You hooked me Mc, can’t throw in germination the seeds bag lol GJ ^^
So pretty much every time you cross something for the first time it will have heterosis? That goes against what I had previously thought of as fundamental fact. Oh well, if you are right then that “fundamental fact” is getting tossed in the garbage. Viva knowledge!
We can discuss more in details these fundamental laws you’re talking about, but in a way yes from the abstraction to the farmer it exist the life. And life is chaos ^^ I don’t known how to say it the best, how i feel it. It’s more a sport, a training of yourself for faster adaptation.
I will say yes for your question, but because i understand what you mean now. But I will say take care about this sentence, she can push you in hell like a beautiful succubus. I will try to enter more en depth but it’s freaking hard with my simple english. I can’t play with nuancies.
For this exact consideration only, you have now to think about the distance of each blood in question (in term of quality). Then consider now than the heterosis can have different level of torque. Just like a blender on which you have different speed. If it turn very slow, the blend will be gross. If it turn very fast, you will have an homogeneous paste.
So you have the strain AB and the strain CD, lets dance you make your cross and get your F1 ABCD. You store it in a corner and keep in mind than you want to find a high potency donor (don’t think about that, you’re lazzy and no IBL lol, more simple for the example, for the moment).
You finally found the strain EE a day, then you relaunch the project and make another F1 ABCDEE. Let’s say to be more close to a real reality (lol) than you lost in the process the “BC”. In fact you don’t lose it, it’s just hided. Latent.
So you end with a ADEE. But you like this hint of B and this hint of C than the heterosis have flushed.
So you will try to make this heterosis less agressive and naturally you will search a BCEE strain to cross with your ABCD. Kind of backcross right ? ^^ Yes but will end in a F1, the heterosis still here with the EE in blood.
But if you take a BCEE and a ABCD than come from the same breeder and created near the same period, the EE blood will not weight enough to produce a decent heterosis and we will more talk about a “barely” BX more than a true hybrid.
And finally the case where i feel you want to come : IBLs.
After many fails to outcross your weak but delicious ABCD, you finally decide to split it in twos lines and to take the hard way.
One than you will work on potency like crazy (killing everything not “stronger” than your ABCD F1 reference female) and one than you maintain and stabilize as it with the minimum lose on taste/odor/whatever.
So the ABCD#1(maintain) and the ABCD#2(potency).
After let’s say the F6 (because you like it, i don’t have any rationnal reason to say F6 lol) and constant efforts, you finally got your potent ABCD#2 and maintained your ABCD#1 well. The #2 look like shit and taste nothing, but she send you to orbit. You win. It’s time to make the #12.
The offspring is F1 ? No, it’s a F7. But you have a kind of heterosis like an F1. Don’t hit the wall with your head, and jump on some papers about cow breeding for milk production. They are easy to digest and they explain you well what is a 3way or a 4way methodology.
From what you are saying it makes me think that the F1 hybrids become P1 the moment you cross them. Is that true?
No matter what, your initial couple are the P1 of the line. If you change the line, you change the P1. If you change your P1, you’re changing your line. It’s just a notation to don’t mix specimens and to spot fast by the name which one have maded a line, it don’t involve any method or technic at all.
[(P1ab x P1ac)x(P1ab x P1ac)]
I got it now where you want to go. My previous answer on it was out of context, so lets complexity a bit the answer ^^
P1a x P1b = F1 → F1ab
F1a x F1b = F1ab → yep
F1ab x F1cd = F1abcd → yup
F1a x F1a = F2a → F2aa (^^ i known, but it’s very important)
F1ab x F1ab = F2ab → F1aabb (same)
Good luck to select the twos last ones without a good background on each side ^^ It mean a good number of rounds or enough generation before to map the segregation at work. We are talking about a type of work i respect a lot, being personnally mainly in favor of true 3way/4way final hybrids. But i don’t dislike perpetual F1 too than are literrally exploding of gens, rich at the point to mutate by the heterosis sometimes. Fine BX project too chiselled like a jeweler … well in fact i like works than mean “years of focus” ^^
it appears that F1abcd has several magnitudes more variation than F2a
It’s when i generally fight with the Punett chessboard lovers. You can’t known at this point, but i will explain me this time because you have started a very nice discussion and than my seeds are not soaking yet lol good sign ^^
If A is a very dominant line used as cement, and if BCD is a blend of weak recessive elite cuts … you driving to a wall at high speed. I can write a dozen of pages like that with one unique case per line. And it’s what Punett’s lovers never understand generally, at one moment the background of what you are hybridizing have more importance than pure logical deductions. Never forget at any moment Darwin and than life is chaos, battle and generally unexpected combinations than explain an environment. Not the reverse.
F2a, and F2ab has more variation than F1
Yes, but because the heterosis play as a cement and in a way as a recombination agent. But you can encounter unstables F1 or lines than are stable and appear like clones until the F4 … the background one more time;
So simply saying that F1 or F2 has less variation is not correct as either can have more or less variation, depending.
I can’t say it in a better way than you.
Does using the term H1, H2 and so on to define a polyhybrid make sense in this case, for the sake of clarity?
In all honesty, for me no. Because i think than it add a layer of useless complexity on an allready complex notation and abstraction. But it’s not wrong in the strategy, it’s an addition. Being myself juggling all year long with polyhybrids, i have no utility to add it in my notation.
I respect all personal methodologies if they give constant results. The sacred truth in the bud to be accurate. If it sound good for you and than you feel than you can obtain fire weed in thinking your notation this way … just go ahead for a stress test in action. In anyway, if you start the game you’re at the very begin of a lot more methodological stress tests ^^
I want to finish on the :
F1a x F1a = F2a → F2aa (^^ i known, but it’s very important)
F1ab x F1ab = F2ab → F1aabb (same)
Why i’m using “stack” in my notation, it’s because it matter when you use a database. I will try to simplify at maximum an example to give you an idea of the thing.
A x A : AA, warning AA is not 2A.
With each cross under the belt you will quickly understand than you can’t stack what you’re selecting, even with a backcross program. There is only one place for twos and you want than the weaker/baddest give his place to the best.
To note AA instead A permit to evaluate how much you must insist to print something but also what you are losing for it.
I’m sure you get it ;o)