The BX2 were freebies in the last drop at GLG.how can I get some of those BX GC
The BX2 were freebies in the last drop at GLG.how can I get some of those BX GC
?what in all that is good in this world is Hippy Slayer
(RKS x Dirty Hippy) --> [ RKS x (Afgooey x Blockhead) ]I believe that Hippy Slayer is a Bodhi strain. Dirty Hippy x Road Kill Skunk
It's been unavailable from Bodhi for awhile, so trade would be your best bet.where do I find some
?
(RKS x Dirty Hippy) --> [ RKS x (Afgooey x Blockhead) ]
It's been unavailable from Bodhi for awhile, so trade would be your best bet.
It hasn't been released as a menu offering (still in testing).any chance there's any of your HS x Skunky Brewster cross still available?
This is really cool, and an awesome way to present it. I think the part about peas helped lure in my mushy brains... Thanks.Why is the F2 generation “wilder” than F1 or F3???
Many times, growers will say, “I love digging through F2s” or “I’ll try to find a male from the F2.” The realization that there is something peculiar about F2 seeds may seem puzzling. It rubs against the assumption that as a line is worked through subsequent generations, there should be a stabilizing force that funnels phenotypic variance with each new generation. Yet, we can see a marked difference in expressions during the F2 vs. F1 or F3. This concept was realized by Gregor Mendel during his experiments with peas.
While studying inheritance, Mendel bred one pea that was true-breeding for smooth peas (SS) with a wrinkled pea (ss) and observed that all of the resulting progeny in the F1 generation were smooth peas.
This is not shocking to us now that we understand the mechanics of inheritance. The dominant “smooth” trait ensures that all of the F1 phenotypes are smooth peas (Ss). It is worth noting that while all of our F1 peas have a smooth phenotype, their genotype now includes the recessive wrinkled allele (s).
When Mendel selected 2 peas from the F1 generation for breeding, the F2 generation produced 25% wrinkled peas.
Let’s take a look at a similar example using cannabis. Assume a breeder was working on plant height. This breeder wanted tall plants so they used their true-breeding for tall height Haze (SS) with a new short Afghan Skunk (ss) that had another trait of interest.
To the breeder’s satisfaction, the F1 generation produces all tall offspring (Ss). Our breeder would like to further refine the line to shore up this particular trait along with a few new traits acquired and selects two plants from the F1 to create F2.
Now, the breeder is surprised to see 25% of the F2 plants sporting a short height (ss). While the F1 phenos were very uniform, the F2 generation seems to be throwing a curveball. Our breeder culls the 25% shorties and selects from the remaining tall plants for the F3 generation.
The F3 offspring now assume the uniform tall height seen from the F1. The added benefit to the F3 generation is that we now have 50% true-breeding tall plants (SS). This would mean that if the breeder selects 2 (SS) plants for F4, the resulting genotypes would all be true-breeding for tall height.
This example is a good illustration of the difference in goals between growers-for-smoke(GFS) and breeders. Chuckers and GFS will be most interested in phenohunting populations with no explicit interest in the genotype. A breeder is a genohunter, testing and observing populations to create desirable genetic arrangements.
New spinoff site idea :How traits from Grandparent plants can reemerge in the F2
View attachment 27388
The F2 generation can see the reappearance of traits from grandparent plants that were considered “gone”. To illustrate how this can happen, let’s see what our hypothetical breeder is up to now.
Schwaggy Z has a great female plant that he would like to use for a project (called Project X). He buys a pack of Black Lights (Black Domina x NL#1) to find a suitable male for his project. Schwaggy has never seen the individual Black Domina or NL#1 that went into this cross, so he’s just hoping to find a nice indica male.
After popping the entire pack, he observes all of the plants are green with no variegation. He selects a male plant from this parent stock (P) and mates him to his great female plant that is also green with no variegation. All of the F1 plants are green without variegation and our breeder is feeling pretty good about results so far. Schwaggy continues with selection from the F1 and breeds to the F2.
To his surprise, the F2 offspring now have green leaves with and without variegation as well as black leaves with and without variegation. Schwaggy is at a loss to explain where these traits came from and worries about some kind of pollen contamination. How can this be?
The breeder of the Black Lights used a Black Domina with black leaves that have variegation and a Northern Lights #1 with green leaves and no variegation. We’ll use:
G – dominant Green leaf
g – recessive black leaf
N – dominant NO variegation
n – recessive variegation
The Black Domina’s genotype is double recessive for both traits (ggnn) while the NL#1 is (GGNN). Let’s see how these grandparents breed to make the seeds Schwaggy popped to find a male.
Now we can see that the black variegation was “washed out” in the creation of the pack of seeds Schwaggy bought to find a male for Project X. Since he never saw the grandparents and only saw all green/no variegation plants, he never suspected the black/variegation traits were lurking.
Schwaggy selects a male from this population (the pack of Black Lights) with the genotype (GgNn) to mate with his green/no variegated female (GGNN) to create F1 offspring.
All of the F1 offspring are green with no variegation, but the genotypes are now more diverse than the parent generation. Schwaggy selects a (GgNn) female and (GgNn) male to create F2 seeds.
To his shock, the F2 plants now produce:
~55% green leaves without variegation
~20% green variegated leaves
~20% black leaves without variegation
~5% black variegated leaves
The F2 generation saw the reappearance of a trait that was only seen from a grandparent plant and never manifested through the P or F1 generations.
With the aid of Punnett Squares, we are able to make sense of the F2 mystery.
Of the Chem cuts, it sounds most like the SKVA. The lemons comment isn't something I get from her nose, but everything else you described sounds similar to her. Some speculate that OG Kush is a SKVA S1, so if that holds, there could be some lemon in there you might be able to tease out or you may have had an S1.
It hasn't been released as a menu offering (still in testing).
Many individual questions but hopefully the broader answer can entertain a wider audience?
I can hardly hold the anticipation.
The term bottlenecking refers to contraction in genetic diversity of a population due to limited population. This can be a great thing in the case of a targeted breeding project as your goal is to create a uniform strain of plants that exhibit little genetic variation in higher generations (either filial F3+, selfed S2+). In this context, bottlenecking is providing the stabilizing force to the intended line.How do I as recreational chucker avoid bottlenecking myself? Can this be done without infusing new genetics?
I tried to mitigate the loss of such “hidden” recessive alleles when doing the HAOG BX. The way I tried to accomplish this is through what I called “polyandric backcrossing”. It is essentially doing 3 simultaneous backcrossings using a different male for each and tracking the resulting females to ensure that the traits that encompass the HAOG phenotype wasn’t lost due to loss of a recessive allele in the selection process. If a particular male seemed to produce females lacking some quintessential HAOG trait, then I knew a recessive trait was being smothered and discontinued that specific BX line. I’ll post the full write up of that process soon.I have made some f1s and am debating a path forward if any. I am not necessarily on a targeted breeding project other than to reduce the risk of bottlenecking myself, essentially selectively chucking to the point of loosing some important allele that is unknown to me because I based of phenotypic expression (please forgive if that is not the correct terminolgy). What if the trait I key in on is actually a genetic flaw?
If your fear is that you’ll inadvertently lose something through selection, then open pollination of as many males/females is the most you can do if limited to only using the original line. I would conceptualize the open pollinations as keeping the gene pool as diverse as the original starting material allows, as you are limited to within the confines of whatever that line’s starting gene diversity afforded.This leads me to think the best option to capture the whole of a f1 chuck is to run a 32 plant open pollination run. Ideally it would split 50/50 male/female but that probably wont happen then if I start pulling females and popping more beans searching for males am I really diversifying the gene pool any? I would be selecting out the population even if not intentional?
Awesome! Thanks for giving Schwaggy Seeds a shot. There's info about them here:Schwaggy SeedsI can hardly hold the anticipation.
There are more variables than we can even comprehend I bet . JmhoGot a question for ya. Take a cut of wedding cake. Same cut shared a thousand times but the results are much different based on how/where its grown. Even using same lights/nutes/media in four grows turns into four different looks, g/w, lab test scores. Hows this explain that? Mendel says it shouldt be the case. Are dom traits not important for cannabis?
I know that your question is directed towards @Schwaggy P, but my understanding: Genotype is the only constant with cuttings (clones). Environment plays a huge role in phenotypic expressions. My guess would be that unless someone is growing in a laboratory setting, they are failing to recreate the exact environment down to a T. Temperature, humidity, nutrient availability and uptake etc all make up the cuts environment, thus leading to different phenotypic expressions. Again, this is just my understanding of the science behind it. I am certain that @Schwaggy P will have a better grasp on it. Positive vibes...Got a question for ya. Take a cut of wedding cake. Same cut shared a thousand times but the results are much different based on how/where its grown. Even using same lights/nutes/media in four grows turns into four different looks, g/w, lab test scores. Hows this explain that? Mendel says it shouldt be the case. Are dom traits not important for cannabis?