That’s a one bigga spicey meatball , but I see it as a simple🧐 line breeding depending on the original strain ,i.e how loose or tight it was bred to begin with,so many whacky variables lol.
Hi jacking this thread to ask a breeding question - was the closest thread I could find without making a new one.
When you use two sister phenos (s2’s) - both used to produce seeds with using the same male - when you then bring it the offspring together from seeds made with those 2 sister plants… would the following seeds be f2’s even tho they were made from two ‘different’ moms - but being sisters.
What would these seeds be called? I’m assuming f2’s genetically?
Yes both the s2(well call blue dream) x with male(well call space queen) will make the f1 of dream queen since f1 is considered a new cross. Since both blue dreams were crossed with the same male your still playing with the same genetics,just another roll of the dice with em which should have equal genetic diversity since there was no other genetics in play so doesn’t matter if the seeds came out of plant 1 or plant 2 taking the mixed handful from both, the following generation will be f2
1 Like
Thanks for taking the time. This confirms my thoughts - just didn’t want to call something an f2 or use something as an ‘f2’ in a project to find out it’s not what I assumed.
This is what I needed.
2 Likes
Im going to offer a different opinion - I’d consider those F1’s. Even though they’re sisters, if those S2 mothers are distinct enough to work separately, when you cross them to the same male you’re still creating two distinct new gene pools, with separate genetic potential in each pool. Crossing one from each pool to the other would be a new F1 IMO but confusing situation for sure.
1 Like
eh… I would think it’s no different than if you did an “open pollination” with both sisters and the one male.
And the offspring would all be F1’s. I’d just keep the beans separate so you know which mom they came from. If both sisters were from the exact same parents, when you cross the offspring F1’s together, you’re making F2’s.
2 Likes
You’re bang on. I guess the point I’m trying to make is why cross two S2’s separately, and then cross the resulting offspring if those S2’s are homogenous? In that case, you’d just take the F1 offspring from a single S2 cross and make your F2’s.
Idk, situation as described (I’m imagining sister S2’s unique enough to work separate lines) would result in F1’s. If the sister S2’s are relatively homogenous I’d be calling them F2’s too.
By no means is this 100% the right answer this is actually a great debate
3 Likes
Def making me scratch my head a little more. I suppose because these sisters we’re totally different expressions hailing from poly parents. (but holding the exact same DNA) it does make the answer less clear. I’m thinking genetically they are ‘f2’s’ but maybe technically ‘cousin f2’s’ rather than true f2.
Guess I’ll be using the term cousins… because still not certain how to coin the term… haha.
1 Like
I guess the better question would be - do these ‘f2 cousins’ act in the same way as a true f2 generation? I’m assuming so, growing some out now will be able to have a better idea after exploring a bit more through this stock.
1 Like
Ah, but they wouldn’t be exactly the same, especially in the earlier filial generations because of recombinant genetics. Especially if these sisters came from unstabilized polyhybrid parents, there’s absolutely genetic variation in there. That would mean hitting these gals with the same male opens up two pools of new recombinant possibilities that may or may not be similar to each other. That’s why I’d consider them F1’s but I dig the “cousin F2” designation too hahah.
I would expect it to be pretty similar. The only difference being two mothers, you’re probably just looking at more total recombinant possibilities in those F2’s compared to a single mother, so probably a bit more variation depending on how many seeds you’re poppin’.
This is a cool debate I hope more folks chime in on this
1 Like
So many traps on OG ^^
It’s a bit unclear to me, so i will burst-shoot with a 12 gauge.
First thing to take in count : Selfing a specimen doesn’t eradicate the initial genotype and its dynamics.
It just reduce the spectrum of further expressions to the genetic potential of an unique specimen. And it don’t mean “reduced to an unique expression/phenotype”.
example : Sister A1 F1 produce the A1-S1 line. But genetically the line is already a F2.
And it’s truly impossible to explain to a majority of “quicksilver hunters” that are asking stable fems for yesterday. Zero sarcasm, i swear. They are generally firmly convinced that only owning the expensive cut is enough, and that everything else is BS to ask more time (so money). In general they are also convinced that they are the only ones having this idea since decades. I digress.
The “S1 condition” is more prevalent than the “F2 condition” in considerations because it modify the dynamic of segregation. But it don’t eradicate it, these S1 stay in the tail of the F2’s comet, with its dynamics.
If it’s not enough homogeneous in S1(F2) and then you push in S2 … you will produce F3.
S1 is a generic term. You can make S1-F2 (reversing a F1 female on herself), S1-F18 … you can even mix and go crazy : reversing a S1-F2 on the initial cut, making a S2-BX1 from a F2 of the same cut ^^
So if you reverse the line “Sister A1 S2-F3” on the line “Sister A2 S2-F3”, you get F4. The lines are not enough segregated at this point to be a true headache to evaluate.
Correct.
But if you buy a pack of fems and use one female of this pack on a male, you get the same thing. Something that don’t pass my door ^^
Actually not. They are pretty much distant in term of diversity at long term.
They are sharing the same initial genotype, but they don’t “carry” the same genotype as potential.
It’s like twos identical cars in everything, but with an unique motor that must be refilled with an unique gasoline specially made for each.
I’m only in discomfort with this last sentence. That’s only three generations from the source, it can be accomplished indoor in less than a year. Too short to be really considered as a three-way procedure, even if in the absolute i don’t disagree. But my hands are refusing that.
In this exact case, yes. Only one source of pollen, it’s an useless waste of time to organize twos individual rounds. But with only one source of pollen, can we really call it an open pollination ? ^^
The whole method don’t have any sense to me, but i’m always happy when people are experiencing something with seeds at the end. Let’s say it’s to make an hemp hybrid, it make all of that a little more logical.
When you’re selfing a specimen it’s generally to “freeze” a phenotype in the timeline of a genotype, with efforts that only go in the sense of a stabilization. The last thing you want is the mess of an hybridization after the stabilization ^^
I think that it’s better and faster to generate the potential before, to extract the best compromise from it, then operate directly backcrossing/selfing that is leading to the final stage only. Like the “making of” of the ST#3 ^^
These twos S2-F3 lines will have an ambivalent behavior genetically.
No, they will not act as a strict F3 parallel line : Just because you have replaced the diversity by a specificity. The line and its genetic potential is restricted by an unique female. Let say “produced” to make the things more smooth.
Yes, because this specificity is made from a given diversity that have its proper dynamic : If the initial source of genetic is globally prone to mold, the process of selfing will not change anything to that without a propre selection … before.
It can save his ass later, i can eventually agree on that.
He said that the females was very distinct, but even in this case there is a lot of chances that he have locked shared traits between the lines. Selfing a specimen stay a hardcore protocol, it’s not an innocent output at the end.
Even if these poly-hybrid are perpetual F1 since a big time, the chances to drastically improve the occurrences linked with vital functions are big enough to shuffle the cards again when these twos will produce a common genotype. In a way, the dynamic of the selfing process become cumulative, then create new restrictions to study. Again.
That’s another problematic point to rightly share. It cost a bunch of rounds/space to be able to get the ratios of the lines (basically the knowledge of the strain). Because before this point, the number of seeds launched are deciding the ratios.
If you’re a freak, you have already understood the underline.
But a pure phenotypic approach can be valid if you restrict your spectrum of action to something rationnal with your context. You want something that grow fast, with decent yield, nice taste and a good stone.
So start directly with something that grow fast with decent yield, nice taste and stone. Then push only the parameter that is the most important for you. Only your errors and failed lines will help you to realize how many leverages are under an unique “stoner’s trait”. Just enjoy the journey, and never accept a generation with averages below the reference. Do it again from the error, don’t be badly stubborn. Be rightly stubborn.