F2s S1s BXs or IBL what does the community prefer?
- Thread starter greenghost420
- Start date
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you're thanking me for, but whatever it is, you're welcome.
With respect to Mr. Factsordie, despite our "disagreement", I think he does (albeit tangentially) raise a good point by Tom Hill.
Most breeders claim that they won't breed with feminized genetics, and say doing so is bad practice. I've heard any number take this position: The guys from DNA, Subcool from TGA, Kyle Kushman, Reddog of Sickmeds, etc. Kushman in particular is fairly hysterical about this. . .he says doing it is ruining the gene pool, etc.
Its my OPINION that there is no fundamental genetic reason why doing so should make any difference, so long as you otherwise use proper breeding practice along the way. I've stated this in the past in other threads, and its nice to see at least one knowledgeable pro in agreement.
Apparently not only does Hill hold this position, that its OK to breed with fems (including S1s), but that there can be certain advantages to doing so. Note that Hill is NOT saying that all S1s are automatically superior to the parent; clearly this is NOT true and even he says so explicitly. He's saying, in effect, that there can be some advantages to using S1s in breeding.
On his releasing "elites" in "clone" form, I looked a bit, but haven't been able to find any information on that. Again, if anyone has any, I'd love to see a reference. Instead, Hill has said that he is working on offering S1s of "elite" lines that if not absolutely inbred, offer minimal variation when released as S1s. Here is the scoop from his own mouth from last year:
So to be clear for those who might not understand what he's saying, Hill is collecting either inbred or nearly inbred "elite" lines, selfing them, and is going to release THOSE as S1s. He is deliberately avoiding making S1s from any "unstable" (ie heterozygous) lines, because those throw off multiple phenos and the results of that type of cross aren't compatible with his goals.
FactsorDie
New Member
JOGRO you skipped the most important question....WHAT STRAINS HAVE YOU CREATED and WHAT CLONE ONLYS YOU GOT IN YOUR GARDEN????
Your like a guy that works at car parts store and knows all the parts of a car but has know idea how to actually work on them.....
Your like a guy that works at car parts store and knows all the parts of a car but has know idea how to actually work on them.....
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
so if i worked a line to ibl, then selfed it, does that s1 act like the ibl?
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
Misspelled heckle from an elite hood-rat ... nothing new here.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's correct.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Wow, thanks for posting that.
The concept here is totally mind boggling to me. I didn't know anyone had managed to actually pull anything like this off with cannabis or anything else.
For those who don't quite understand the biology talk here I'll vastly oversimplify.
This is a sophisticated chromosomal trick that tries to artificially split the chromosomes of a "clone only" hybrid without altering them, then double each half to create novel new homozygous "parents". Assuming the process and selection are done correctly, not only will these separate parents themselves be perfectly true breeding, but crossing them will exactly replicate the original hybrid in as many copies (se-eds) as you like.
The first part of this is doubling chromosome counts in gametes (eg pollen), which is a trick to help prevent ordinary genetic recombination that occurs during gamete formation.
Anyway, this technique "should" be able to exactly replicate hybrid/heterozygous "clone only" lines in se-ed form. . .assuming anyone could get it to work.
I don't know if anyone has a proposed (let alone functional) protocol for actually doing this in cannabis, but as suggested earlier, doing this in the real world will have to to require a fairly complex set of techniques to pull off (possibly including tissue culture), specialized knowledge and some real lab infrastructure. A "legit" lab setting would probably make this a heck of a lot easier to do.
Anyway, my hat is off to Tom Hill and colleagues or anyone else for even TRYING to do this on their own outside of a legit research lab setting (assuming they are, actually trying it).
So far as I can tell, the approach is still mostly theoretical, but if anyone can actually pull it off, they deserve whatever the equivalent in the cannabis world is to the "Nobel Prize"!
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Well, I hypothesized it would be hypothetically possible before I ever heard about this technique (however I imagined growing out billions+ of plants, maybe in a test tube setting, to find these hypothetical pairs the really old fashioned way), the problem I see with it - and I think it's a potentially big one - are lethal recessives on one half of the chromosome. There's a pretty good chance that they will exist and as a result the potential parents might never be able to grow.
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
lethal recessives?
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
lethal recessives? that reverse engineering would change alot of shit.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Yup, like a recessive genetic combination where, for example, the stems cannot support any weight. That's lethal. I've seen it too. If you fuck your cousin approximately 1/6 of your offspring will die from a lethal recessive genetic trait - either immediately or somewhat down the road.
greenghost420
Well-Known Member
i see i see... good thing i dont have any cousins lol
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
There's a reason inbreeding isn't recommended to maintain good health.
MrEDuck
Well-Known Member
Some can be quite lethal. To use examples from human genetics the normal dominant gene that is responsible for red blood cell production is dominant while the sickle cell anemia gene is recessive. Individuals who are heterozygous for this gene has a marked increase in resistance to malaria. Individuals who are homozygous for teh recessive gene get an incredibly painful disease.
So hopefully we don't get too many recessives that are nasty stacked into one of the parents.
As far as S1s being like F3s S1s are like what you would get by crossing the parent with an almost identical sibling. While most F1s are true breeding for a few traits they're mostly going to be heterozygous so you'll get some stability in your F2s. But if you make an S1 from an already true breeding line you'll get the same traits that were true breeding in the selfed plant.
But when you cross the ibls you'd probably get some crazy hybrid vigor!
Jogro
Well-Known Member
In terms of theory, I think there is more than one way to skin this cat, but this way is particularly elegant, and relatively straightforward (if not actually easy). The reverse breeding technique to create artificial homogygous "parents" is just brilliant (or would be, assuming anyone could get it to work in the real world!).
Interference by lethal recessive gene combinations is certainly a possibility, but I don't think in practice that most strains carry them. If this were the case, these recessive phenotypes "should" come out in preliminary self-crossing to determine the suitability of doing this with any given strain. While there also could be workarounds to bad recessives in individual strain cases, probably the smarter thing is just to move onto genetically healthier "elite" lines that don't have them.
My biggest issue with this is that doing this would require a tremendous amount of technical knowledge, infrastructure, skilled labor, and time. Working out the protocol is going to be a technical challenge and expensive. . .and it might not work at all. . .at least not for years to come. Who is going to subsidize the cost of development here?
Industry certainly *could* do it, and the technique would have incredible commercial value (especially since it would be patentable), but not until there were some sort of legal framework so they could recoup their investment. It could also be done in a research setting with grant money, but again, not until there were some sort of legal framework allowing it. Either way, cost of beans is going to be absolutely astronomical for quite a while. Like any of these technologies eventually cost would come down to mass production/consumer viable levels, but I wouldn't expect that for a while.
