My padawan is actually sharpenning his teeths on the BOG Lifesaver, as a warmup for a more complex project. This line [(Jack Cleaner x Blueberry) x Bubblegum] can be a good teacher on how to map a groovy F1.
So i will directly use the context to picture the section.
The LS is a nice mood enhancer smoke with terps. The release offer genetically many ways to enjoy it tailored.
This freedom to can push the line in anyway has a price : the pairing is quite brutal, producing various sunbgroups of hybrids. And they are the specimens producing the most interesting smoke in F1. Best best for the long term.
The necessity to map directly the line is critical, and it’s avoiding to be blind from one generation to another. So yeah it’s vital for the grade of your creativity.
Warning for the fresh meat
This kind of line (LS) isn’t something that i advise if you’re alone, in an autodidactic mode. Choose simpler segregations with a straight afghani/skunk. The vast majority of strains available can be reduced to an afghani skunk, don’t stress. Just avoid F1s that have a long list of outcrosses without any pause of stabilization (inbred), to simplify your learning curve.
People will think i’m sponsored by Sensi lol, but the super skunk was a reliable horse to learn alone until ~2015. Everything you will read here will be more clear with the SS and less ambivalent in selection.
If you don’t have access to a SS, it’s a good thing too. It’s forcing you to build one from even more available saps : a skunk and an afghani (including NLs). Don’t go crazy for a guinea pig if any, two white label stuff can do the job also.
Mapping a line is a process, not a tech.
I discovered trought previous errors with padawans that this early differenciation is very important to unleash a potential. Don’t ask why, i don’t fucking know. You should ever take a breeding decision inside a conflict of interrest between the Farmer and the Stoner.
If not, your breeding plans are pointless in term competitivity. Think cocky in selection more than in strains, at the end the blunt have always the last world.
This is not yet breeding, this fragile window where you have an accurate influence on a line. It happens only when the Stoner’s make rain the decisions transformed in lead breeding and digested in breeding plans by the Farmer.
Genetically, on an annual in bonus, life isn’t a passive-defensive concept by definition. You should ever consider that you have to maintain your pressure high and accurate the longer you work on a line. The maintenance is always included in the equation : it’s the insurance that you will evolve or maintain your level of grade/quality.
After these necessary injections of some Farmer’s constraints, back to the dirt with the example of the graphic.
I think now that you understand that everything revolve on the accuracy of your mapping (the technic), less on the experienced use of it (the style, the signature). I’ll show you a realistic bribe of what mean practically this mapping.
On left you have a set of plants you sorted by three differentiated groups, the number of specimens isn’t relevant for this job. It’s reading first all plants on a grid of selection (traits worked), then after it’s making ratios on the said spectrum. If you search to ponderate anything to don’t do the job, sincerely better to open pollinate. Equal chances to screw the lead breeding.
So we have a tetrahybrid (4 traits), made from 3 lines pre-ponderared differently : 50% Bubblegum, 25% Blueberry and 25% JackC. Yeah, you get it for the groups now lol
The approach is to rationnalize first the hybrid and in a second time the partial view you will have. And it’s not about memdel yet, just the preparation of the datas required to bend something in the good sense most of the time. I insist on the “most of the time”, it’s just a casino that encourage the customers to count the cards and to cheat the algos of machines. And ban the compulsive players lol
It’s simple, you define a line by one of its most dominant trait, let’s make a simplist chimera from a difficult case :
- roots : BBgum hunted (50% of weight in expressions ratios)
- flowers : JackC / BBgum hunted (75%)
- yield : BBgum hunted (50%)
- cloning : JackC (25%)
That’s for any phenotypical selection, now lets see what you get by the Farmer’s daily notations and how to deal with it.
- roots : dominated by JackC(C), so by 25% of genetic weight.
- flowers : dominated by BBgum(A), so by 50% of genetic weight. Quite reliable cartography.
- yield : dominated by JackC(C) again on reduced spectum.
- cloning : main dominant trait due to hybridism, of the Lifesaver and not as one of its compounds.
To compare the distance between the chimera and the real time state is the job of the Stoner in lead breeding and breeding plans. Mapping have to be a neutral photographic cliché of a slice of genotype, handled by the Farmer.
The cornelian choice of the grid
It’s gonna be a ride, hold on your socks. I will take all shortcuts seen in previous chapters.
We stay in previous example of mapping that help to sort subgroups of dominances, with the Lifesaver.
Something new and that you will see more and more now is the grid of traits with 25 slots. It’s an arbitrary but well aged perspective on what is making the soul of a weed, that i resume at 25 traits for a genotype but also a phenotype.
Inside the grid you can see a dual-data : the traits symbolized by the grey numbers and the colored letters that symbolize the dominance of a genetic subgroup : Bubblegum (50%), Jack Cleaner (25%) and Blueberry (25%) but also Lifesaver (100%) under heterosis.
Mapping a specimen is the first stage to map a line, but also a critical choice for the depth of the pressure.
In the example, it’s a tetrahybrid wich already quite a dance. And for only 4 traits, the grid show more what you will get instead a binary presence.
ROOTS
On the root department, we discover in fact that this main trait is composite, heterozygous. The expression is composed of :
- 1a = volume and shape (BBgm)
- 17b = hairy roots density (BBerry)
- 14c = thickness and digging fast (JC)
It’s were you have to choose the grid.
You can expand the Blue selection in 25 slots entirely dedicated to this expression of the root mass, as well that using a single generic traits
The highlight that are giving the 1/17/14 slots is only preventing on a required stabilization. The trait is in fact composite and unstable.
Should this phenotype be unselected ? If it’s not an eliminatory trait or attached with a negative notation, go ahead and go see the final compromise. But yes, 1 box on 4 unchecked on the lead. Bad dog.
CLONING
Most of people lost their shit with heterosis expressions on their first crosses. It’s typically showing how look like the case in a grid :
- 03a = fast fading of clones while rooting
- 10a = continue to grow while rooting
- 18a = explosive transplantation <day+3
The three are new traits surprinsigly rockstable from one subgroup to another, and not influenced by the variations. It’s a F1, not a 2 digits IBL, so it’s just heterosis.
Will all of these traits be passed Dominant in progeny, hell no. The Blue trait “03-10-18” is dominant because hybrid, a composite of 3 traits at an inferior level of the grid.
What about the lead ? It’s a vertical push of datas. Because the heterosis took the lead on the root dpt. Update of the breeding plan ? Line canceled ? Alternate line to launch ?
In term of goal, it still 2 box unchecked on 4.
YIELD
This is a clear dominance of the BBgm, that score 1 of 4 requirements.
I’m always cautious with this kind of neat dominance in F1 on a trait. The example represent welljhow it’s vicious.
Yield never fall far from the root mass expressions. If this apparent Dominant trait is closely related and mechanically linked with a composite trait only cemented by the heterosis … it’s the promise of a rodeo directly in F2.
Now, it change a bit the perspective on the lead.
The pheno is carried in yield by the BBgm : check.
The pheno is carried in roots by the same dominance : check.
The pheno is carried in roots dpt by the BBgm : 30% only.
Now apply priorities in the expression of the final product aimed … and to adapt.
FLOWERS
Requested : BBGm / JCleaner hybrid
Phenotype : BBgm / Blueberry
It’s where you haven’t any margin in the game generally. A little bit longer flo, some stretch, even yield eventually … there are parameters that you can bend a bit in favor of the weed.
But when the chemotype fall badly, starting an hopeful line on this female only add distance between your goal and the actual state of the line.
Not missing a good weed that follow the breeding plan for a question of secondary parameter or for an unplanned linked trait is a strategic move.
But the weed selection should have the most eliminatory points : it’s the final product, even if the generation is just intermediary. In the self-discipline, upgrading the weed each generation should be mandatory.
It’s not about reaching a critical checkpoint each time, it’s maintaining a pressure to stay on an evolutive dynamic. At worse, you finish with a better weed at least.
Mapping while screening : Flaws & Advantages
Yeah back again to notions like calendars, season and productivity. And it have to be thinked in a sequence by the traits worked … logic.
Pictured the method I’m using the most, a cumulative pressure until the final product. It’s simple on the paper :
-
the first 10 days you can screen out (culled or unselected-to-map kept alive) early the root shape. Then replacing specimens by fresh seeds until all slots are taken again.
-
during the veg, you can massively compare cloning performances and to cull all specimens screened for roots not cloning enough vigorously. Replaced by fresh seeds again.
-
yield can be detected at mid-flo, and to give another reason to launch seeds …
-
… until you roll what you’re unselecting and use in loop the datas to launch seeds again until the stock is gone.
When you start to have a dozen of archetypes to cull the sooner possible, the cycles of selections become exponentially more dense with each specimen mapped you’re culling. At the point to reach surprising rate of specimens screened by square feet.
Remember that indoor, the timeframe of a selection is a strategic or a tactical decision. Goals VS Time VS Jah …
The pros :
- exponential speed in selection
- extreme ratios, 0,5%-2% deltas, but leveraged by a huge number of seeds. it mean a lot of the genotype seen on the hunted traits.
- multiple parallel lines generated on unique pairings, even eventually f2 and f3 launched in loop and BX lines generated on the fly without any clone involved.
The cons :
- solid knowledge on the line required
- solid references in mind in term of maximas of direct parents
- no real “pause” button, it mostly rely on a constant flow from veg space to flo space or the root/cloning selection made directly in perpetual as well. The structural leverage being the number of seeds launched, not the length of the total timeframe of the round.
This little practical digression is not a ‘magic’ trick to operate. If your breeding plans are not fucked constantly and in the need to be recompiled maybe two or three times … it’s more the proof that your ego is a planet. And that you don’t map shit lol
Never give up on the methodism and if you lose the North, just don’t throw the compass you’re reading badly. Simplify the ride. Even from one round to another, better to lower a bit the ambitions on the number of traits worked than blindfolding yourself in thinking to have mathematically more chances with less work.
The more you're mapping, the less you're fighting.
May the third revision of this be the good one. Not easy to share my point without influencing, even a case study don’t work. What is failing or working for a given breeder isn’t necessary what is failing or working for all others, on top of this.
So let me be a bit caricatural with some stereotypes binded with known names. The most important isn’t my grid or reading but more the symptoms they are picturing.
The Simon's syndrom
At one point you just want to be the most competitive, as a complete offer, then let the world know it trought some prizes.
But the efforts deployed at this point aren’t innocents either, and keeping around 30 years straight a F1 isn’t necessary included in the initial breeding plan.
You’re identified by your classics at their golden age and everything new you make is supposed to be better.
At one point you have to plan the end of a line, as its replacement on the same battleground.
As well that you have to be aware of the cost of your grade/standard in term of logistic/lab. Better to close a label for a cheaper offer than downgrading it.
Everybody isn’t Simon, but the ballistic is quite interresting even for an hobbyist.
It teach that a high level of breeding isn’t something engraved in the marble, it have to be maintained and refined just like a breeding material.
The Luc's syndrom
I don’t see much people talking about this grid of his genetics, but for me his catalog of weed was the most creative and diversified of the moment.
Then he transformed fully the catalog in fems, seeing only the logistic gains and not the shadows of the original weeds that we are smoking now.
The guy is known to don’t be philantropic, but in falling from the lead of creative weeds to a grade barely equivalent to a wholesale offer … that’s a bunch of money lost for just a rush of maybe two years top.
The lesson again is the scale and the pertinence of an offer. A label running at 75% in R&D with high standards and a complex library should have satellite cheap projects feeding the beast.
Sensi Seed dial it per strain with their volumes, each line can almost be considered as a label on its own. Specially now that the lead breeder is officially delocalized in Thailand ^^
The Daniel's syndrom.
After a dedication to an unique phenotypic singularity, the giant finish to obtain something that will tint close to the entire genpool over decades.
The first problem being too right too soon, and to rush like the wind with only a prototype in hand. I pass on the momentum with sagarmatha and dutch passion, it’s the consequences to run blindfolded.
Taking the time to stabilize the main strain while mapping the market is a more safe move. Better to be the one offering the best hybrids of the reference than letting it to the competitors.
In a perfect world, it fuel the R&D to reproduce the exploit in better conditions but with a new set of traits. In mapping the motherline, and in edicting from this a reliable method for further prototypes.
The Montgomery's syndrom.
He was a kind of american version of Luc, with opposite strategies. Even in business. I like to think that the guy set 20 years ago what will be the skeleton of a myriad of little labels.
The concept is quite simple and very demanding at a time. Investing fully a sedentar pollen donor (a male) or a pollen receiver (a female) and declining it with all cuts around. Hyped for sure, but not only. Unknown cuts of grow ops are equally valuable if not more ^^
The demanding part is the heavy logistic required to handle such a very dynamic genpool … and to constantly renew it without having the time to generate something really. A small discussion was born from it, avd the context wasn’t different that a little hand of the EU industry : constantly rushing, expanding genetics needs and externalized libraries. The big difference being a strong online presence and community management (then the exposition) … for too similar incomes. I let you meditate on this.
It was a reliable strategy 20 years ago, when US breeders were quite absent here from the market in term of comparative weight. The exotism of “styled” catalog worked well with cycles of customers.
Now Humbolt (not CSI) is a kind of ambassador like Barney in the other side. White labels model took the lead and there is more little labels that we ever known before.
My point is that in a saturated and indecise cycle, the last thing you want is to be “another one”.
You want to specialize in a cut and drive your genpool this way in this context ? Don’t be this electrical switch of the market sincerely.
With mileage, you see weed’s waves like seasons. At the difference that you never know what will be the weather of the season.
In the absolute, any line worked with cares will have its time at one point. And at worse, it become an asset for the numerous Montgomerys.
Think ecosystem, fresh meat. The most important for you is to survive in a darwinian game and to last enough to muscle constantly your game. You can even become a senior at it if it please you enough.
Now, if i promote so much unique pairings in genpools it’s simply to increase the resilience and also to lower the exposition to cycles.
Conclusion
I took the example of four succesfull examples to neutralize all tentatives to think that there is a better way than another.
And what is the more interresting in successfull models imho, it’s their flaws. Like in genetic lol
Now these stereotyped examples are for me categories seen since a while now on the battleground. There is too much occurences, beneath the personal stories, to don’t learn from it.
Mapping your stuff isn’t a binary choice. It should be linked with the necessity to understand a trait and its occurencies. So the scale of the grid used too.
But if you want to pass the substainability point of your genpool, there is no way to dodge it even for BX programs.