Amy Gardner Of Eden: Perpetually Organic

[Amy Gardner]

because what you’re talking about is making F2-Fn’s. But that brings up another concern, particularly with the variety in question, Candida CD-1.

issue with CBD heavy strains is, the passing of genetics related to CBD:THC ratio is not very well understood.

The reason I bring this up; even if someone successfully reversed the Candida, there’s no guarantee the resulting seed will offer the same CBD:THC ratio. I believe that’s the biggest obstacle to increasing your seed stock of Candida.

Yes.

Yes.

And, yes exactly.

All of that is precisely implication of what I posted. And the next step in fact. So thanks for posting that! (Honestly- you saved me lots of brain pain trying to write that out ). Because, exactly, it’s probably going to be F2 or S2 - a second generation - so, as you say, variability will be present to a potentially large degree.

@InTheShed ... this this next step in the thinking that Chef just laid out here is what I’ve been angling at for a while (since bringing it up as ‘maybe’ a question in the CD-1 thread here) - I’ve just taken some months to understand it well enough to start to explain what I mean . But I’ve been wanting to suggest just what chef explains there - that we can’t be 100% confident in the ratio in the offspring either way.

It’s also true that avoiding selfing avoids introducing other undesirable traits as well (like recessive traits and possible reduced vigour in the line etc) so that’s why I was pursuing that line of thought in particular but either way (selfing or reversing and crossing), some variety will arrive with this next generation, just in slightly different ways (whether it’s S1 or F1, or some other, that one starts with).

So Then it’s a question of phenotypes within the offspring.

And Chef, that brings me to what you said/asked about them being synonymous (or me maybe using them synonymously). In my mind, they’re not exactly synonymous: genotype is, as you say, the related seeds from any single seed run/pollination, and phenotype are the genetic variants that appear within that set of genotypes. So if you planted 100 of a single seed batch, there’d be 100 genotypes and, depending on where in the breeding line they are, anywhere from 1 or 2 to multiple phenotypes within that.


Before moving too far past the previous topic though, I have question on it for you @ChefDGreen, or anyone else better versed in this stuff than I;

-what we’re talking about back there is based on assuming that the starting seed was some kind of F1 cross (albeit already a polyhybrid one perhaps, but that is another whole layer beyond, for now), so the result of reversing and crossing within that F1 offspring would be an F2, which is just what Chef has pointed out.

But,

...what if the seeds we’re starting with are S1s and then we reverse one and outcross it to another genotype? It’s not an S2 because it wasn’t back-crossed with its mother or ‘fellow’ clone. But is it really an F2 instead?

That doesn’t seem quite so clear/obvious to me - I’m a novice tho and hopefully someone will be able to explain that and I’ll hopefully understand it!

 

[Amy Gardner]

I was freshly high at the end of a long day when I read and replied above so I hope it makes any sense at all! I’m too tired to even read it now.

Businesses of life are kicking my arse. Back online on the weekend we hope!

 

[Reave]

I was thinking CBD would be homozygous recessive in that plant so selfing it should yield the desired results should it not? It has been true bread down to two phenotypes according to seedsman site.

 

[Reave]

Recent research has shown that crosses between high THC: low CBD strains and low THC: high CBD strains yield offspring of cannabinoid content intermediate between the two parents

looks like it’s co-dominance but that shouldn’t matter.

 

[ChefDGreen]

And Chef, that brings me to what you said/asked about them being synonymous (or me maybe using them synonymously). In my mind, they’re not exactly synonymous: genotype is, as you say, the related seeds from any single seed run/pollination, and phenotype are the genetic variants that appear within that set of genotypes. So if you planted 100 of a single seed batch, there’d be 100 genotypes and, depending on where in the breeding line they are, anywhere from 1 or 2 to multiple phenotypes within that.

Actually no, that’s not what a genotype is exactly. For example, Candida F1-Fn where n is the last filial generation where (typical) Candida traits are shown, would be a single genotype. All the seeds in this family tree of seeds (all brother to sister crosses in this example) share a very similar set of possible expressions. Once a trait has been selected for, for enough filial generations you then potentially have a new genotype.

...what if the seeds we’re starting with are S1s and then we reverse one and outcross it to another genotype? It’s not an S2 because it wasn’t back-crossed with its mother or ‘fellow’ clone. But is it really an F2 instead?

Okay, so this is why the explanation of genotype I gave before is so very important. What you’re asking when you say “outcross it to another genotype,” is what would happen if we used that reversed pollen on a completely different genetic pool. (Because remember S1s and F1s and F2s are all the same genotype, just different filial generations)

what I think you’re actually asking is what if we used that reversed pollen on another seed from the same batch (presumably another S1). I’m not quite sure what the demarcation of that would be, I think something like S1F1.
You would think with the use of a sibling seed you would have more possible variation and less vigor loss(vs an S2). In my experience though, S2s grow just fine and have great phenotypes still.

 

[The Celt]

Maybe a short explanation of selective breeding will add to what @ChefDGreen is relaying and help Amy and others understand.

Every domesticated crop and animal we know today is the result of 1000s of years of selective breeding by humans. This is no different than what we do breeding cannabis.

I will use dogs for explaining this as most people are familiar with different breeds, and is an animal we have been selectively breeding since we were a hunter/gatherer species.

The first cohabitation of canines and humans was with an extinct ancestor of Canis Lupus (grey wolf). The domestic dog is Canis Lupus Familiaris, also descendant from the same ancestor, but are separate sub species much like Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis are sub species of Cannabis Sativa.

The grey wolf evolved through natural selection, we had no hand in it. Dogs on the other hand have been selectively bred to give us the "breeds" we have today. From the smallest tea cup Chihuahua to the monster English Mastiff, they are all the same species and can be interbred.

Selective breeding is not scientific, its more of a lucky crap shoot Still using dogs as an example, and accellerating the process, this the basic procedure until we come to say a Labrador Retriever;

We start with the first wild dogs that shared our camps, these dogs showed little aggression towards humans and stayed close because we fed them. Over many generations, some show a loyalty to humans and we start breeding those that show that loyalty trait with the intent to stabilize that trait in the offspring. As the offspring mature, we cull the ones that don't show the desired trait but keep and continue breeding those that do.

We continue this practice over millennia, stabilizing desire traits and culling those offspring that don't. Eventually we get the Labrador Retriever.

Just as an aside, Eugenics, think Hitler although he was neither the first or last, is selective breeding of humans.

So back to dogs, the Labrador Retriever is a "genotype" of Canis Lupus Familiaris as are all other breeds of domestic dog.

Within this genotype, we have the mammalian equivalent of phenotype;
Black Labs, Brown Labs, Yellow Labs and White Labs (rarest type).

As long as we breed Lab x Lab, we get a Labrador Retriever, the colour ( or phenotype) can be hit and miss.

Now of we cross a Lab x Poodle, we get a new cross (Labradoodle) which could is not a stable breed and can only be achieved by the crossing of the two. If we now breed a LD x LD, it's anybody's guess what we will get. We can predict the outcome, based on the dominate traits of the original 2 breeds, but we can also unlock recessive traits with unexpected results.

This is the same process used in developing new cannabis strains ( genotype). In the above, our F1 cross is the Labradoodle. Crossing the LD x LD gives us an F2 cross. This is why cannabis F1s tend to be the most stable with the least phenotypes. Also why S1s tend to unlock recessive genes, smaller genepool to start with, more chance for recessive traits to become dominate when that same gene is present in both parents.

In order to create and stabilized a new strain, back breeding to one or both parents is required, and this includes selectively breeding dogs and the Eugenics attempted by Hitler and others throughout history.

I simplified this as much as possible to keep it short, but 6 months of genetics studies is hard to compress into a few paragraphs

For those that would like greater detail, give a shout out, I will do my best

 

[kelticBlue]

I will use dogs for explaining this as most people are familiar with different breeds, and is an animal we have been selectively breeding since we were a hunter/gatherer species.

Excellent explanation,

 

[Amy Gardner]

You would think with the use of a sibling seed you would have more possible variation and less vigor loss(vs an S2). In my experience though, S2s grow just fine and have great phenotypes still.

Thanks Chef! That’s all excellent to know.
Seems that while true the concerns need not bother us toooo much. And still shows why it would always help to know what we’ve got in relation to either an S1 or and F1.

not what a genotype is exactly.

And thanks for that explanation too. I’m pretty sure I got it. But also pretty sure that means we still don’t have what I was trying to answer - the difference between phenotype and genotype, they’re obviously going to be related (phenotype being the word we use to describe the different genetic expressions - I thought(.)

can of worms I’ve opened for myself!

@The Celt Thank you for adding to it. I’ll have to came back to read it properly (I fell asleep after posting last night which is great - I have big day today…)
The other thing I should say is that as far as I know this conversation is irrelevant to all plants and seeding in the cannabis community, even though that article I quoted was just written about high CBD.

So all of these questions and explanations are as relevant to THC plants as well of course (and any other cannabis variety). I brought it up as a special thing to reconsider with relation to the Candida because it’s CBD:THC ratios we thinking of, whereas when reproducing other plants, we’re less particular about that, perhaps.

reversed pollen on another seed from the same batch (presumably another S1). I’m not quite sure what the demarcation of that would be, I think something like S1F1.

Ok - so would that have less variation than an F2? -would be the interesting question to me there.

It seems like if you know if your starting is S1 then a cross to another seeding that same run would be ‘better’ than a selfing. And that of your starting seed is F1, then selfing would be ‘better’.

A

my experience though, S2s grow just fine and have great phenotypes still.

for sure - I’ve grown some. And I know it’s usefu when hunting for stuff. Just no way of us being sure about the resulting cannabinoid levels and well, really, the S2 I grew had some old throwback structure, didn’t stretch at all and threw about a million nanners. I was actually then that a long-time experienced grower, who had been noting the ‘old’ structures in the plant, when I said it was probably S2 they said “that explains a lot”. So began my mind dive into what that meant!

I can only do little it’s of it at a time. I’ll be some weeks getting my head around these parts. Thanks both.

 

[Amy Gardner]

Maybe a short explanation of selective breeding will add to what @ChefDGreen is relaying and help Amy and others understand.

Every domesticated crop and animal we know today is the result of 1000s of years of selective breeding by humans. This is no different than what we do breeding cannabis.

I will use dogs for explaining this as most people are familiar with different breeds, and is an animal we have been selectively breeding since we were a hunter/gatherer species.

The first cohabitation of canines and humans was with an extinct ancestor of Canis Lupus (grey wolf). The domestic dog is Canis Lupus Familiaris, also descendant from the same ancestor, but are separate sub species much like Sativa, Indica and Ruderalis are sub species of Cannabis Sativa.

The grey wolf evolved through natural selection, we had no hand in it. Dogs on the other hand have been selectively bred to give us the "breeds" we have today. From the smallest tea cup Chihuahua to the monster English Mastiff, they are all the same species and can be interbred.

Selective breeding is not scientific, its more of a lucky crap shoot Still using dogs as an example, and accellerating the process, this the basic procedure until we come to say a Labrador Retriever;

We start with the first wild dogs that shared our camps, these dogs showed little aggression towards humans and stayed close because we fed them. Over many generations, some show a loyalty to humans and we start breeding those that show that loyalty trait with the intent to stabilize that trait in the offspring. As the offspring mature, we cull the ones that don't show the desired trait but keep and continue breeding those that do.

We continue this practice over millennia, stabilizing desire traits and culling those offspring that don't. Eventually we get the Labrador Retriever.

Just as an aside, Eugenics, think Hitler although he was neither the first or last, is selective breeding of humans.

So back to dogs, the Labrador Retriever is a "genotype" of Canis Lupus Familiaris as are all other breeds of domestic dog.

Within this genotype, we have the mammalian equivalent of phenotype;
Black Labs, Brown Labs, Yellow Labs and White Labs (rarest type).

As long as we breed Lab x Lab, we get a Labrador Retriever, the colour ( or phenotype) can be hit and miss.

Now of we cross a Lab x Poodle, we get a new cross (Labradoodle) which could is not a stable breed and can only be achieved by the crossing of the two. If we now breed a LD x LD, it's anybody's guess what we will get. We can predict the outcome, based on the dominate traits of the original 2 breeds, but we can also unlock recessive traits with unexpected results.

This is the same process used in developing new cannabis strains ( genotype). In the above, our F1 cross is the Labradoodle. Crossing the LD x LD gives us an F2 cross. This is why cannabis F1s tend to be the most stable with the least phenotypes. Also why S1s tend to unlock recessive genes, smaller genepool to start with, more chance for recessive traits to become dominate when that same gene is present in both parents.

In order to create and stabilized a new strain, back breeding to one or both parents is required, and this includes selectively breeding dogs and the Eugenics attempted by Hitler and others throughout history.

I simplified this as much as possible to keep it short, but 6 months of genetics studies is hard to compress into a few paragraphs

For those that would like greater detail, give a shout out, I will do my best

Thank you. its first thing in the morning so no way can I read it. Lol! Later

 

[Amy Gardner]

Once a trait has been selected for, for enough filial generations you then potentially have a new genotype.

So selection works through finding and blending different phenotypes to make new genotypes? Am I reading that right?

 

[InTheShed]

The whole S/F generational thing is beyond what I can keep straight in my head, but I am following it and trying to grok it all.

The question I'm left with is whether it's worth trying to reverse and back-cross two clones (assuming I get pollen), or just go with pollinating the new plant based on the research Amy originally posted here. My intent this round was to reverse the new plant and pollinate the clones, but if it's worth it I can reverse a clone to pollinate the other clone.

 

[Amy Gardner]

based on the research Amy originally posted

Which was only a first step and only looking at the potential of Selfing to bring undesirable results.

Based on where the discussion is currently at, I’d say do both! 2 batches of seeds - one from crossing within the same genotype and one with selfing.

The outcome of each of those is I think dependent on the starting seed - which we don’t know. So that is why I suggest hedging your bets!

One basic thing is that the next step past F1 or S1 results in lots of variation in the offspring. That’s like the first thing I remember learning.

 

[InTheShed]

Then I'll try STS-reversing one of the clones once the seed plant gets old enough to flower.

 

[Amy Gardner]

 

[The Celt]

My intent this round was to reverse the new plant and pollinate the clones, but if it's worth it I can reverse a clone to pollinate the other clone.

If the 2 plants/clones are from the same mother, you are likely to see some recessive or dormant traits in your crop of seed, more like you would see in F2 plants but not as much variation due to fewer starting genetics. Feminized seed made from separate seed plants, within the same strain, will be like F1 plants with few phenotypes and more stability.

Selfing is good for being fairly stable and close to the original plant as long as you don't go beyond S1 generation. Going beyond S1 is likely to start activating multiple dormant genes meaning wide variability between plants, not something useful to most growers trying to save a favored plant, but for breeders looking for something special, it can be quite useful

 

[InTheShed]

If the 2 plants/clones are from the same mother, you are likely to see some recessive or dormant traits in your crop of seed, more like you would see in F2 plants but not as much variation due to fewer starting genetics. Feminized seed made from separate seed plants, within the same strain, will be like F1 plants with few phenotypes and more stability.

Okay, I think you're saying that a seed-plant/clone cross will be have fewer variations (no more than were in the original package of seeds) than if I selfed the clones. Is that right?

Selfing is good for being fairly stable and close to the original plant as long as you don't go beyond S1 generation. Going beyond S1 is likely to start activating multiple dormant genes meaning wide variability between plants, not something useful to most growers trying to save a favored plant, but for breeders looking for something special, it can be quite useful

Are you speaking of THC plants here or referring to the research done on high CBD strains like Candida? Crossing the clones would be S1 on a very stable variety, so now would that be better instead?

 

[Graytail]

I have a little experience with selfed seeds - the Carnival x Dark Devil Autos that Nis & Canna bred. I played around with the S2s a bit, running about a dozen of them. The F1s were Carn x DDA, with the pollen from a reversed DDA. It was more complicated because Dark Devil is an auto and Carnival is a photoperiod plant. So we were working on two different traits. Nis took a purple photo from the F1s and selfed it to produce the S2s (F2s?). So that's what I started with.

After running a dozen of them, I got 25% autos, with 25% purples and 25% green. Pretty much exactly what would be expected. 75% were photos with some color in half of them. Then one of the purple photos (gen2) threw some nanners and I got seed from it (gen3). Those ran true for me (purple photo), and @dynamo1 grew some out and they ran true also.

I don't know how to label the F1-S2-S3 generation, but It was interesting to see that the recessive gene combinations were preserved through the selfings. I wasn't sure it would, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the seed batch revert to auto or green.

Apparently, selfing is far better for retaining recessives. It sure worked on these. F3s would be a bit of a mess, I think

 

[The Celt]

you are going to make me expand the genetics lesson @InTheShed

So YES a cross of 2 different seed plants within say Candida, will show more stability and 'trueness' than an S1, which will be more stable than an S2 plant. This holds true for any plants and/or animals we are selectively breeding.

Given that all cannabis, Indica, Sativa & Ruderalis, evolved from a common ancestor, all genotypes (strains) have some common genes. I have yet to read the Candida research ( I know, shame on me ) but even our high THC strains have the genes to produce CBD, we have bred them into dormancy. Hemp is just a cannabis plant whose genes for THC production have become dormant. More on this in a minute.

Now this all pertains to Natural Selection (Momma Nature controlling the breeding) and Artificial Selection in which we are controlling the breeding. The caveate to all this is mutation which we have 0 control over and is another whole can of worms

So now to further the explanation.

Each parent contributes X number of genes to the pool, more than is required and some are dormant but we do require Y number of combined genes for a viable plant.

When we breed plants from 2 different genotypes/strains, we have a massive pool of active genes to work with along with the dormant genes. This is why breeding an entirely new and unique strain/genotype takes so long. We have so much genetic material to work with we get massive variation between the offspring.

When we breed 2 different plants within the same genotype/strain, we have a smaller pool of genes to work with but still enough that dormant genes are not required to provide a stable DNA chain and viable seed. Due to the smaller gene pool, we have greater stability and less variation.

Now if we go further and 'self' a plant, we have a smaller again gene pool from which to build the DNA chain.

When we go to S2, the pool gets even smaller, which often leads to the need to use dormant genes to complete the DNA chain, resulting in greater variation. This is because although mamma(s) had X number of genes to offer, only Y number were needed and we lose what wasn't needed.

If we were to continue self crossing multiple generations, we could theoretically cause the gene pool to become so small, no viable seeds could develop. We will definitely lose vigour after a few generations.

Back to Hemp, there are farmers getting their wrists slapped for producing Hemp with a THC higher than the 0.5% or whatever the limit is. Chances are, Ole Mother Nature is at fault, not the farmer.

As I mentioned, even Hemp has the genes to produce THC, they are just dormant. The problem with rising THC levels in Hemp is due to the way it is grown. Fields with 1000s of plants, male and female, allowing for open pollination. Some of these plants are bound to have an active gene for THC production and are passing this gene on. As more and more generations grow, this gene is becoming more prevalent in the crops.

Now if someone would beat some brains into govt officials so they understood genetics and Natural Selection, these farmers could grow in peace, they as NOT at fault.

 

[Amy Gardner]

YES a cross of 2 different seed plants within say Candida, will show more stability and 'trueness' than an S1, which will be more stable than an S2 plant.

Excellent - that is exactly what I thought and was using that article to try to start explainIng (re what folks are trying to do with Candida).

 

[The Celt]

Apparently, selfing is far better for retaining recessives. It sure worked on these. F3s would be a bit of a mess, I think

It CAN be, due to the diminishing gene pool, but can also be a crap shoot depending on what unexpected dormant genes suddenly decide to make an appearance

Good to see you around mate, first I've seen you since I returned

Curious, how was the vigour of those 3rd generation plants?