My thinking is, a little variation is necessary in certain traits so the plants can still thrive in all of the highly varied environments we growers subject them to. If we take these five previously mentioned strains and make them true P1s, we may lose generally beneficial traits that don’t have any effect on the final bud.
1 Like
That is exactly right, if our purpose is to breed strains that will thrive in a wide variety of environments, without needing to put in a lot of year working lines into homozygosity for specific traits. The downside to this is that you have to plant a bunch of seeds and search for the best heterozygous combination. The benefit of breeding two homozygous strains together is that every single offspring can be guaranteed to have the 2 best traits for all the chosen traits, however, the parent plants will be severely inbred and will only thrive in one environment. In the end it all depends on what your goal is and homozygosity isn’t necessarily better, just a different way of cracking the same egg!
Also, if it makes anyone feel better, Vic High, of British Columbia Growers Association (maker of such favorites as Romberry and Space Queen), highlighted the very problem we’re working out in an article prior to his demise in 2012 (from what information I can piece together). His breeding explanations don’t take into account multi-polyhybrids and their greater variability when compared to true F1 hybrids, but his general overview is correct. What is the difference between an F1 and a hybrid?
5 Likes
Just to be clear: there is no such thing as an F1? All crosses, no matter what, are all H-series, correct?.. and everyone from Sam to Joe, to Nevil, to even crazy-ass Ed rosenthol, we all had it wrong, all these decades? If its true, that fucking mindblowing man. if H-series is in fact the correct nomenclature, then Im going to use it from now on. thanks for the info man! its a trip to know that everyone one of us were so wrong all these years
2 Likes
by this definition a true F1 would be crossing your H20xH20 making “h21” AKA true f1
1 Like
As far as a cross of two purely homogenous parent plants, no there has not been a true F1 Cannabis plant tested by Phylos, though it might already exist. That feels too strict a definition though.
Like @Scissor-Hanz said, plants that are true-breeding for a certain number of characteristics can effectively produce offspring worthy of the F1 designation.
3 Likes
Yes, they all had it wrong, which is probably the worst for Sam since he studied cannabis at an academic level and beyond.
@deep_rob The community of both scientists and cannabis breeders have’t yet decided on a set value, such as H-series, yet. The scientists have stated that F1 should not be used, they’re correct in this, and they’ve nodded at the idea of having the cannabis breeders create an appropriate and acceptable nomenclature for differentiating the breeding of landrace crosses and the breeding of multi polyhybrids. As this is a recent development in the cannabis community, those that have spoken, believe that they should either go on using F1, in disregard of it’s incorrect usage, or that they’ll use whatever is proposed with little opinion concerning what letter series to use.
BTW, this same controversy swirled around the use of sativa, indica, and ruderalis. In the end the scientific community set the record straight by correcting the naming to Indica (formerly sativa), Afghanica (formerly indica), Sativa (formerly ruderalis).
This is true, however, so few strain lines possess this degree of true breeding. It’s something like 0.1% of all strains, with the number of unstable strains increasing at a rate far exceeding the number of strains becoming true breeding.
3 Likes
i’m going to consider pluto a planet and a cartoon dog forever. period.
4 Likes
@cannabissequoia Sometimes I’m tempted to join you. Ignorance might be bliss, but if you’re willing to trade bliss for the excitement of discovery and a greater internalization of the absolute connectedness of all things it’s 110% worth the trade offs.
I’m providing a link, just click the excerpt below, for another post I recently did on OG, that covers a really good recessive trait stabilization technique for breeding with low numbers of plants! It’s something I think a lot of us would find valuable.
4 Likes
Its not “mistakes”, i wouldnt classify it as that… I just happen disagree with the formula:
I get what yur saying but ive never seen someone go that way… maybe this is normal in the States, where people just make polys from the chemdawg line, but not in the rest of the world man.
What yur saying is:
(p1xp1) = f1.
((f1xp1) x f1) X ((f1xp1) x f1) = f3 (I think that’s yur fourth generation of seeds)
Yur formula seems counter-intuitive to me, to rely so heavily on the f1 and to keep going back to the f1. Its yur Purple p1 that yur trying to replicate, not the f1. The f1 doesnt provide an accurate representation of what’s all in yur genes… u cant see anything… u gotta go (f1xf1) to be able to see everything… it would make more sense, if u kept going back to p1 over generations…
and to then stop at yur “f3”, doesnt make sense. . you’d lose something in the process and would have to backcross to a parent… u couldn’t sell those f3 seeds .(unless u made yur customers aware that theyre not stable)., they wouldn’t breed true and would loose vigour too… you would be better off by simply releasing the original f1’s…
“So, P1+P2=F1, then F1+F1=F2 would be unlikely to create the desired purple in a low number of plants in this situation, contrary to the way it did in Mendel’s project.”
– Its very likely, all you have to do is line-breed and select purple, and once u stabilize it, you go back to parent to reinforce lost vigour and potency…It may take 4 generations, or it may take 20 generations, but its how we have been doing it for decades.
Ive shared yur posts with my Dutch and Canadian peers, and now I have a half dozen old heads asking me: wtf?.. So the million dollar question is, have u done a ((f1xp1) x f1) X ((f1xp1) x f1) = f3 , and if so, did it breed true? Was that generation stable and and a marketable? You have data (grow notes) or pix?
Maybe we are wrong, Im open to new or different ideas. I learn new shit every day man… its the only way we can “grow” as growers, no pun intended… Nobody is a master, nobody knows it all.
Thanks for taking the time to read! cheers!
3 Likes
((P1 + P2) + P2) + ((P1 + P2) + P2) = 100% genotype with double recessive genes for selected trait.
If we strip away all the unnecessary stuff what we really have is a rather quick variation of a back cross, but with a much higher rate of double recessive gene presence and with the need for fewer plants to complete the process.
Many places in the U.S. only allow you to grow 4 plants, some allow 8, some 12, but almost none allow more than that, and most only allow 4.
This cross can be done rather quickly when only searching for a single trait.
The first cross P1 + P2 takes a cycle, The seeds created during cycle 1 are grown and 2 plants from that generation are both crossed back to the parent plant showing the desired double recessive, which can take 1 cycle. Then the seeds from the new generation are grown, selected for the presents of the double recessive and crossed to each other providing both the double recessive in all offspring.
I tried locking in a double recessive trait for purple in a cross of Grape Ape to Mozambique Poison using the traditional method of straight line breeding. Because I was only allowed 8 plants during my cycles, the F2 generation took me 32 plants across 4 cycles to find a double recessive purple plant.
I followed the quicker back cross path on my next project of Grape Ape crossed to Chocolate Thai to lock in a double recessive purple trait, but with the above method I was able to do it in 3 generations, needing to only grow out 24 plants (which could have been done with less). During each selection I focused on the plants most like the Chocolate Thai, but that also held the double recessive purple trait.
I never had the intention of selling any of the seeds I created, it was all done in order to learn more about cannabis breeding. Each new purple strain created still needed stabilized, which I did not do because none of the plants used were truly exceptional. I did grow out 8 plants from the final seeds of each projects, for a total of 16 plants, and every plant was purple.
The one note that I would make is that with this alternate, non traditional, breeding strategy you will end up with a breeding line that is on average 2/3 of the double recessive parent and only 1/3 of the double dominant parent. If you want to have a breeding line that favors all the traits of the double dominant parent line, except the one trait you’re trying to secure from the double recessive parent, then traditional line breeding is probably a faster method.
The goal of my post was to provide more methods for breeding, not to provide the “best” method, because the best method depends on the overall goals of the breeder, what traits are being bred for, and what the capacity of the breeder is. If you’re capable of growing out a larger number of plants per generation then traditional line breeding is often the better option, but many people who shouldn’t be excluded from breeding don’t have the option of growing more. This information is to help them!
10 Likes
I like the h but have been using gen1
I’m old fashioned and use a brutal selective breeding style with my veggies
Applying to cannabis I am attempting this.
When I cross A x B I get gen1.
Ideally I’m crossing A x B and another B.
25 or more gen 1 are grown at 16oz cups and selection starts at seedling. Mutants, runts and slow grow sickly’s, are culled usually cutting 1/4 to 1/8 from the stock.
Up pot to 2 gallon
veg 5weeks and kill anything with bad structure, slow roots, or lack of stem rub.
Cut down to a half or one third my original number I up pot to 5 gallons and start flower.
I know if I’ve got the right stock two weeks into flower cull the rest and let that male(s) have at the remaining girls. The seed development is noted resin and terp production are recorded and gen 2 is born.
Gen 2 is wild and every ancestral trait is expressed in every combo imaginable.
At 25 seeds a pop I may have to run 200 seeds in 4 rotations to find a favorite that has a recurring patern I like and dominance.
But you can get lucky in the first 25 if your origin genetics arent a total crap shoot, or your goals are reasonable.
I keep it simple and look for a plant like mom and dad.
Plants have more robust genetic mechanisms and can handle sibling crosses, allowing for the fact they can’t move and get hit with the closest pollinator first. Inbreeding depression is still an issue but not as devestating.
Gen 3 is tough but nothing like gen 2.
gen 4 and gen 5 each get easier
If working a mega mut poly hybrid you have to shoot for the basics like structure potency and easy cracking seeds(preferably straight to soil 95% germ)
First health then Homogeneity is the key goal, and then potency, flavor, terps, color etc etc.
If my seeds are showing true to description @70-75 (7out of 10)percent I feel I can name it.
I’ll keep previous generations to reinvigorate the line when the gene pool gets stagnant.
Out of a pack of heirloom sweet peas I occasionally get one or two mutants.
5 Likes
I like your notation and I think G1 should be another contender for replacement of F1 in multi polyhybrids.
Seeing people like you, @Morgwar, doing non cannabis plant breeding has me wanting to do some myself. I’m going to do some research and find a fast cycling plant I enjoy eating or using to explore potentially breeding with!
4 Likes
I’d honestly suggest sweet peas because they express so well and have quite a few shade tree breeders documenting projects.
You’ll find also that with most pepper varieties there are forums as compassionate or more than Overgrow about breeding/preserving cultivars.
Sauce tomatoes, pattypan squash, and collards are my personal favorites.
5 Likes
I grow and breed to feed my family. Its how I’ve earned my living for decades.
Every project has to pay off; I don’t have the luxury to experiment and play around…
I wish I could experiment more… If only i had more space… the more space u have, the more plants u have, and its still never enough… even if i had a million acres, it wouldnt be enough space…
breeding has a goal. So, if yur goal is to create a hybrid with a recessive trait that u like, then u breed towards the recessive trait, and if yur shit is on point, then that trait will no longer be recessive. it will be dominant in yur new hybrid. In my experience, simple line breeding and proper selection is the easiest way to go.
In the US, nearly everything is polys. Any crosses or clones when taken to an f1 outcross will be incredibly unstable. the act of the f1 outcross itself, will create a certain level of uniformity, and will overshadow the huge variations. only in the f2 will you begin to see all the crazy shit in there…
your f1 in this scenario, wouldn’t have the level of integrity to nail-down your recess trait and turn it dom, in an orderly manner… if u want to go back n forth like that, the more logical choice would be backing to the p1 over each successive gen…
however, in this scenario, I believe that line breeding will save some headaches and is the best way to creating something that is true breeding.
i understand there are limits on plant counts under certain circumstances, however if this was easy, everyone in town would be doing it.
the number of beans u crack per generation, and the number of inbred gens doesnt matter either. its all about selection. but you’re bound by the genetic integrity of your starting material. if yur p1 stock aint solid, you’re in for headaches… Shanti reworked g13/sk with just a few beans…
That being said, obviously, the more u crack to select from, the better… it doesn’t necessarily make it any easier though… think about when u get multiple killer females out of a pack,and have to Sofie’s Choice your girls down to 1 keeper as your production mom…its not easy…
We’re going to giveaway some f1’s (or h1’s? ) ahead of our re-launch. it would be rad if i could hook you up with some man. PM me on that… I’d be honoured to know what u think man.
–cheers
5 Likes
I did not know that and I’m glad I do now!
Stick with F1 for now, at least until the community is farther along in the process of selecting a letter designation, which is probably a few years out still. 
I’ve been around for a few of these -scientists discuss a controversy- things over the decades and they can take a while with a lot of back and forth.
PM send 
2 Likes
So I’m necro-ing this thread cause I’m not sure it’s worth opening a new one.
As there’s some free discussion regarding nomenclature here, what would designate a cross between 2 different S1s from the same mother plant? An S2 is a selfed S1 as a understand, S1Bx1 also makes sense, but I’m really curious what to expect by reversing all my Gg#4 S1s and letting them pollenate each other.
2 Likes
P1 (parent 1) x P1 (parent 1) = S1
S1 (selfed first generation) x P1 (parent 1) = S1Bx
S1 (selfed first generation) x S1 (selfed first generation) = S2
S2 (selfed second generation) x P1 (parent 1) = S2Bx
S2 (selfed second generation) x S1 (selfed first generation) = S2Bx(S1)
Or something like that. The shorthand needs to allow the reader to be able to immediately know what is meant longhand.
Selfed numbering is similar to filial numbering.
6 Likes
What I’m curious about is if I were to take the two most different expressions of an S1 batch
S1A x S1B for example, surely they’d be different from selfing the plant again? Wouldn’t this decrease homogenity as opposed to a S1A x S1A, which would increase it?
I guess one good way is to just test it and see 
2 Likes
Yes, but normal genetic nomenclature uses selfing so rarely that there isn’t much of a standard for that level of detail. There is evidence for that level of detail in filial generations though.
2 Likes
I like this thread, because I run into this so often. Right now, nomenclature in the industry is a mess, but if you don’t use the technically incorrect F1,F2… designations, then you get blank stares, or you repeatedly have to have this entire discussion with every person you talk to. I’m annoyed.
On the other hand, a designation like F1 is ill defined to begin with. If you cross a true landrace sativa from Africa and one from Jamaica and call it an F1? Jamaican cannabis descended from Africa. Hell, all cannabis descended from somewhere in Asia at some point in time.
Is there some magic threshold that defines two strains as genetically “different enough”? And can we ever call anything an F1 without genetically testing each of the parent strains?
…and if we’re going to start being purists now, we have a lot of reproduction threads to relabel that aren’t F2s. 
5 Likes