I always thought s1 was vague and used too loosely
4 Likes
Yeah me too, I’ve got seeds from an accidental polination with fem pollen from another plant and different strain in the same grow😕 whats their definition (apart from a screw-up)
The pollen doner grew two tiny flowers which I only noticed when trimming.
2 Likes
OG should be the place where filial notations are a game to have casual fun between us ^^
Let’s add some additional slots in this tic-tac-toe.
To consider a cross (to make, to buy, to collect, to whatever), the most important for a good start is to understand the theoretical priorities.
First I’ve to be aggressive with the smart asses thinking that the Rx notation have any form of utility (the link is more concerned that the discussion). It just doesn’t have any sense. I can name each tire of my car too, why not. Rear Left, Front right … and sell a tire per wheel location.
Transparency ? Hell, they barely (i generalize in all honesty) are able to produce a decent traceability over one generation. Even of the direct parental donors growth. Rant off lol
No matter how hard you’re mutating them, with gamma ray and kryptonite, they are and they will stay F2 at this point. To the most fucked up polyploids you dare to imagine. Filial generations are not replaceable by anyway, there is no “reboot” but a true heterosis. The presence of a recombination, to please Cactus.
Filial generation, even if you’re forced to replace F3 by “3th gen” because you have used tools that blur a bit the big picture … is the first priority.
Let’s ignore the last idea to market a “new thing”, in focusing on practical notations that are really giving an information on what is growing, and how it segregate and why.
You crack a pack of any F1 hybrid : you isolate the male 01, the female 02, the female 03.
Female 02 x Male 01 = generation F2 “0201”, just seeds
Reversed Female 02 x Female 03 = generation F2 “0203”, new sub-genotype, biased sexuality
Reversed Female 02 x Female 02 cut = generation F2 “0202”, new sub-genotype², biased sexuality
Apply the same to any generation, whatever the method, you have to just increment.
Now let’s hardened off the game a bit.
generation F2 “0201” x generation F2 “0201” = generation F3 “0201 squared”, it’s when things become really exponential but it’s off topic. I’m not talking about the cubism of canna-breeding off course, i’m not Picasso ^^
generation F2 “6789” x generation F6 “8745” : generation F1, but expanding the notation is required with this one.
Because it’s a Dominant 8/7 hybrid, the 6/9/4/5 being there to “just fill the void” in the recombination of the segregations.
It have its importance, because if i cross a NL#5 Haze with a Jack Herer … i’m just killing the skunk in the JH, and i’m generating nothing. The building blocks being very narrowed since the start (by the Dutch), it make this cross more a backcross reinforcing the NL5 or the Haze (depend on selection) than a true hybrid, even if this specific pairing produce heterosis.
The Puffalo’s context is neat at this stage : none line is stacked (directly) during the cross, insuring him the max torque of the heterosis. It have an impact on the force of the F2 major segregations, for the worse and the better.
You’re on fire today ^^ Sane and reliable first reflex : searching what kind of filial generation you have.
JTR : It’s a NLized Jack Herer, where the JH is reinforced. And i had this discussion with the man himself.
Moonbow : look like to be a (Big Bud SPG) x (Kush ThinMint), which is a reinforcement of the Big Bud ^^ And people today still heating on GSC crosses and their lack of endurance …
The final cross is a Jack Herer x Big Bud, with spices.
I’m not saying this crazy reduction randomly : i’ve grown and crossed each compounds individually. Pedigrees give a hint on the dominance in game, but it’s vicious. The rules of selection still apply too.
Grow a Big Bud aside a GDP, and compare the shape, the needs and the tempo … it’s even dominant in the flavors and the flower’s shape. This, with just a hint in regard of the pedigree.
Grow a JTR aside a C99, same shit. To the the double-ovary tendances …
We all should think about it now that the scene stopped to truly produce genetics. But we are not helped by those wanting to give a name to each tire of your car. And to sell you the concert of buddha in 70’s, instead just saying they just obviously bought a Sensi 10pack.
It’s so good to don’t give a damn fuck ^^
In the business of in vitro (rares) Bamboos, it don’t exist. It’s critical in bonus for this plant, the last thing you want is flowering bamboos at a large scale because you mixed two donors not at the same stage of “regeneration”. And i love to know that people are walking aside a hay that is worth a Maybach GLS without knowing it ^^
I just use this quote to talk about selfing and backcrossing in fact. Let’s talk money now and customers.
Nah i’ve to delete this lol I think it’s enough unbelievable like this. Better to pass for a fool that write english with the feets ^^
So the Selfing and Backcrossing problematic now. It’s very simple in fact, i swear.
Let’s imagine Puffalo keeping a juicy JTR female as motherplant. The smoke is very pleasant, “full spectrum” like the JH know how to do it very well.
But in doing his JTR x MB, he discover that the chemotype is crushed and suddenly is a lot more “creeper”, and capped. But fuck, the aromas when he break the bud … mesmerizing.
So he decide to set a Backcross program to re-inject a hint of JTR. Because he don’t want to roll all day long.
Is the JTR x (JTR x MB) compliant with the filial notation ? What is the filial statute of this cross ? A F1 x F1.
It give a F2 ? Yes, but with less variations that break what mean usually “F2” in term of segregations.
It’s when you have the joker to complete the information : BX1. Usually, backcross programs are pushed in BX3. Not a standard, not a god law, just cannabis. There is virtually no limit if you start with a solid starting point, smartly maintained aside the BX.
Puffalo have a great surprise with the “F2” BX1, the MB answer very well and don’t vanish. But the JTR is just reinforced by touch (its weakness). He know he have a margin that will permit to fine-tune it to his liking, let’s go to BX3.
Now he have a JTR x (JTR x (JTR x MB)), a BX2. Problem, the filial notation doesn’t have anymore any sense. It’s a F1 x “F2 BX1”, it’s off charts. Still the 2nd generation, but more close to F3 ratios face to the plant.
And it become exponential from this point (with the right selection and some try&fails), to the step where with the BX3 he obtained the same uniformity (not stability) than a simple inbred line twice longer (F6-F7).
At this point, replacing the filial notation by the method is totally justified.
It’s not the end of the story of Puffalo (sorry buddy ^^). He have his dream line, perfectly balanced and that offer something that blindfolded is always favored among even the initial JTR and the MB that he was smart enough to inbred pure, aside, for further development of his hybrid.
He contact a wholesaler, so much money and risks spent on this hybrid and so much money to spend to keep it evolving. In bonus to spread the love decently for 50 bucks the 10 packs. But as usual, the wholesaler say “you’re nobody, i can’t buy your “regs” even if i attest that this weed is fire”. But if they are fems produced in tight flow … we can talk again. The demand is a spiral, and i’ve to deal mostly with stoners that don’t even know how aged are the seeds they sell.
So Puffalo understand that to maintain his lines, he have to make fems.
At first he try a S1 of the BX3, but all he got it’s a fucking blow back of the MB that look like under steroids. No more balanced smoke, he woke up the hungry monster.
A BX3 S1 … how to note this for stoners barely able to recognize the shape of a simple skunk and that want hazes that flowers in 50 days ? It’s just not possible. It’s just Fems, let’s say everything else is the secret sauce.
But he see that it have a big impact on the expected quality of the seeds. Wait, he read somewhere that F1s are considered as the best cheat ever since ages in the whole agronomy. Why not getting inspiration from it ?
He apply a specific pressure on the MB to kill its dominance face to the JTR (spoiler, breeding out the Big Bud like a maniac with large seedlings arrays), the make a (Female JTR F2 x Female MB F6). A F1, feminized.
The stability of his fems push him quickly in the situation of “what’s next, for yesterday”. And now he have the firepower.
Let’s attack directly the ThinMint this time. In washing it from the JTRxMB, he learned a lot about it and no one have made an ultimate GSC yet. Even the said creator.
Let’s self it first, but this time as experimental tool to exactly map his own dominance on herself. Because the one offering the unique version of a stabilized GSC producing males … will no longer retail anything in his life.
I tried to inject the most i can in this little virtual story. But keep in mind that there is the private informations you need to don’t do voluntary mistakes and the increasing difficulty to confront it to a falling education of growers.
8 Likes
Some great Info
1 Like
Really good info in this thread. Thanks everyone for sharing 
1 Like
That was an interesting read bud. Appreciate your input.
2 Likes
I’ve been using FC for reversed outcrosses. It makes more sense than R.
FC1 = Feminized Cross, Gen 1
2 Likes
heya, maybe my question fits into this thread 
__
sometimes i see people calling a (f.e.) f3 x f4-mating an “f5”.
but that’s not correct, imvho.
i know that “incross” is an invented term … but i actually prefer to call
a mating like that an “IX” (as in: bx inside the same line with no outcross).
what do you think fellow OG’ers?
8 Likes
I think it’s slightly too non-descript, and kinda needs (F3 x F4) to clarify things if it’s going to have any real meaning… of course, at that point it’s almost not worth bothering because nobody’s gonna write it. Half the time, people can’t even be bothered to denote when something’s a repro at all rather than F1s, even if it’s as simple as F2 or S1. 
6 Likes
yeah, it would always need that extra info.
… as in f.e.: “blablabla cake IX (F3 x F6)”
true.
also, about what you said else 
__
but my actual question was:
could a (f.e.) “F1 x F4” be called an = F5?
or is that not correct? 
('cause to me it feels kinda wrong …)
4 Likes
It is definitely an IX not a F5
5 Likes
yeah, i think so too …
thank you, bro 
so, i’m not the only one.
i read that a few times and each time
kinda felt a bit ‘bothered’ about it, lol
3 Likes
Yeah 100%, same line crossed to the same line of a different generation, and not a parent cut, is always an Inline Cross(IX) 
Only way to get ‘F5’ is ‘F4 x F4’.
4 Likes
I don’t judge your personal preferences at all, but i don’t see really the point to rename the worldly used BX1 in a “IX” that i personally read as “9” ^^ It’s not even mnemonic.
The gen of the unique source doesn’t matter in fact in this notation, the BX take the priority whatever is the strategy used. You just apply a N+1 each time you proceed to another layer. Initially it was used for a question of transparency, simply. Because starting a line from a F1 and from a BX3 is two very different game.
In the effort to think and to make notations absolutely differently, you can consider a F3 x F5 as the 6th generation. So a F6. Same with the F1 x F4, it stay the 5th generation of seeds so a Filial 5.
It’s not fooling people, it’s not a lie and it’s not using the BX notation you dislike. In being weird (selling a BX for an IBL), but correct.
3 Likes
I don’t remember where I got this notion but I thought the lower filial generation took precedence in a cross… ? Ie f2 x f4 = f3
Would you happen to have a source, it’s been bugging me…
Some of the problems we see with nomenclature when breeding pot is because a lot of us use eclectic breeding schemes (borrowing from multiple schemes and smashing stuff together) and so sit between 2 (or more) chairs haha
6 Likes
You indirectly helped me to understand why this subject look like so complex ^^
For a BX the prime importance is to know the “dose” of the recurrent genes, so yes it’s important to underline it.
If it’s not a BX, the F2 x F4 is just a F1 ^^
2 Likes
To go back you must have went forward first a back cross implies an outcross, then going back to one parent of the outcross…
Mating an f2 and an f4 within the same pool can’t possibly make an f1 eh?
Inbreeding 2 different lines separately to different filial generations to then combine them is where we end up at f1
6 Likes
Forgive me here but to me, a backcross implies a specific parental cultivar. That’s being backcrossed to. Not necessarily an outcross. You could do F2 Mom x F4 if the mom sired the F3’s the F4 came from and call it a backcross.
If it’s not the same mom used in the line, and instead her sibling, than it’s an inline cross.
I suppose you could increment the fgen, in f2 x f4, I would call it an F3 if I was doing that, but to me that’s very misleading as that’s not what you’re going to see in the offspring.
5 Likes
Correct, but it’s also when farmers and scientists start to live in two differents dimensions : the theory VS the dirty hands.
Disclaimer for the fresh foolish : i’m talking about advanced works that are now at a light year of actual standards in cannabis. If tomorrow you see a new strain popping up and using this conversation as marketing, just remember that i’m talking right now about a cycle that take a decade with cannabis. It’s easy to debunk the most vicious sellers.
A scientist then, will refuse to call this junction a true heterosis. And he’s right, it’s a fake one just initiated by the genetic distanciation and doesn’t have the torque of a true blend.
A farmer will use this dynamic in practice to maintain his pure lines and will accurately program it and use specific selection for it, just like he will do it for an true F1. The expected results is similar in all point to an heterosis, without the streamlining effect.
But in general both agree to don’t call it a F1 as a release, just a BX (in your example) ^^
update : Totally agreed HA, it’s more a matter of transparency for me too. It all revolve around the quality of the selection anyway, whatever the gen used.
2 Likes
Well thats where we get into pot breeders jargon hehe
Now I’m not saying it’s not making some kind of sense but if you read the definition of a backcross it’s universally accepted it’s f1 x p1
Try it
2 Likes