[ Warning: BLASPHEMY ]
Throw 'em all together--
an' mix 'em up...
[ /Warning: BLASPHEMY ]

LMAO!!! ya in a perfect world doing what would have to be done to get to the above mentioned bank, doing what you said wouldn't matte so much. Would make a good reality grow show I bet. I was thinking that if one were to do back crosses to maintain the original genetics, and also a cross on another branch to mix it up, not so dramatic as the above poster but maybe enough to have some good genes to start some breeding project?

Create pure lines (breed in) from the best and cross those into F1 hybrids (breed out).

I like this idea, but I have trouble with the idea that what could be made from such a stock wouldn't be any better than what is available already.

This is exactly what I try to do with our gelenit line up. We actually have more than 65 colllective varieties we have permanent housing for. F1 made and tested f2 are then made. Also during pollination of the F1 gen, for seeds of F2, get original fem and if available grab a female from pollen donor side. Ie. Generating your needed f2 as well as reinforcing the genes found in the mother and or a fem from fathers seed origin. Hope that maKes sense.
Depending how well you know those plant would help determine the amount of work necessary to bring stability or fabulous hybrids. In my thread I will see what I can do for a compete list of mothers and or tested females.

But that's what I would do. Evertime an F1 is made throw as many in as can fit and begin growing. Once you have established what trait are passed on my the male you can really begin to move faster. Making more informed decisions with making quality hybrids. The same goes with stabilizing a line, one must grow out a load or know the male well. better yet both.

Peace

Probably do what my buddy and I already do, which is talk about everything we have but never come to a conclusion on what to pop and do with it. Huge varieties are so difficult to choose which ones to use. Lol

I'd like to see a thread from a
breeder who throws out 98% of the plants grown and the keeper 2% produce flowers that don't serve any market.
And the space required to grow the required numbers must be immense.
I suspect most of the money in breeding these days are in the "one trick pony" autoflowers.
A plant that requires purchase of a manufactured seed is a cash cow for producers.
Problem is, it looks like a dry hole to me.
I can taste that Rudy in everything they produce.
And I don't like it.

Breeding is seductive.
Must be that plant sex thing.

Canalchemist said:

I like this idea, but I have trouble with the idea that what could be made from such a stock wouldn't be any better than what is available already.

Click to expand...

The "idea" of breeding pure lines and creating F1 hybrids is to make something better than what is available. It is in fact how most popular veggies and fruits have been created, and what enables the food industry to support the ever growing population on the planet. It's what IMO all cannabis breeders should* do too (breed IBLs for breeding and growing, create F1 hybrids for growing, or improve IBLs through backcrossing traits into it). Many people have heard of Mendel's theories, but the man who put it into practice in a way it's still done today is Wilhelm Johannsen's, check out his Pure Line Theory and his discovery of heterosis/hybrid vigor.

What it comes down to is that you have, over those 50 strains combined, a huge gene pool. When you recombine those genes in different combinations the magic 'can' happen and with 50 strains to pick from there are plenty of 'better' combinations.

To create a new variety through crossbreeding, one first has to create variation. By mixing more than two strains, you have more variety in which to do a pheno hunt, but you also end up with more variation to breed out. By stabilizing (inbreeding) two strains "before" you cross them (which is kind of the whole idea of F1 hybrids) you end up with a stable hybrid.

One of your indica plants: AaBbCCDdeeFf

One of your sativa plants: ZzYyXXWWvvUu (using different letters for illustration purposes)

Breed those into pure lines (which takes more than a couple of generations)

The resulting true bred indica plant: AABBCCddeeFF

The resulting true bred sativa plant: zzYYXXWWvvuu

Cross those into an F1 hybrid and you get: AzBYCXdWevFu in ALL the offspring.

F1 is not stable for breeding but should be as stable as it gets, in other words "uniform", for growing. If that's not the case, you're not supposed to take that F1 to F2 (as it will recombine genes in the parental combination rather than the recombination that can lead to hybrid vigor but also to something completely new), but go back and stablize the parent. Ideally, self those to test for homozygosity.

If you have that many strains in a seed bank, you may have great candidates (for F1 hybrid parents or recurrent backcross parent) already. The easiest way to test that is to self them. If you self a homozygous plant you get little to none pheno variety. If you see traits segregate in the typical F2 ratio (1:2:1 and incase of complete dominant 3:1) you know the genes for those traits are not homozygous in the parent.

Also, keep in mind backcrossing saves the genes, not necessarily the genotypes. The only way to do that, is breed them true, as then every generation will have the same homozygous genotypes. Backcrossing could be used to for example breed a taste/smell trait from one in another.

*So we can all swap IBLs and make the world a better place.

I'd throw 49 of them away and only keep THE BANGER to work with.

Dunge said:

I'd like to see a thread from a
breeder who throws out 98% of the plants grown and the keeper 2% produce flowers that don't serve any market.
And the space required to grow the required numbers must be immense.
I suspect most of the money in breeding these days are in the "one trick pony" autoflowers.
A plant that requires purchase of a manufactured seed is a cash cow for producers.
Problem is, it looks like a dry hole to me.
I can taste that Rudy in everything they produce.
And I don't like it.

Breeding is seductive.
Must be that plant sex thing.

Click to expand...

Check out my thread. We throw away sooo many varieties for the exact reason @WalterWhiteFire state, keep the BANGER. We just did the full count of seeds hybrids I have created at work and its hovering around 140 hybrids and worked lines.

Peace

Sativied said:

*So we can all swap IBLs and make the world a better place.

Click to expand...

I like this response, I appreciate your insite.

I think the best is to maintain the original genetics through the IBL, and at the same time choose some males and collect some pollen.

Canalchemist said:

I think the best is to maintain the original genetics through the IBL

Click to expand...

My previous replies where more in reply to the question you posed, as in what would I do as a breeding project. When it comes to maintaining the original genetics as a seed bank I would go for open pollination 'per' strain. Any already true bred lines in those 50 will only produce true breds. The auto trait only expresses when homozygous, bred true, so will produce autos only.

The pure sativas, landraces, indicas, and other traits of the autos, however, likely not all bred true, won't produce the same results every generation. So to save those in a seed bank, I would focus on saving as much of the gene pool as possible (open pollination) and try to prevent breeding out those genes that can combine in the phenos I'd want to save.

The hybrids amongst those 50 strains are a different case. The only way to really save a hybrid in seed form is to keep its original parents. If those parents itself are to be maintained in seed form, they need to be true breds. If you turn my AzBYCXdWevFu example into an IBL again, make it a true bred, it will become homozygous again and thus no longer be that F1 hybrid you set out to maintain. Hence, "clone-only" strains. You probably don't have the original parents for all hybrids even in that hypothetical situation in which case backcrossing is still a good option to at least save the genes. Even though it won't necessarily recombine in the same genotypes and phenotypes, it will end up very similar and possibly even better.

Realistically, instead of starting out with 50 strains, it's probably better to start out with a specific goal and see how many strains you'd need for that. Only so much you can do in one lifetime.

Sativied said:

Realistically, instead of starting out with 50 strains, it's probably better to start out with a specific goal and see how many strains you'd need for that. Only so much you can do in one lifetime.

Click to expand...

Agreed... as one gets older a lifetime seems much shorter than it once was ;). I also agree in this hypothetical scenario, if planned carefully enough it would be possible to create some real excellent true breeds, perhaps a true Sativa, and a true Indica, that could intern be turned hybrid. I like the idea of takeing as many Pure Indicas or Sativas as possibly, breed them all together and then back cross them continually till the result is homozygous, take those Indicas or Sativas and Hybrid from there, keeping the Genes of the Mothers and Fathers around to create some unseen seed lines.

Also inbreeding as much as possible the originals to maintain the original Bank as you mentioned, of course for the exception of the hybrids, however you did express that the genes would still be present and could eventually express themselves in a more desirable way in the future, which is also good enough if not better.

Thanks very much for the ideas, I have been doing a ton of reading and it has been very satisfying to have my brain washed in some good information that I can understand.

Just some unsolicited advise, throw the Mendel squares out the window. That is not how cannabis breeds. Too many unknowns.
And get to crackin brotha!

Peace

homebrew420 said:

Just some unsolicited advise, throw the Mendel squares out the window. That is not how cannabis breeds.

Click to expand...

I could not agree less with that advice. And that last statement is just wrong. It's not how most cannabis breeders breed that I can give you. It's however how plants breed, and cannabis is just that, a plant. While not all traits and genes inherit according to 'simple' Mendelian rules throwing it out the window is like a carpenter throwing away his hammer, i.e. an essential tool. Mendel squares is about turning the unknown into known.

homebrew420 said:

Just some unsolicited advise, throw the Mendel squares out the window. That is not how cannabis breeds. Too many unknowns.
And get to crackin brotha!

Peace

Click to expand...

I think that's great advice. Mendel squares will get you nowhere. Start opening seeds!!!

WalterWhiteFire said:

I'd throw 49 of them away and only keep THE BANGER to work with.

Click to expand...

ha ha. Took the words right out of my brain. It's hard being a cruel overlord and culling the less desirable but essential to anything resembling progress.

It's "Punnett" square by the way. It's not something you do or can avoid, it's what happens in reality it's what the plants do, not the breeder. Genetics 101. Mendel's work is just an observation of the reality, not some hypothesis that only works in theory. It's incomplete and not all traits follow his simple inheritance rules (hence "simple"), but it's still the foundation and the most important tool for breeding, and the starting point (use punnet to test if the genes for the relevant trait(s) inherit according to Mendel's rules of inheritance, nowadays rules instead of "laws" because yes they don't always hold true. The reasons for that are well-known too.)

It's obviously what do you do after opening the seeds, or as HB said start cracking, what matters. Pheno hunting is just one step in breeding. It's all about the distinction between phenotype and genotype (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype-phenotype_distinction which is at the basis of plant breeding). Understanding the benefit and usefulness of Mendel's work requires understanding how plants apply punnet squares and how that can help your selection. It's not like you actually have to write them out either, but being aware what goes on (so you can make a distinction between genotype and phenotype). Breeding (true) is about crossing genotypes, not phenotypes.

Instead of hammer I should have said "ruler". One that's a little distorted and vague sometimes. You can gauge it, or keep (re-)trying till it fits, or get somewhat of a measurement. Denying Mendels/Punnet is like denying evolution or gravity.

anyone can throw pollen... but if you want to breed for traits you need to use the Punnett charts. Punnett, The Best way without using chemicals to figure out hetero and hemizygous hermies, and other dominance and recessive issues... If your not using a Punnett chart and breeding 4-10 generation to approx F10's than there will be a good chance your offspring will have a hermy trait lurking and will surface depending on if the father is Dom or Recessive hermy traits exist...

All this is necessary if you trying to produce breeding stock,,, if your looking for superbud F1s no need for Punnett stuff... Just make sure to test seed and your seed user know this so they do breed a bunch of hermies