Landrace/Original Cultivar Strains...any of 'em still around???

  • Thread starter jfizzle2cmu
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
neverbreak

neverbreak

1,223
163
These types of things are what I'm trying to consider in my breeding goals, however, I don't know where to begin and what to shoot for. Should one cross to bring out recessive traits in hopes of stumbling upon something "new", should I cross to incorporate a dominant trait from one stable strain to another a different stable strain, should I cross existing "elite" hybrids to create "newer" hybrids, should I cross "elite" hybrids to different landrace strains for whatever reason, or what?!?!! Makes my head spin.

LOVE the convo though guys. Keep it going, very intriguing.

to bring out a recessive trait, ya would need to cross a plant with that recessive trait, with another plant with the same recessive trait. then with the offspring that express the recessive trait, ya would cross it back with one of the parents, and so on. but ultimately, all selective breeding narrows down the number of allele in a given population, as when ya start to stabilize the phenotype ya like like, ya effectively remove the other alleles in most cases.

as for dominant traits, not all of them are compatible. to have two dominant traits expressed requires codominance, otherwise, one will be expressed at the cost of the other.

the idea behind using landraces, rather than crossing preexisting hybrids with other preexisting hybrids, it that the landraces have a higher diversity of alleles in them, having had less stabilization of particular traits / phenos through extensive selective breedin. this is exactly why agri scientists are now travellin to countries which have been farming particular grains or legumes for thousands of years, or the countries of their origin, in the hopes of findin varieties with great genetic diversity, so that new, hardier cultivars can be created.

neverbreak
 
DemonPigeon

DemonPigeon

32
18
to bring out a recessive trait, ya would need to cross a plant with that recessive trait, with another plant with the same recessive trait. then with the offspring that express the recessive trait, ya would cross it back with one of the parents

as for dominant traits, not all of them are compatible. to have two dominant traits expressed requires codominance, otherwise, one will be expressed at the cost of the other.

I just had to point out that once offspring show a trait controlled by a single recessive allele (which would be 1/4 of the offspring where both parents are carriers) you don't need to stabilise by crossing back to the parents, if you breed two offspring that show the recessive gene *bingo* you automatically have all recessive alleles in the next generation.
If instead you back cross it to a parent and you only get 1/2 the offspring that show the recessive gene and 1/2 that are just carriers of it.
So a back-cross is not usually needed in that sort of situation.

Also dominance isn't absolute, for instance "Short day" (<12 hours = start flowering) is dominant over both "Super-Auto" (the Flash Seeds allele, which they use in some but not all of their plants) and the "normal" auto (LowRyder descended allele). The Super-Auto allele however, while being recessive compared to "short day" dominates the lowryder allele.

I'm not disagreeing with you I just wanted to clarify things :-P

also
The worrying new trend is seedmakers producing what are basically one-off phenotypes.
Some of them produce two separate genetic lines as polar-opposites from the same strain, each carrying half the dominant alleles that people want and they just cross them for seeds that'll give one brilliant generation but then get further from the "ideal" phenotype the more that their customers breed them.
 
neverbreak

neverbreak

1,223
163
I just had to point out that once offspring show a trait controlled by a single recessive allele (which would be 1/4 of the offspring where both parents are carriers) you don't need to stabilise by crossing back to the parents, if you breed two offspring that show the recessive gene *bingo* you automatically have all recessive alleles in the next generation.
If instead you back cross it to a parent and you only get 1/2 the offspring that show the recessive gene and 1/2 that are just carriers of it.
So a back-cross is not usually needed in that sort of situation.

Also dominance isn't absolute, for instance "Short day" (<12 hours = start flowering) is dominant over both "Super-Auto" (the Flash Seeds allele, which they use in some but not all of their plants) and the "normal" auto (LowRyder descended allele). The Super-Auto allele however, while being recessive compared to "short day" dominates the lowryder allele.

I'm not disagreeing with you I just wanted to clarify things :p

yep yer right bro, crossin the offspring that express the traits would there ya there faster.

as for the dominance thing, that's why i mentioned codominance, which is what yer talkin about. essentially varyin degrees of dominance of alleles on a single locus.

neverbreak
 
DemonPigeon

DemonPigeon

32
18
yep yer right bro, crossin the offspring that express the traits would there ya there faster.

as for the dominance thing, that's why i mentioned codominance, which is what yer talkin about. essentially varyin degrees of dominance of alleles on a single locus.

neverbreak

Codominance isn't the same as relative dominance, Co-Dominance would be a situation where both are expressed when present together or where a heterozygous genotype leads to a phenotype different to what would be expressed were it homozygous for either.

generally speaking most of the flowering triggers are dominant, there's a few of the older "semi-autos" which I'm not so clear about but the most common forms of the alleles I was talking about don't co-dominate

shortday:shortday = short day
short day:superauto = short day
shortday:lowryder = short day
superauto:superauto = super auto
superauto:lowryder = super auto
lowryder:lowryder = auto

Generally speaking these are all just dominance relationships or homozygousity

That said I've heard there are some forms of "short day" that can co-dominate with at least some auto alleles meaning you have a plant that slowly flowers under long days but can be sped up by shortening light... but no one wants that lol it has niether set of benefits :-S
 
neverbreak

neverbreak

1,223
163
Codominance isn't the same as relative dominance, Co-Dominance would be a situation where both are expressed when present together or where a heterozygous genotype leads to a phenotype different to what would be expressed were it homozygous for either.

generally speaking most of the flowering triggers are dominant, there's a few of the older "semi-autos" which I'm not so clear about but the most common forms of the alleles I was talking about don't co-dominate

shortday:shortday = short day
short day:superauto = short day
shortday:lowryder = short day
superauto:superauto = super auto
superauto:lowryder = super auto
lowryder:lowryder = auto

Generally speaking these are all just dominance relationships or homozygousity

That said I've heard there are some forms of "short day" that can co-dominate with at least some auto alleles meaning you have a plant that slowly flowers under long days but can be sped up by shortening light... but no one wants that lol it has niether set of benefits :-S

ah right, i see the context in what yer were talkin about dominance. yer right, none of those are codominant traits. but that brings me back to my original point:

to have two dominant traits expressed requires codominance, otherwise, one will be expressed at the cost of the other.

that is, one allele will always act as the recessive, unless both are codominant.

either way, i'm sure i'm agreein with ya here. :P

neverbreak
 
DemonPigeon

DemonPigeon

32
18
ah right, i see the context in what yer were talkin about dominance. yer right, none of those are codominant traits. but that brings me back to my original point:

that is, one allele will always act as the recessive, unless both are codominant.

either way, i'm sure i'm agreein with ya here. :p

neverbreak

I'd agree with that :-D
 
homebrew420

homebrew420

2,129
263
You guys are using, quite possibly, the wrong genetic logic. There may be a load of co-dom and/or co-recessive traits. And for the most part unless ine used fairly stable lines it a ballpark crap shoot. Just a little better than a random guess.
I don't not have equipmentto complete a genetic sequence and until then I can only use what is observered.
As I read through the last coments its good to see there is a intelligent discussion happening here.

Peace
 
DemonPigeon

DemonPigeon

32
18
You guys are using, quite possibly, the wrong genetic logic. There may be a load of co-dom and/or co-recessive traits. And for the most part unless ine used fairly stable lines it a ballpark crap shoot. Just a little better than a random guess.
I don't not have equipmentto complete a genetic sequence and until then I can only use what is observered.
As I read through the last coments its good to see there is a intelligent discussion happening here.

Peace

Co-recessive isn't really a thing.
Genes that express are basically always "dominant", some are dominant because they block the expression of another allele, others can only be dominant when there's no other allele present and so we call them recessive.
Co-dominance is where neither can block out the other.
If you had three alleles, two that both expressed together and were both masked by the third that wouldn't make them "co-recessive" they'd still be co-dominant, just they'd also both be "recessive". Co-recessivity makes it seem like "recessiveness" is it's own thing, it's not, it's just "weak" dominance.

If there's only two common alleles then one is viewed as dominant and the other as being recessive. But some genes have lots of common Allele forms, so the dominant/submissive things get more complicated. Some are strongly dominant, some weakly and some in the middle, co dominance can be between two of any allels with the same level of dominance "strength"
 
homebrew420

homebrew420

2,129
263
That sounds correct. It has been far too long since I have picked up a book on genetics and breeding. Time for a refresher. Thanks DP.
 
Itman

Itman

129
43
Well ABC I really don't know much about, what I do know is CC magazine and Marc Emery magazine distributed a load of seeds in ~2001 but no one seems to have them anymore, or if they do they won't share.
I can see why, they want them to stay secret and unrecogniseable... but I'm going to keep making lots of noise about them until I get them :)
It comes from Nimbin or at least somewhere in Australia between Sydney and the blue mountains, it's meant to be a bit bad quality in terms of bud but very hard to recognise.
I don't know how the trait inherits but I think it's controlled by at least one or more recessive alleles.



Webbed strains are really simple, it's controlled by a recessive allele, you cross it to a plant (making an F1 generation) you breed those plants you made together (making an F2 generation) and in that generation you'll have 25% webbed plants, then you just do careful backcrossing to whatever strain you started with and in a few generations you can make you favourite strain (whatever that is) webbed.

Wallyduck was really known for ducksfoot but can't do a seed release atm apparently. His are really nice plants though.

That's a picture of "Indian Sommer" by Kaly seeds, they're mostly quite cheap but some of their plants are a bit... hit and miss? like you get some very weird looking plants from them, with variegation or really skinny and low yielding (sometimes also an intersex plant or two) but they usually send extra seeds with their orders and the weird plants can be quite cool.

The only sad thing is they believe (or at least claim to believe) that webbed plants are an interspecies hybrid, which they're definately not.
If we see webbed we throw them out shit strain and Wally is a wally got busted with thousands and never done a minute.
 
KingOfUranus

KingOfUranus

185
63
For anyone interested in landrace genetics and preservation, Landrace Mafia (aka Trident seeds) are offering tour books of different regions of India, with pictures and detailed writeups of various indigenous Landrace varieties and packs of seeds to go along with the tour books as a set. There is a tour book for each different region. You can find them on Insta as LandraceMafia, where you can see pics and excerpts from the books etc.
Would make a sweet collectors set to have 🔥. I'm going to start collecting all the volumes.
 
zebrausa

zebrausa

105
43
So I'm not hugely into the genetics of marijuana and breeding quite yet, and I haven't taken the time to really understand all of its evolution, however, I do find it all fascinating. I've always been intrigued by its origins and how it has developed into the little thc-filled plant that it is today. Well, yesterday, I happened to stumble upon this website that has a picture of all the original landrace strains - http://smokereports.com/strainreports/1928/Landraces - and it got me thinking about a couple of things.
#1 Are any of the strains still around today in their pure form? I'm guessing not many, if any at all, would be around. And if they are, I'm guessing those folks either don't know they have them, ie. old stoner with some seeds from the '60s who keeps them as mementos of his crazy past, or they aren't getting off them for all the gold in the world.
#2 If one was to acquire several, or impossibly, all of them, could you recreate the great hybrids and crosses that have emerged through the decades? For instance, could you start with some of the originals and then cross them to make the first generation hybrids that we've all heard of like Skunk and Maui Wowi, etc. and then recreate the second generations like White Widow, Bubba Kush, Blueberry, etc., all the way up to the good strains of today?
Look, we all know there is a huge improbability and uncertainty when acquiring new strains and seeds, even with so many respected breeders out there. Who truly knows if they are getting the exact strain they think they are, or if that strain has been stabilized, or if that strain's lineage is what it's supposed to be??? Even with the most respected breeders, how do you truly know you're getting what you think, and that they really do have the original cut of hells angels og or nepalese kush? You don't. There simply aren't paper trails of certified breeds or entire documented works by breeders, as these would have obviously been stupid to keep as it would have given police a guaranteed indictment.
I've always thought if and when I do get into breeding, I'd want to acquire the oldest of possible strains, not for smoking purposes, but for purposes of recreating traditional gems and ensuring I have the most stable and purest of genetics. Obviously the strains of way back were awful THC wise, with a landrace strain probably not likely to hit double digit THC-percentage, while strains of today have no trouble reaching the upper-20s to lower-30s.
Anyone else ever had these thoughts, or even know if such a thing is possible???
I've been working landrace sativa's and indica's for a couple of years now doing breeding. Most unworked cultivars start out with thc in the low to mid-teens. The magic happens when you cross it with Haze or Kush. The F1 thc level goes up sometimes to the low to mid 20's. You can get thc up even higher by backcrossing.
 
Buzzzz

Buzzzz

1,127
163
Idk about that. I have marijuana books from the 70s in which theu tested marijuana for thc and cbd profiles. They tested for several different cannibinoids. Tests clearly showed mj of the time could hardly achieve 10% thc. Selective breeding through the years has undoubtedly bolstered thc percentages. This isn't really even debatable as far as I know.
Except thc content doesn't tell the story,the best days for potent weed were before prohibition.
 
growsince79

growsince79

9,065
313
THC numbers don’t matter unless they are on the hemp concentrations. This 36% GMO that I’m hitting is really not that impressive. Pre legal weed was better.
Researches are still discovering unknown cannabinoids. THCP, which is 30x stronger than THC wasn't discovered until 2 years ago. Not surprised to hear its found mostly in equatorial sativas.
 
Garbage_bear

Garbage_bear

394
93
Researches are still discovering unknown cannabinoids. THCP, which is 30x stronger than THC wasn't discovered until 2 years ago. Not surprised to hear its found mostly in equatorial sativas.
Yeah I recently ordered some landrace sativa seeds from Africa known for psychedelic effects. I’m so tired of all this hybrid weed. I don’t care if it takes four months to flower/finish. It’ll be worth it.
 
growsince79

growsince79

9,065
313
Yeah I recently ordered some landrace sativa seeds from Africa known for psychedelic effects. I’m so tired of all this hybrid weed. I don’t care if it takes four months to flower/finish. It’ll be worth it.
If its anything like my landrace Colombian, the only thing its good for indoors is breeding. I still have Mexican and Colombian landraces that I'll probably never grow again.
 
Garbage_bear

Garbage_bear

394
93
If its anything like my landrace Colombian, the only thing its good for indoors is breeding. I still have Mexican and Colombian landraces that I'll probably never grow again.
How so? Did they not grow well indoors?
 
zebrausa

zebrausa

105
43
THC numbers don’t matter unless they are on the hemp concentrations. This 36% GMO that I’m hitting is really not that impressive.
If its anything like my landrace Colombian, the only thing its good for indoors is breeding. I still have Mexican and Colombian landraces that I'll probably never grow again.
The Colombian I was growing had fluffy buds outside/ inside. The smell was lemon/ citrus. I crossed it with Redbud. I need to do a pheno hunt. I never popped any. I’m growing Alcapoco Gold right now. The buds are tight. EOM I’ll harvest it.
 
F7ECD252 C695 4BF7 BC91 E250CD37F9D6

Latest posts

Top Bottom