Quantity Vs. Speed :-D

Breeder's Lab
1

Just some thoughts…

Perhaps a lot of breeders emphasize(d) line-breeding generations as quickly as possible and select from populations that are far too small, creating the genetic “bottleneck” of the present?

Is it essentially detrimental over the long-term to select a subpopulation from small samples?

Should the focus/emphasis be on much larger tests & trials?

Since pollen is easily distributable, could that be a basis for a distributed/cooperative, OG-style project creating a much wider & more varied population(assuming that’s the goal)?

Combined with tissue-culture clone distribution?

:evergreen_tree: I dunno what the goal is :zzz:

6 Likes
2

Absolutely agree with the whole post.
One on one breeding requires knowledge of all the potential faults in the genetics, so more plants that fit a certain description in a project will make up for those traits that you would prefer to steer away from.

There’s open pollination but there’s also the option of doing multiple parallel (sp?) lines of the same family and regular intercrossing.

6 Likes
3

Any seeds produced by man are seeds that would not have existed otherwise, with combinations of genes that likely would not have occurred in nature. It is difficult to imagine this being detrimental to the gene pool. If I breed a single “Pineapple Express” male with a single “OG Kush” female, how does this affect the parent lines? How pure and stable were the parent lines to begin with? Are they not still available?

The goals of the breeding “project” form the context in which questions like this can be answered, and the answers will vary in equal scale to that variability of context.

7 Likes
4

Selecting from small populations does not cause bottlenecking. You can bottleneck genetics from large populations… or any number of plants at the same rate if you are only selecting from one male and one female each generation. You have more selection capability with large populations, and can likely produce better results. But large vs small population, both can be bottlenecked equally.

Bottlenecking is mostly being caused by the clone culture – the fact that people are passing around exact genetic copies of single plants, and then hyping them up through things like cups. Think about how many hands have changed GSC “Forum Cut”. That’s one plant… now bred into half the strains being sold in the North American market.

Prevent bottlenecking by starting to breed from seed instead of just clones.

Edit: I should also point out that the phrase “bottlenecking” is being used in 2 different contexts. Bottlenecking genetics when you’re line breeding is a good thing, because that’s just the process you use to create a stabilized strain. You don’t want a ton of completely different plants popping out of your seed population.

But I think you’re talking about bottlenecking of the larger strain population. This definitely happening in the North American markets, because of mass clone distribution. I think the real question is how much of a problem this is.

13 Likes
5

Where’s my badge notification?! :joy: :hugging:

Thanks for the input folks. :wave:

I guess I’m trying to understand if I should divert or change course with a plant.

What I’m sensing though is that there should be no hurry to get to F5, (in my case) especially when beginning with a single sibling pair of one male & female.

What should have been done was to open pollinate from the first seed pack, THEN select 2 keepers? I have the mother and pollen but abandoned the male. :unamused:

Suddenly considering a “selfing” of that mother plant. Hmmm. :thinking:

:cherries: :strawberry: Oh what to do… :smile:

:evergreen_tree:

4 Likes
6

Exactly, rushing forward is no sure way to reach a goal faster.

There’s no reason you have to limit each generation to a single pairing either. On the contrary, it would be far more productive to test multiple batches of seeds from different pairs in each generation before choosing new parents to continue the project

6 Likes
7

Natural selection would normally be an entire population randomly making seeds, at most even large breeders would be selecting from dozens. So attributes that may not be desirable to us may become dominant if it means surviva/seedingl is enhanced.
Where it gets tricky is with lots of genetic variation, attributes can seem to appear out of nowhere, which to a breeder may be gold, but to joe public it can be a PITA.
This bottleneck is selected for, as in it’s the attributes we breeders have chosen as preferable.
In field crops the sample size for any breeding project can be thousands of phenos and they are tested for years before they hit the market. It’s a problem because what breeders want, and what commercial growers want are normally pretty different. For example many of the ‘cash crop’ strains peeps grow tend to be about yield and speed, wheras most of the strains I personally like would have little commercial viability.
There is no law as far as I know that makes pollen swapping illegal, at least in the country I live. I’m really liking this idea.

6 Likes
8

Also consider the history of weed as one of the MOST hybridised plants on earth. Even so called landrace strains would have changed substantially over time and will have adapted to their environment. When it comes to ‘pure’ genetics, it’s all relative.

4 Likes
9

I really dont think its a major issue because there are sooooo many seeds out there now.
If legalization happened 20 yrs ago wed all be fucked and stuck with a few select strains. At least thats what theyre attempting here in Canada but its too late.

4 Likes
10

You’re on the right track. If you can’t run large numbers at once, you can still run large numbers over time. If you reduce the bottlenecking rate when you stabilize, then it will take more generations to converge… But you’ll be able to do more selections as well.

To reduce the bottlenecking rate, you can run seeds off of your two best female plants or two best male plants (or more if you feel that multiple plants have different desirable attributes you eventually want). But try to eliminate at least 50% of the genetics from the pool each generation.

You just have to change your view of how you’re breeding. Instead of trying to find the “perfect plant” all in one run, identify the traits you really want to keep from different plants, and continue those in your line. It might be harder to identify and preserve recessives, but ya gotta do what you can with the constraints you’re afforded…

Alternatively, you can get a bunch of seeds from your 1st run and grow males only next run until you find a good one. Then preserve the pollen and grow females next. That will effectively double your numbers within a single generation, but you’ll have to suffer through an all-male grow.

6 Likes
11

Oddly enough this is where selfing can come in handy, a lot of people think that recessive genes are a negative minefield and it’s true that selfing can result in negative recessive genes becoming dominant, but this can also be a good thing if that recessive gene is something you want.

6 Likes
12

Perhaps a lot of breeders emphasize(d) line-breeding generations as quickly as possible and select from populations that are far too small, creating the genetic “bottleneck” of the present?

Lefthandseeds have allready well covered a good answer in twos times but i will be less diplomatic : the type of demand of these last years have drastically reduced the angle of the genetic prospection. And it’s always a bad sign at long term, like in many domains.

Is it essentially detrimental over the long-term to select a subpopulation from small samples?

Not at all. It’s more a question of methodology used and time spended to do it.

Large crops in our industry are mainly used to produce. Not to select. You can always find rare exceptions, but they don’t have any weight on a worldwide balance.

I have a shared view on this (technically), but at the end i find it positive because it can push people to be more responsible and creative with the genpool. Which is an heritage, nothing less and nothing more.

To be frank and honest 100%, i only use fresh pollen “from a living plant” and i never stock it. The comparison between a line created with a fresh pollen from a living plant and a line created with the same pollen stored, in term of phenotype’s occurence, is my personnal reason to do it. But in another hand i don’t consider than pushing all lines to high inbred levels is the only way to do something, this type of share can be very valuable for creative hybrids, prospection and education to the “core lines”. So in this equation and to my eyes, this type of project have more value for the community than it offer disadvantages in a very specific context.

Combined with tissue-culture clone distribution?

I’m not attracted by this method of production by habits and the inherent speed of the proccess. But i firmly think than it can change the game, considering with faith in humanity the equation. It can also be used for mercantile reasons as a powerfully leverage to “bottleneck/narrow” more the offer than it’s already the case.

Open pollination don’t offer any help to maintain a line, it’s an old unicorn than a lot of people still have hard time to consider.

Parralel lines are used since centuries both in vegetal and animal reign, and have proven their efficiency in term of accuracy/stability/vigor delta.

I generally don’t like absolute considerations, but this one have echo in my brain ^^ Nicely said.

Pushing the st3 to F7 from ten packs of seeds took me … 12 years. And i will mathematically die before ending this project in the shape i was dreaming it in starting the F1. It’s something to accept, but it don’t mean than during the ride you will not be able to release competitive lines.

The saturation of the market with a narrowed genpool have advantages in term of competition, it offer a lot of opportunities for people than are constant and than don’t change their mind in function of the wind. The truth and the materialization of the efforts are always obvious in the buds, at least you can count on it.

Selfing is an experimental method to decypher an unclear equilibrium. Also to make money in a certain way lol
But it don’t have any value at long term for your genpool due to the inherent effect on phenotypes variations and sexual expressions. A simple backcross have more value at long term, if well drived in term of selection of the successive offspring.

“Selfing for stable breeding” is another unicorn for me, abusing people than don’t have the backward off long term projects.

You’re too absolute, it’s a trap face to the plants. Natural selection is not a magical spell than never fail. It’s exactly the reverse, for one successfull-resistant line you will have a “genocide” as the price. In term of time we are also speaking about multiple human lifespan.

IF the genetical code of the line permit it only. Most of the time it just extinct after a long fade.

I say that in loop but what professionnal breeders want are what people want, nothing more and nothing less. The junction between these twos universes is simply compatibility.

It decide if you’re an hobbyist making the weed you’re not able to find in the market, or a professionnal sharing it because there is a demand. The frontier is thin like an OCB, it’s absolutly not a dictatorial ground at all but more close to surfing lol You always have the waves than the ocean offer.

It’s also a mistake to think than cash croppers have so much influence. When you drive a M$ op, you’re also very dependent on the demand. You don’t really decide anything in term of genetic.

I can’t agree more, but it stay mostly a personal opinion related to the weed i’m loving.

You’re mixing a lot of things in this sentence.

By definition we are breeding pure recessive lines because we are mainly seeking exceptional phenotypes from a global potential. To keep it simple, it’s barely the equation of the wolves and the dogs.

Recessives and dominant genes are writed in the stone before you even think about breeding a specific trait. You’re just an explorer trying to find the eldorado.

Making a line “spider mite” resistant is a decent goal but in term of semantic it’s not really what happend. You’re just increasing drastically the chance to reproduce of the most “spider mite” resistant specimens in a given profile. With all the cascading effect it have at long term, than you’re trying to lift by all types of strategies.

Selfing is one compass to find this eldrorado like it exist hundreds of others, it will not change the genetical code in the way you think but only the occurences and their expressions. The differences of methods only decide where you are digging and how.

Hope it help, nice inputs

6 Likes
13

You always do! :smile: :wink: Nice to see you :wave:.

:evergreen_tree:

3 Likes
14

Hmmmm… :thinking:
Is that because the males are likely to add traits that would work against the breeding goals?

3 Likes
15

Awesome. Always good to hear from a pro :grin:

I suspect the real threat will come when synthetic seeds hit the market. These are simply micro shoots encased in a synthetic shell and they are not that far away from the big time. For large commercial breeders this will more or lest provide a way for them to ‘protect’ their IP.
It will also mean that a LOT of those years of careful breeding will be replaced by clones of the freak pheno that pops out once in a while. We can be all but guarenteed when this industry really reaches the mainstream companies like monsanto will be all over it like a rash. Now is the time to be storing good seeds IMHO.

6 Likes
16

:astonished: WTF is this s#it??!!

please elaborate… :neutral_face:

sounds terrible.

:evergreen_tree:

3 Likes
17

Snip//
Synthetic seeds are defined as artificially encapsulated somatic embryos, shoot buds, cell aggregates, or any other tissue that can be used for sowing as a seed and that possess the ability to convert into a plant under in vitro or ex vitro conditions and that retain this potential also after storage. In simple words synthetic seed contains an embryo produced by somatic embryogenesis enclosed within an artificial medium that supplies nutrients and is encased in an artificial seed covering.
The technology designed to combine the advantages of clonal propagation with those of seed propagation and storage. Also be as channel for new plant lines produced through biotechnology advances.
///Snip

http://www.agriquest.info/synthetic_seeds.php

Yep, scary huh, and not so far away. You can be guaranteed though that these will be an attractive option fro a LOT of home growers with no interest in making their own seeds. Imagine if every seed you paid for produced a carbon copy plant, all without the tedious long process of stabilising anything? It’s basically easily distributed clones and will be a disaster for variability.

6 Likes
18

This would imply that using this method, it would be possible to supply in ‘seed’ form plant variations that may have been the product of all sorts of screwing with the plant genetics, so where mutagenasis bought about by chemical or radiation might normally result in sterility and therefore limit the spread of a mutant plant, synthetic seeds will change this. Also consider it would be entirely possible to produce completely sterile female, and then to distribute it so none of use can breed from it. For us, it’s pretty much all bad.

4 Likes
19

Oh, it’s not that terrible. Essentially wrapping tissue culture into a stabilization/nutrient package.
E.g. Macro to micro: clone–>micropropagation–>tissue culture. Then, encapsulate the tissue culture.

But, yea, could be a large market if perfected. I’d think they would be environmentally sensitive and have a very limited shelf life (at the current state of the art).

image.png960×720 940 KB

7 Likes
20

Yeah. This may end up being the case. AS the article I linked to mentions briefly there are two types, dedicated and hydrated. I have no idea if MJ somatic embryos are tolerant of desiccation or not. I suspect though given that the seeds themselves are very tolerant of being dry that they may be. In which case they should be capable of having a reasonable shelf life. In some ways for the end use it’s ok, it’s just that it will corporatize the industry like any other agricultural industry and for those of us who like to tinker it will be a bitch.

4 Likes