybody can do it just in using one of the numerous strains database available.

And to pass from the education to action, there is only one way : launching seeds.

Now, in surfing in the sense of the trend of “males are useless”, a “transparent male” is the strict definition of a reversed female. All this wind for nothing, really.

[amumayuk]

@fuel greatly appreciate you clarifying this for me,