Migrated for the peace of mind of sathaze lovers ^^ Walls of text are for OGers like water for pollen, let’s build the envy organically in the other thread and the repellent here lol
so @slain
Let me make a double expresso and to roll a JH blunt first ^^
Better, big fan of a 40% Colombian / 60 % Nigerian blend.
It’s normal that it appear fancy, because the subject is a bit shitty to expose actually. And to keep it on the surface even more.
First, the concept of stability that is important to handle in all its spectrum to best speak about heterozygosity VS homozygosity.
Let’s be blunt again, and split the stability in two domains.
1] The genetical stability
This case have to be really understood as a kind of (bankable) graal but also as a reward of a given effort and sacrifice in term of time. It don’t happen within a season,
And I firmly think that it’s in this case that speaking about homozygosity can make the more sense. It’s not mandatory, there is various “cheats” to create a mirage at this level.
It’s also for me a standard but also a demand that is missing now, and that is compromising indirectly the modern genpool. Indirectly because the era where you can last with 4-5 strains in the catalog perfectly mastered is no more seen as valuable. Supermarket shelves with tons of variations of the same thing and large catalogs are more popular today. To have the impression to have more choice.
What it mean in the other side of the mirror : breeders are restrained by laws everywhere. Even in cool places full of grey area. So the management of the space is always a problematic.
Maintaining 4 strains at high standard is do-able anywhere. If they are truly unique strains, it’s a maximum of 8 motherplants to keep. Which let enough spare space to improve the new prototypes of the lines, or to replace them by new stuff.
Maintaining 20 strains is a total different game, even in using a single male for all females (sic). Offering stabilized lines in this context require a financial firepower that is not in the league of the vast majority of breeders. Even with a structured and efficient network of partners, which is a total pain in the ass to make it work at decent standard. Specially with stoners ^^
In term of market it’s stupid anyway. We are flooded by little breeders that piss strains like the wind and jump from a hype to another. Instead focusing on a what they love the most and specialize their skills. If we were saturated by dedicated little breeders with small catalog, oh god … i will find the weed of 90’s so shitty in comparison lol I digress.
2] The perceived stability
It’s when i consider that the term homozygosity is used for all and nothing, and i blame it. This is not related to shitty breeders VS good breeders, it’s related to the main task force of the global genpool since ages : small growers and small breeders that feed the global genetic since the very begin. Beside some pushy marketing and the usual fake “we”, and grow op facilities presented as breeding facilities lol … It mean humble and risky context most of the time. You can’t hit&run when you’re involved in breeding, and you work with a risky living material that can vanish in front of various problems … with what you have. And it’s near to nothing compared to the industry of hemp by example, it’s all the beauty of cannabis breeding for me on this subject. We are a nation of miraculous pirates lol
So now that the context is set with a hint of pragmatism, the perceived stability is what most of growers are waiting for : predictable outcome. And it don’t necessary mean a predictable genetic material, it’s all the difference to understand.
The first logical approach is the use of heterosis, then F1, with refined material. It’s the base. You can produce a F1 that look like clone but that segregate like shit like a firework directly in F2. It don’t happend if your line is strictly homozygous, you have to drift it to generate segregations.
Offering high standard of stability is possible this way in using heterozygous material. Just in being enough informed on the strains used to blend them smartly. But don’t dream, i’m not talking about one shot work.
BX programs also enter in this vein, and at some extend selfing (sic), and a large panel of others “programs”.
So the concept is not so mutual, it mostly rely on the use of the output and how will be perceived the standard at the end of the chain.
I told you it’s a shitty subject. And i dodged the case where only one trait is homozygous (very more frequent than an entire line) ^^, because yes … it’s not binary. But more like this bug rolling his ball of shit everywhere, it’s a journey where each meter is a victory lol
I agree with your perception of most of elite cuts : they are before everything weed to sell, and clones to propagate in mass. Just like for any common grower that find a fire motherplant to keep. As stupid than this.
Let’s call it quantitative breeding (it’s abusive but fuck it). You launch a shit ton of seeds until you find “the One”.
If recreating an elite cut is a madness if you don’t want to spend you life at it, making it a strain is not an exploit either. It’s time to debunk it for good. Most of classics are build this way. And since too much times now, we rely on them in loop, no matter the renaming game behind.
But it can’t be done without dedication and sacrifice, to reach a high standard. It require also to have enough wounds in breeding to be structured and avoid any wishful thinking. The only one main problem, you nailed it : no traceability on the cut and its context. The force of breeding is seeing the peers of the phenotype you use and to understand it this way, not so to have it. How many people with fine cuts that are unable to output anything competitive with it ? It’s not magic, and during this time when nothing is coming from your little underground space dedicated to it … the bills have to be paid.
You have the problematic of egos on top of it also, and generally the more the breeder rely on one single cut … the more the ego is like a planet to compensate this insecurity ^^ I digress.
Now let’s talk true one minute, the “method that most of us use for selection” is generally close to rolling dices and self-convincing that it will work. Until the first crash ^^ You can search far and deep, you will never find a complete method published by a successfully breeder. It’s always evasive and generalist, and enough fucked to send newbs eating a chain of walls for the most vicious ones.
I’m in the same boat, and only interested by the genetic potential of the seeds that i want to personalize.
But we are again talking about a standard. And if 20 years ago i was able to use the genetic obtained directly, it’s no longer the case. I’ve to screen everything i enter now, no matter the source.
I just disagree with “less work”, breeding is intensive even with the best materials. The difference between a shitty standard and a high standard is more a question of time spent, then extra cost to use the line. It look maybe picky, but on a decade’s scale it matter a lot and represent a substantial number of digits.
Maybe you done it involuntarily but i find the image quite good. Pollen donor, pollen receiver … it’s more binary that it appear. And when you extend to the alleles, it’s even more binary ^^
I use epistatic strategies, but on the more known and advanced projects where i’ve linked most of the desirable and undesirable traits. It’s quite rare, and exceptionnal also for me because the very high level of risk taken and the load of backup lines it mean. I rather prefer to play with genetical shocks structured around my knowledge of classics, to be transparent.
Herm screening and epigenetics leverages are not epistatic strategies. Technically, maybe, but i’m not this semi-god that see the code while i’m operating a “herm prone” environnement. I just know what trigger the most the line and use it to clean the mess. nothing to have with what i quoted just in the previous paragraph. It’s more a farmer thing. You want a mildiew resistant strain ? Hell, grow it near a vineyard and extract the resistant phenos. No need to wrap it with leverage you don’t use to shine. Practicing is not vulgar, simplicity isn’t a shame.
The plants don’t really combine their abilities in fact, it’s not really an enrichment. They kind of brute force their potential (with loss each pairing) to find something that work to massively dominate a given ground. It’s like a Rubik’s cube more. Sometimes it’s the mess, sometimes all faces have an unique colors … the difference is your training in the sequences to make it colored the way you want without spending a life at it in trying randomly.
And sometimes, it just don’t want to work like you say. Bad horses exist. It’s why regular dominance tests are important in my opinion, at least for your synaptic library. It’s never wasted, there is always one moment when you will be glad to remember it. Or to use a database for it ^^
With the intention to make something, and i like it by default. Just don’t be another one that think one shot is enough. Sometimes a line take multiple generations to start to speak loud … and it’s not a miracle or a fantastic exploit to improve a generation from the previous. You just need enough seeds and the will to work a line enough times. If you fear to be bored, you just don’t have the right horse. It’s very simple. We have all at one point daily smokes that we can bring on a deserted island …
I will try to remember for Aussies then, good tip ^^
I don’t like it because my goal is to have a predictable regular form, but still a valuable experimental process genetically. I’ve to be honest, i think it’s a waste of time both in the process and in the conclusion built. Except if it’s to produce fems. That are my nemesis since the very first on sales lol
I salute the efforts under the neuronal sabotage ^^ One more time i find it too long and too expensive, but i think that you was not in the right state to expose fully the context, to best handle the strategy exposed lol