It’s about this stable female (screened but not tortured) that turn the progeny in a shit show of herms.
Also this male that wasn’t your favorite but the only one alive, that turn the progeny in neuronal laser beam. But also about this pairing of specimens that turn colors ON during the flowering stage, without any momentum in each P(arental)-line with leave’s coloration.
They possess latent traits not expressed directly but that can generate a dynamic for the genotype. Maybe it look like frightening but it happens sometimes, and also the occurrences decrease drastically with the knowledge you have of the line. Latent don’t mean necessary hidden forever.
Again, it’s not specially a personal slang.
And it’s maybe the more frequent phenomenon we are encountering with cannabis-breeding but also the most ignored in debates generally. I passed a good time to find the best angle to expose it progressively … very hard task without any interaction actually. I will try to do it progressively, but in the reverse sense finally : from the breeding equation to the chromosomes. Let’s try this lol
This is the case, not so much build from scratch. It’s too long to construct entirely an example and i need to keep the mind quite busy today (motafoka pain).
You have both side two lines built from pure recessive phenotypes of the same initial line (RR for those that read the section). Both lines can be considered as homozygous recessive at their stage (crushed by any dominance test in F1), little to zero variation in progeny and very predictables with inbred combos.
The goal of the encounter was simply to streamline the potency on a more balanced “upgrade”. The line B lack of brutality (high spikes), the line C lack of productivity (time to sog it & yield). Then the breeding plan was to work on this balanced “growth pattern” average to increase again the overall level of potency (indefinitely ^^).
And this was the bad surprise on a strain i was knowing quite well, with a decent momentum. The only part of the goal filled was the productivity that was transfered like a copy/paste.
The parallel equation of this productivity was a potency lowered below the averages of both lines, with a ceiled experience that don’t even define the strain itself.
And as epiphenomenon : terps so much narrowed on the limonene of one part that the smoke was crazily “zesty”, suddenly three times stronger than the line B was able to produce.
Being not specially less stubborn than the average chunker, i broke my teeths on this during a good year with different selections of each part. With the same result only slightly changed by the different strategies adopted.
Simple breeding trick to be rightly stubborn : when something refuse to follow the safe patterns you know well, don’t focus on what is “wrong”. But the reverse. In this equation, the “wrong” was the diversity of foliage produced by the encounter of the two lines. The “good” was the increased and narrowed terps.
And it’s how these two lines really worked together. And it’s also where a chromatography or a PCRs can be rightly used, as a tool that can erase the necessity to shoot around empirically to dodge the walls. If screening quantitatively with these tools is a trap, to magnify a screening with it can be powerful.
I took the hard way (empirically) with this cross, so the theoretical reasons can be various :
- the reinforcement of this specific terp generated a saturation that broke the potential in the chain of the chemotype, plants being unable to process such level (increasing the stock perceived drastically)
- who the fuck know … ^^
Sincerely, it’s far enough to understand that you’re in front of a latent traits. And to work accordingly.
I just overcomed the problematic in considering the Line B as a representative problematic of the strain itself, then in splitting the Line C in two dedicated selective pressures (productivity/potency). Sometimes you can’t have the max of everything, and you need to focus on your priorities to keep your lines in a constant evolution.
Cannabis breeding is mostly a recessive breeding affair, we search constantly the rare exceptions to make new genotypes from it. This simple dynamic generate more vicious latent traits behind the scene that we permit us to consider. Let’s dig the sequence now.
Under the “initial line” group : the inherent balance given by the genotype, what define “the strain”.
You can see that one latent trait is already present (=already mapped), i will speak in this case about a given potential obtained by a given selection on a given segregation. Heavy sentence, but it’s important to put all factors of this relative equation on the table. The journey was almost the same that the deleterious “heavy limonene”, made from tries and fails. Breeding, after all, is all about drawing a map of a labyrinth. But there is not only one minotaur and you’re your own ariane’s thread.
Line B and Line C weren’t the only variations possible amongst the inbreeding segregations. Just dedicated as the “yield” line and the “potency” line.
You can see also a true use of the mendelian laws, considering the game of dominances only by the perspective of a given version of the genotype and by the efforts of stabilization. No punnett square here ^^, just dirty hands.
Don’t mind about the LOCI1, it’s an arbitrary name for the simplicity of the example.
Just remember that the loci is codified as well, it’s a GPS coordinate of the DNA. Like with any other DNAs, there is patterns of arrangement sharing the structure. Loci X responsible of traits XYZ, Loci Y responsible of traits ABC etc … and shared by a more global genotype : “the cannabis” over the strains.
The image show in fact three tries over three different balance of the female, and one year wasted at it too lol Considering initially the bad culprit, i just turned in circle with the same results. Then i just modified the selection of the male on a more intense “backwood terps”, that lowered the “heavy lemon” effect. I’ve also crossed it to a GHSC Lemon Skunk (kind of BX for the initial strain) to validate the presence of the secondary latent trait making the mess.
To debunk this kind of worry, you can also simply self a mother if the line is not too much radically screened in term of herms. It’s efficient and fast, and you see directly the latent trait expressed even if diluted a bit by the process.
Let’s make a synthesis now about the telescopic Locis, more at DNA level.
LOCI1 Female and its genes
- high lemonene : initially Recessive, stabilized in an artificial Dominance (if BX on the initial generation, it vanish), homozygous (the whole progeny have this trait at different levels of intensity)
- long lasting : initially Dominant, staying Dominant only by maintenance, initially homozygous
LOCI1 Male and its genes
- long lasting : initially Dominant, staying Dominant by maintenance, initially homozygous
- hard hit : initially latent, artificially Dominant, linked trait of “backwood terps”
- backwood terps : initially Dominant, increased Dominance, linked trait of “hard hit”
- high lemonene : initially Recessive, artificially latent and insuring a drastic increase of lemonene rates in any progeny in using a female already Dominant on this trait => being one of the specimens dominating its generation on this trait.
Conventionally it’s better to speak about the “alleles” (variation of a gene) for the “backwood terps”/“latent lemonene” state and its heterozygous state. But for a farmer, it’s a bit more complicated practically. If you note it the right way, it will give :
BT/BT (backwood terps ON), with homozygous results (they aren’t outside a strict spectrum of selection)
hl/hl (high lemonene OFF) with heterozygous results (because absent in favor of BT)
… then BT/hl. Far more mnemonic and compliant with the reality. Even if practically, it’s not the entire truth like just saying that the limonene trait is a latent alternative of “backwood terps”, this last being directly linked with the “hard hit”. It put better on the table the cascading problematic to face.
I like to call this kind of latent trait, a “catalyst”. Because it work in both sense :
- it permit, in being extinct, to express the “hard hit” linked with the “backwood terps”
- it permit, in being active, to increase suddenly the averages if stacked with an homozygous “lemonene trait”.
This kind of problematic is more frequent that it look, even if dealing with a double latent trait is uncommon. I met a couple of fem-pissers (when i was one) asking me some “secret sauce” to can output credible stuff with a lot of difficult cuts. When i answered “momentum + the exact content of this section”, they still thinked i was not willing to share a kind of universal trick for all cases.
Sincerely, with this section + the “homozygous/heterozygous” section, you have enough datas to deal with the “secret” that don’t fucking exist.
So beware of conclusions that are too fast, often it’s all about a latent trait you have not mapped yet.
Building a notation system take time, and refining it never really end. But it’s initially just about noting a trait and eventually its variation. Let’s see some examples as an intro to this sport.
Let’s consider a strain like the White Widow GHSC for a first layer of notation : the first move is to define a genotype by its singular traits. For this strain :
- dense trichome coverage : “dtc”
- bushy short stature : “bss”
- ready in 50-60 days : “r55”
- resistance to various predators : “res”
Now let’s establish a priority among these traits, to identify what is really defining the strain :
- dtc : It define the strain at the point to have been named after this, we are in front of what i will call a fundamental trait, a trait that define the soul of the strain.
- bss : the shape being enough particular to be recognized and complementary with its pivot trait “dtc”, it should be considered
- r55 : finally a trait with a secondary importance, it exist various strains flowering between 50 and 60 days and it don’t really define the strains outside statistics.
- res : the resistance to a particular predator is enough characterized to be present in the main trait, a global resistance even more
The design represent a specific moment of this line in the journey, not necessary a hidden message or a free publicity ^^ But the manner to determine a strain by its primordial traits, even for something know widely is not an innocent affair.
It’s how “Fuel is perceiving” this line genetically, how he’s resuming it and how he will handle it among rounds of selection. And it can vary, i knew a Swiss that handled it in a different notation, more a “DTC-SSMK-VIG” : Dense Trichome Coverage - Sweet Smoke - Vigor".
Now you know that codifying the traits of a given line is an important step without even a hint of breeding involved, it determine what you’re perceiving as the “soul” of a strain, and how you will maintain or magnify it. It permit also to determine the best mnemonic codes for your plant’s tags and notations.
My advice : try to resume the strains with three pillars that are very proper to the line. And don’t avoid to qualify a shape because you find it too suggestive, it matter as well.
By example i find the NL#5 “majestic” in grow, and most of the time it’s also shown in F1 progeny. It’s a trait on its own for me, made from multiple traits (internode length and type, leaves shape, flower’s type, pistil’s type, scents) that is hiding behind the NL#5 notation “MJST” for “majestic”. So a lead in the signature of all works i can do with this line : transmitting this shape among the two others pillars.
Let’s consider now a strain like the Jack Herer SS, the singular traits being :
- darwinian smoke : “dwsmk”
- long lasting potency : “llp”
- narrowed spades shape : “nss”
- ready in 80-90 days : “r85”
- best weed of the galaxy ^^ : “bwg”
“When Fuel reduce it” it become a DWSMK-LLP-NSS. The chemotype carrying ~60% of the whole genetic value, the shape ~30%.
I insist on the “Fuel said” in this section because it’s all about this : what is saying the strain to you and so, what will be your “signature” on this strain (a further section dedicated on this point is planned) . The difficulty being to put your ego aside, and to respect the strain for what it is.
By example, a bunch of little labels and Sensi Seeds itself considered this strain as greedy. Then generated a bunch of hybrids on the model of the Jack Flash.
It’s not my point of view and it’s factually not that hard to dial a JH for fat yield in indoor or outdoor conditions. This strain have this potential, but the space required is not in accordance with what can expect a commercial grow : fast turn over, a very high grammer/day ratio and below a mature height of 6.5".
So you see, you can even be against the world to consider a single trait determining a strain at the moment that it’s rational and justified.
Let’s play a bit now with these notations, with the help of a fat blunt of Big Bud S1F2 ^^
Finishing meanwhile to report plant’s tags, wet trim stats (ovm = operational vegetal mass), notes and enjoying the best wake & bake since a while. It’s not to crush your mind with it but to show you the ballistic of your notation system.
The best mnemonic sets will just colonize everything by themselves from plant’s tags to what you’re putting on the paper to concatenate the round. No matter how you’re building it, it should be enough solid to be specialized in one language per line in staying productive. You can’t write literature on a plant tag X thousands of seedlings.
On dates, i advice to keep the maximum number to 4 but to use all slots all the time as good practice either. Sowed date, 12/12 first day, senescence or harvest day … you have only one slot to be creative ^^
Now, back to the WW and the JH and let’s imagine than we handle the lines distinctively with a different strategy.
A single trait was chosen to be improved in each line, among the others linked traits characterizing the strain.
- “dense trichome coverage”, dtc, for the WW F1.
It’s a work that can be almost fully quantitative with a bunch of F1 in hands, selecting the most covered specimens to increase this trait don’t require to smoke the final product. It’s fully a selective pressure that require real time observation and answer to regimes/lights. It can be a single lucky shot as well than a long IBL to reach the limit of the genotype.
- “darwinian smoke”, dwsmk, for the JH F1.
It’s a work that rely entirely on smoke reports, and the map of linked traits with this specific chemotype : not creeper, saturating. It require a deep understanding of what constitute the “dwsmk” in term of botanic traits, and some tests on epigenetics leverages to find the toys for this. It’s doomed to be an inbred game where the map is drawn after each new step further.
The notation is also used to map a line or even a phenotype; it’s truly a cascading methodism. In this example, it stay on the subject and it’s all about increasing the density of trichomes globally.
Behind the graphic, a bunch of concepts but let’s focus on the practical side more. Hunting a WW or various WW is not a big deal, but most of the time it’s also talking about a first batch from 10 seeds to 100 seeds. At this scale the usual punnet square magically never work lol If you stay focus during this arid area coming, it’s a more industrial sight,even at little scale.
First big step to rightly understand : the standard.
The line is recognized for a given combo of dominants traits, with big chances to be linked : dtc (trichomes density) - bss (bushy shape) - res (pest & disease resistant).
The consideration of these three traits are alone talking each about three subgroups of a F1 genotype. Quite simple to expect on the scale that concern us the most :
- consider the standard of the line targeted in three strict points (at least). Just at this point it give you a lead on the axes of the work planned : each trait can represent its own sub-group interacting with one of the two others, or both.
“DTC” being the sole trait chosen for this project, it will be favored exclusively during the inbreeding process.
It’s a case of mono-hybridism, where a pure recessive “DTC” (the most covered at all costs) is hunted.
You can report to the JH F1,“DWNSMK” being hunted for the new F1. But it stay at this point a case of mono-hybridism too.
The four subgroups don’t represent only a variation of the trait worked, but also the case generally encountered in popping seeds : a narrowed zoom on something bigger and more balanced.
To pick your DTC pheno, you can choose it among a majority of DTC/bss/res (60%-100%).
Also from specimens carrying two opposites and expressing variations from DTC/bss (30%) and DTC/res (30%).
And also be enough lucky to find a pure recessive phenotype (10%) carrying the one of the best maximal trichome’s coverage of the generation.
This is three main axes you will encounter generally with 10 packs-100 packs, the best shot being to check all boxes to have more tactical choices.
If getting a sister and a brother 100% DTC is the best situation for the project, it can be also a “DTC/bss/res” female crossed with a “DTC” male as well.
Like also a “DTC/bss/res” female crossed with a “DTC/bss” male, that reinforce the shape, and the DTC as a linked trait of this shape.
- To make the WW F2 : Female (DTC/bss/res) x Male (DTC)
- To make the JH F2 : Female (DWNSMK/llp) x Male (DWNSMK/llp)
Both are worked to make dominant only one trait in the line, both are individually mono-hybridism.
When the new F1 line is created from a WW F2 Female (DTC) x JH F2 Male (DWNSMK), these two traits are chosen to be worked as a new standard for the hybrid : a DTC/DWNSMK line.
It make the JH x WW F1 line a case of poly-hybridism (more than one) and specifically a case of di-hybridism (two).
Not because the fresh F1 is constituted by two different lines not sharing a direct parent, because simply because two traits will be worked at a time.
The JH x WW F1 (DTC/DWNSMK) is a poly-hybrid like an eventual JH F3 (DWNSMK/LLP), or an eventual WW F3 (DTC/BSS).
And there is three cases where the term hybridism can take some disturbing sense :
- (not popular) Hybrids created by the number of traits stabilized : mono-hybridism, poly-hybridism (di-hybridism [x2], tri-hybridism [x3], tetra-hybridism [x4]…).
Please be the ones that make me proud lol and that are stopping their irrational rant about poly-hybrids. A dry IBL of 20 generations can be a poly-hybrid, it depend mostly on how much segregations of the genotype is generated by the work on a given number of traits.
If one take the WW to make it the most crystallized possible, at the sacrifice of all others traits, the WW DTC will be an hybrid in regard of the initial balance of the genotype, naturally balanced on three main traits : dtc, bss and res.
If one make a WW dtc x WW dtc/bss/res, it’s an hybrid engaging a new genotype too. Let’s say “DTC reinforced”.
- (popular) Hybrids commonly considered as two exogenous part of a F1, ponctuated by the expression “hybrid vigor” generally.
It’s a popular manner to describe the absence or the presence of the heterosis, simply. If 4 different lines were used to make the F1 in the pedigree or just 2, it’s not changing the status of the F1 : it’s an hybrid. Not a “poly-hybrid” that concern only the build of the line.
- (not popular) Hybridization generally considered at the specific case.
You can hybridize a portion of the DNA in using an exogenous portion of the loci, to highlight an amplification, to strictly create an artificial hybrid but also to simply watch a reaction while gamete are working.
You can hybridize two different species to make a new one : a GMO like the iranian cannabis is setting a parasite, the Agrobacterium rhizogenes, to improve the mass of roots promoting cannabinoids.
You can also hybridize two IBLs coming from the same initial line, one that carry purple colors on the whole plant and one that carry a specific terp profile … to make a “purple and tasty” hybrid of the two, that make it a poly-hybrid ^^.
The importance of your notation is a cascading matter, to the understanding of the concepts themselves. It’s important to bulletproof your system on the paper, and to verify if it can scale up and scale down on demand.
