Seeds from F1s

misterdogman

misterdogman

Well-Known Member
born2killspam said:
Nice game-plan misterdogman.. As far as how long it will take, and how tricky selection is depends on the particular traits you wish to stabilize.. If you try for too many, you will likely lose them all unless you have unlimited breeding resources..
'True-breeding', and 'breeding true within a localized gene pool' are two very different things when it comes to hybridizing..
As for your particular confusion, crossing 2 random F1's will keep the genotypes in the population stable as per the "Harvey-Weinberg equilibrium", and thus will keep the statistical 'expression of phenotypes' stable.. Basically this means that you're naturally creating offspring with no propensity to alter the population over time, which is not 'selective' breeding..
See unless you have a plan to catalog the genotypes through observation of the phenotypes, then you are highly unlikely to obtain homozygosity for your desired traits (which is done through test back-crossing to the known genotype of the original parent)..
You really need to run through the punnet squares.. Understanding this will help with expectation..
Take your statement about the dominance of the auto trait.. In the simplest model where a single genetic marker is responsible for the trait as a whole you could have 4 genotype possibilities (AA Aa aA aa).. Within an inbred line, AA, and aa will 'likely' breed true.. Only
AA will 'likely' breed true through a hybridization, and Aa/aA are the result of yet another generation of heterozygous breeding..
Hopefully there is no autoflower heterozygousity within the reputable strain, but if the auto trait was the result of making aa homozygous, then it will likely be lost when hybridized with something other than its own gene pool..
Lastly, there really isn't an ABSOLUTE dominant, or recessive condition when you consider cannibis as a whole.. Dominance is a sliding scale.. Consider what would happen if you took two true-breeding strains and crossed them.. Real true breeding is all about the 'homozygous dominant' genotypes producing homozygous phenotypes, but what happens if you cross two plants both with conflicting homozygous dominant (or both with homozygous recessive genotypes for that matter)?? These traits will have to figure it out between themselves which trait is 'more dominant', or decide upon some codominance scheme (like red flower + blue flower = purple flower)..
Lastly, another possibility exists where many genetic markers are combined to for a trait.. When this is the case, its either much tougher to achieve a true breeding state, or you end up with a falsely true breeding trait that seems true breeding except for rare situations where recessive combinations still exist (analogous to the 25% aa comination, but much rarer.. Imagine a trait that only gets expressed if aabbccddeeffgghhiijj occurs.. There is roughly a 1:1000000 chance that that particular genotype would occur with absolutely no capital letters, so if a breeder was faced with that kind of situation it would be virtually impossible to spot the condition with any less than a few hundred square miles of breeding space.. Luckily traits are predominantly simpler than that though..
Click to expand...

This is a GREAT post and response. Thanks B2Kspam...this really clarified SO much for me and I actually think I learned more from you just now than Mendel and his peas taught me yet.... Actually everyone responding has really made me think about a lot this morning...Who has experimented with AFs at ALL??? How do we know they cant be cloned or crossed etc without trying...It actually really does make me want to experiment this month and see what I find over a year or so...and no ElBarto, I was being serious and sarcastic not sensitive...

What I meant was Technically we ALL can be defined as a genetic mistake whether we have good or bad traits...I.E. you may be fast and athletic but if you were trying for Smart and Technical offspring the dominant features albeit good would be considered flaws....this goes in reverse if your trying for Smart offspring and get a bunch of Jocks...any dominant feature can be considered a flaw depending on what your looking for...thats why I didnt understand why not try it with AFs because to me it isnt flawed its a whole new plethora of possibilities...nothing personal against you bro...you actually helped too...

Thanks for the input everyone...keep the fresh ideas coming.
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
Dominant undesired alleles, and coupled undesired recessives will both produce undesired results, and will be indistinguishable in the first generation.. To learn which one of those scenarios occurred, you will need to wait for the next generation atleast..
By analyzing the offspring, you can reverse engineer the parents genotypes..
If you start with 2 different true breeding homozygous plants, then they will work it out between themselves which parent will hold dominance for each trait.. That means that for each trait, one plant will be AA, and the other will thus be aa.. Each and every offspring will be Aa by genotype, and will express the dominant trait.. Any deviations will inform you that there is possible heterozygousity in the parents, and back-cross testing can be done with them..
Now breeding 'true F1's' should yield the 3:1 phenotype for each trait, and 1:2:1 genotype for each trait.. In this batch, by appearance it is impossible to tell which dominant expressions are homozygous AA, or heterozygous Aa/aA (just the same as when you weren't positive about the original parents homozygousity), but you can spot the recessive phenotypes (which must be aa).. By crossing the aa with its unknown parent, if you observe any recessive phenotypes in the offspring then you can know the parent was heterozygous..
So you can store dominant homozygous pollen, and dominant homozygous seeds, and you can deduce whether the genetics you have stored are truly homozygous by observing the offspring from other pollen/seeds from the same batch.. If they are infact homozygous and the start of an inbred line IBL then they should start to breed relatively true for the homozygous traits when using siblings for seed crops..
 
misterdogman

misterdogman

Well-Known Member
Well this is just too cool, Thanks for such detailed laymens terms...I know one thing this will prove. Im restarting with some new supposed f1 hybrid AFs and im going to actually fuck around with them and there is one thing I know it will show if I follow closely their breeding patterns...

I know I will soon see how homogeneous their parents are and indeed if their even f1s...if not after 6 generations or so some seedbanks selling AFs will have some expaining to do...

So when they take the lowryder and cross it to say AK47....in the description they claim they then inbreed it until the AK47 shows the auto gene...so in theory when they do this inbreeding arent they really stabilizing phenos for you...they had to do it for so many generations to get the auto gene anyway so most of the phenos get stabilized too on the way right??? Or is this as you said possibly a false sense of homozygous traits ...like it seems to be stable and homo but really isnt genetically.... because when you inbreed you lower the propensity to have change if the plants are siblings with identical genetics..., I see this in my dogs inbreeding but im trying to relate it to plants...am I close or way off base?

So really they are selling you F 6s 7s 8s and so on but they are saying F1s because they are giving you a stabilized version of the work they inbred...and then making it seed out and calling the stabilized seeds F1s...I dunno but I guarantee im gonna have fun messing with it.
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
Well, stabilizing is essentially back-crossing, and there are skewed definitions to terms like F#, P#, hybrid etc.. Some schools don't consider back-crosses with parents to be F(n+1)'s, others do.. Some schools only use the term hybrid, or F1 or P1 to refer to crosses of two true breeding lines, others are more lax.. And there are many other descrepancies.. More than enough for a seed seller to find an accepted interpretation that makes his claims legit..
Theoretically, anybody could create the truest F1's by simply buying a pack of Skunk#1 and Afgani#1 (Two famously true-breeding strains) and running a seed crop.. Good high profit in selling true F1's no doubt.. Whatever you want to call typical stabilized IBL's, they probably are atleast 6-7 generations in.. Good breeders will break up this cycle with fresh genetics every once in a while to prevent inbreeding depression.. That is a loss of vigor/desirability over too many generations like the royal family..:)
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
You should put it on paper now.. Which traits do you want to focus on locking in? Don't get too greedy on how many traits are critical to be true-breeding, the numbers required grow exponentially and you risk other important homozygous traits by stretching your resources too thin..
Flavor
Potency
Size
Density/Bud form
Odour
Stress resistance
Finish Time
All of those together is way too much work without a few fields and an Asgard cloaking device of some sort, so you need to make decisions before starting..
 
misterdogman

misterdogman

Well-Known Member
born2killspam said:
Well, stabilizing is essentially back-crossing, and there are skewed definitions to terms like F#, P#, hybrid etc.. Some schools don't consider back-crosses with parents to be F(n+1)'s, others do.. Some schools only use the term hybrid, or F1 or P1 to refer to crosses of two true breeding lines, others are more lax.. And there are many other descrepancies.. More than enough for a seed seller to find an accepted interpretation that makes his claims legit..
Theoretically, anybody could create the truest F1's by simply buying a pack of Skunk#1 and Afgani#1 (Two famously true-breeding strains) and running a seed crop.. Good high profit in selling true F1's no doubt.. Whatever you want to call typical stabilized IBL's, they probably are atleast 6-7 generations in.. Good breeders will break up this cycle with fresh genetics every once in a while to prevent inbreeding depression.. That is a loss of vigor/desirability over too many generations like the royal family..:)
Click to expand...
You have a way better way of explaining what im thinking than I do...lol. But yes I see this inbreeding depression in dogs...hence the reason after inbreeding a mom to son and his daughters to him and so on...after 5 years/generations you HAVE to outcross to a similar but at least 50% different bloodline to "freshen" up the old inbred blood.

In dogs who are infinitely different than plants outcrossing will cancel out the undesirable traits showing on the surface in the inbred specimen. Outcrossed puppies tend to be my best workhorses with the best of the parents traits and best stamina and overall ability come out in them...inbred dogs tend to have weaker immune systems and bone structure and over all inbreds have bad traits..

Its kinda like all the bad traits eventually show up in the 5x or 10x inbred dog.... but since they are on the dominant Allele or whatever when outcrossed to a similar but different line the bad traits on the new blood match up and cancel out, to my understanding this is what produces the desired workhorse with the best traits...kinda weird how something so good can come from something so messed up but genetics hides all the possibilities, you just need to find them...lol. Easier said than done obviously.

Man Rep to you because this really helps clear up the whole inbreeding and hybrid/F1 thing. I really think schools and scientist need to more closely define the P1 or F0 or F1 or 23456 thing...

If definitions and agreement were made among breeders/professors it would be much easier to understand and agree on what is what when breeding and back crossing etc....
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
One reason for that is negative recessive traits tend to come to the front after inbreeding a line.. Think about it, if (in the simplest scenario) a dominant trait gets expressed 3x as often, then through evolution a negative dominant trait is 3x as likely to kill off its host, whereas a negative recessive trait is 3x as likely to get passed to offspring with no negative trait expressed.. Obviously recessive expressions are more likely in an IBL since the chance of recessive homozygousity is higher..
In a way you want to approach this as if you were breeding dogs since you can't really maintain parentage for a huge number of generations.. The Mendellian stuff is pretty much the same regardless what you are breeding.. Feasible short-cuts/techniques are the only thinga that differ between plants and animals..
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
And actually its not only cannabis breeders who have bastardized the definitions.. Agriculture around the world has always had differences.. If the world hasn't decided on a common system for weights/measures, then don't get your hopes up on this..
Maybe one day most all the countries in the world will adopt a uniform system, but if they do what are the chances that the USA will get onboard??:)
 
misterdogman

misterdogman

Well-Known Member
yes your right about picking 1 or 2 traits and going with them. I could never expect to breed a dog and try to maintain temperment and boldness and size and color and etc etc...you need to pick the most important to you and go from there...

My goals arent too crazy, If I started with a AK47 /Hindu hybrid I want to maintain the original plant....thats all.
So I guess since I have no equipment to do test on things genetic wise.... I will choose phenos mostly resembling the original P1 plants and inbreed from there...Im definitely taking notes and pictures and details as if this was a new hobby. It is something I am very interested in for some reason.

so hey quick insight here, since I am gonna see how long I can keep a mother AF alive...I have a feeling it wont last long enuf so her offspring can be back crossed to her one day...so the closest thing I can do is to breed back to another seed sister of the mother ...after inbreeding phenos for several generations...This should be pretty much the same thing, I thought I read somewhere F1 are considered identical...or maybe I read that wrong but I really dont think I have any other choice to back cross or do whatever to help stabilze the progeny...so another F1 sister is the closest thing isnt it? or after achieving an f6 that has the right pheno and charateristics should I pollinate her with the original p1 Father...that should also work I assume...prolly much easier also since I can store pollen longer than I can keep a mother AF alive....
 
B

born2killspam

Well-Known Member
Yea its the same thing.. Its all about gaining genotype information.. Using the punnet squares to understand and control that is the goal, however you go about it is up to you..
Regarding F1's being considered identical it is true if they came from ABSOLUTE true-breeding parents (Realistically no strain is absolutely true-breeding though, let alone two).. Remember I mentioned that when this happens, one parent will be AA, and the other aa for each and every trait, and their offspring will only be Aa and exhibit each and every dominant trait.. Or a codominant equivalent like purple flowers from red+blue.. Its when F1's (which are by definition 100% heterozygous) (or any heterozygous genetics like F2's and up) are used in breeding that the phenotype permutations occur.. One thing that just occured to me is thatonce a hybridization is stabilized for each desired trait, it really shouldn't be referred to as an F#..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top