RRS Improved Breeding for Closet Hacks - Click HERE for Original ThreadVic High</B>Here is a simple model that can help explain how someone with as little as a 400watt garden and a flo clone bench could pull off an improved breeding project utilizing a derivitive of the RRS concept. This is not a strict blueprint, but just a general model that can be scaled up or down depending on the realities of the seed maker. In this case, I will assume that the clone bench is limited to 30 clones and the flower room limited to 20 flowering plants. Purists will find flaws in the model and and their insight is welcome as it can only add depth. However, I request that any that are not interested in the concept of improved breeding techniques to simple limit their participation to read only status. By all means questions about clarification are welcome, but ignorant attempts to discredit are not. As the starter of this thread, I ask the breeder mod to respect this wish and delete any extra "noise". If this isn't possible because of site policy, I will just remove this post and take it to a more selfish location

Hope this enlightens some to the possibilities.

*********************************************

Starting with two unrelated inbred lines, A and B.

1) Grow out the A line and select the top 5 males (Am1-5) and top 5 females (Af1-5) to use later:
a) plant a little over twice the seeds your flower room can handle
b) veg seedlings
c) sex the seedlings
d) select females for flower room and repot into final pots
e) take 4 clones of each of these females
f) flower males and females, may be cramped with the males to start, don't worry
g) just before the males explode, remove, grade, select 5 best.
h) prune these 5 males to remove all flowers and return to veg area
i)harvest females, grade, and identify the top 5
j) keep the best two clones that represents each of the 5 selected females, discard the rest

What you finish with is 15 clones and some sinse to enjoy personally or sell if that is your game. Whatever the route, this step has not cost the grower anything but a bit of space in the flo bench.

2) Grow out the B line and select the top 5 males (Bm) and top 5 females (Bf) to use later: Follow the procedure used in step 1 above.

The net result should be another sinse crop and the flow bench contain 30 clones now.

5 Am clones labelled Am1 - Am5
2 sets of 5-Af clones labelled Af1-Af5
5 Bm clones labelled Bm1 - Bm5
2 sets of 5-Bf clones labelled Bf1-Bf5

3) Making the A and the BA seedlines Take the 5 Am and 1 copy of each of the Bf and Af clones and flower them out (15 total) allowing random pollination. You should end up with 10 seedlots divided into two groups of 5, the A group labelled A1-A5 and the BA group labelled BA1-BA5. See figure 1.


4) Making the B and the AB seedlines Take the 5 Bm and 1 copy of each of the Bf and Af clones and flower them out (15 total) allowing random pollination. You should end up with 10 seedlots divided into two groups of 5, the B group labelled B1-B5 and the AB group labelled AB1-AB5. See figure 1.

Be sure to make sure that the end numbers correspond to the same initial female clones. For instance, be sure that AB1 and A1 seedlines are from the same A1 mother. And that the BA1 and B1 seedlines came from the same B1 mother.

The clone bench should be empty now and the breeder should have 5 packs of A seedline, 5 packs of the B seedline, 5 packs of AB seedline and 5 packs of the BA seedline making 20 packs of seed.

5) Grow out and rate the 5 packs of AB seedline. One could do them all at ounce, or divide it up over 6 sinse crops. Nothing wrong with a few sinse crops is there? For this model I will divide the task into the 6 sinse crops.

5a) Grow out as many of the AB1 seeds as your flower room can handle. This usually means planting a little over more than double the number of plants your room can handle and then just selecting the best females for flowering. Make backup clones of each female to be flowered and store them on the flo bench. Now take the number of plants your flowering room can hold (say 20 in this model) and divide this number by 5 and this is the number of keeper plants you want to identify from this crop (say 4). Use a standard score sheet system to score this crop and make notes for future reference if necessary. Identify and select the clones representing these 4 plants and toss the rest. Be sure to label them AB1.

5b-5e) repeat the 5a process for each of the seedlots labelled AB2 to AB5. You have now enjoyed 7 sinse crops and should end up with 20 clones on your clone bench if your flower room can hold 20 plants. There should be 4 of each group, be sure each group is properly labelled from AB1 - AB5.

5f) This is your eighth sinse crop and is where you grow the best of the best of the AB seedline. Randomly arrange these plants in your grow room and then flower them out. Score each plant and use the totals of each group of 4 to score each of the 5 groups. Rank the AB seedlines from best to worst. You can help your decision by referring to the data you also collected in the previous 5 grows. The point is to determine which of the 5 seedlots provided the best OVERALL results, not the best individuals

Your clone bench should be empty again.

6a-6f) repeat the entire process from 5) above, but using the BA1 - BA5 seedlines instead.


7) with reference to steps 5a-5f, use the data data collected to determine your two top A seedlines, lets say that A5 ranked first and A3 ranked second. This means that you can discard seedlots A1, A2 and lot A4. See figure 2.

7a) Grow out as many plants of the A5 seedbatch as you can and select your top 3 males and top 3 females. Maintain clones of these 6 plants on your clone bench, cleartly labelled as Af1-Af3 and Am1-Am3.

7b) Grow out as many plants of the A3 seedline and select the best 2 males and best 2 females, clearly labelling them Af4-Af5 and Am4-Am5.

Now be sure to have two copies of each Af clone for a total of 15 clones on the clone bench. Sound familiar?

8) Now repeat the processes in step 7 but with using the data collected in step6 to choose the top two B seedlines.

Now you should have 30 clones on your clone bench representing:

5 Am clones labelled Am1 - Am5
2 sets of 5-Af clones labelled Af1-Af5
5 Bm clones labelled Bm1 - Bm5
2 sets of 5-Bf clones labelled Bf1-Bf5


Repeat the process in steps 3) and 4) so that you once again have seedlines labelled at A, B, AB, and BA.

You have finished the first cycle of the breeding program and ready to start a second. It hasn't been quick but you have enjoyed alot of sinse along the way and the combined AB and BA seedlines represent a superior F1 seed product. Each step of RRS will just keep making it better.


Now it's time to post, proof, and go back and edit the mistakes, haha.


------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
southernboyjust wanted to say thank you vic, and ill be studying this thread.....southernstyle
,,,,,ps&gt; can you recomend a cannabis specific botony book?
junior-botanistsouthernboy try vic's link. here it is http://www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
a wealth of recommendations are right there. including botany books.

------------------
breed the seed, overgrow the world. good growing to you.
jb
rottytownhey Vic how ya been i do have a possible flaw with this program as you show here.
3) take the 5 Am and 1 copy of each of the Bf and Af clones and flower them out (15 total) allowing random pollination. You should end up with 10 seedlots divided into two groups of 5, the A group labelled A1-A5 and the Ab group labelled Ab1-Ab5


4) take the 5 Bm and 1 copy of each of the Bf and Af clones and flower them out (15 total) allowing random pollination. You should end up with 10 seedlots divided into two groups of 5, the B group labelled B1-B5 and the aB group labelled aB1-aB5.

you say random pollination ,do you mean to tell me that you would let pollen from all choice five males pollinate the females .by doing this i would think that unless all your males all perfectly identical that you would still wind up with more inconsistancy with what seed you wound up producing ? dont you think.I would much rather isolate 1 male for each catagorie of females then grow out the results taking clones from which produced best.Just my two cents if i misunderstood you the i appoligise .

------------------
DONT WORRY BE HAPPY !!
BullwinkleI took it as random meaning to selectivly pollinate randomly so you can enjoy some of the product without seed. I may be wrong, but thats how I took it.

------------------
Bullwinkle

Gee Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
suzy cremecheeseI was enjoying the hypothetical procedure myself up until that part. Would it require much more space if you kept track of what male did what branch? I guess then youve got 100 seedlots instead of 20 but I guess Id just like to know who did what so I dont have to hang on to a loser.

Peace and thanks vic
Suzy

------------------
"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win. (Gandhi)
Vic High</B>Susy and rotty, thanks for bringing this up. Even though I've already answered this question a couple of times here and there, and get cranky when I keep getting asked to repeat myself, haha, adressing it again here with the model is a good idea. But I'll just start with a repost and then let you OR someone else base future questions on this instead of me starting over


REPOSTS:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Which male's pollen am I collecting? How much pollen is coming from each male? If you collect on 1 day or collect over 30 days, you still have no idea what you have collected. Therefore, you never know when it has mixed well, or even what it contains. You're just hoping, and that is bad science.

No it isn't bad science, it's about respecting some of the merrits of natural selection when they don't get in the way. Look again to dogs, the lines where man does the selections are suffering from inbreeding depression. Man has demonstrated that he isn't capable of breeding for fitness over the long haul, especially when controlling the exact nature of each cross. But the mongrel dogs are, generally speaking, healthy and don't share the diseases following the purebreds. Man rarely controls a mongrel cross, nature does. Nature is effective in maintaining fitness. Now in a room of mixed pollen, you must remember all the males are already there because they have been selected by the breeder. Is it such a bad thing to allow nature to have a say in weighting the genepool from amonst these "selected" males? I think not, I feel this is an excellent oportunity to allow nature to do her thing without interferring with our selective process. Remember, she doesn't get to act on all the males, just those we selected as superior.

Plus if you really follow the model, you will see that each pollen pool is being selected for it's combining ability in an indirect fashion. This is what the reciprocol nature of the model accomplished. The females are selected on their ability to produce superior offspring with the pollen pool as a WHOLE. This happens on both sides and therefore with each cycle of the breeding program, more and more indirect selection is imposed on the pollen source while allowing nature to somewhat protect what man is incapable of, fitness or adapatability. (ok, I edited and added to this repost, haha)


AND ANOTHER REPOST, PLEASE IGNORE THE TONE FOR THIS THREAD:

Another area you closet hacks keep clinging to with complete devotion to ignorance is the mixed pollen. You keep claiming that selection has not been ,ade on the pollen source, but if you study my closet hack model, you will see that it is done twice with each generation. First time when choosing your top males. Second time when doing the RRS. The male selection is indirect, but still effectively there with each and every test cross. The pollen is being tested for it's ability to combine with the females. The pollen's role isn't missing, just not as obvious as the female's.

2) If you ever actually decided to open a book and study genetics, you would learn that one does not breed for polygenic low heritable traits such as yield and potency by using the individual plant test cross method. The breeder must select for families of superior plants to ensure a chance of maintaining all the genes that went into making the superior yield, potency, adaptability, or basically overall fitness. This is a fact of life whether you like it or not and I make every advanced genetics book out there ever written as my reference. All you have to do is read one to find this reality.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm

This message has been edited by Vic High on January 26, 2002 at 09:43 AM
rottytownOk i here what you are saying but i dont agree with random pollen from different males even though they are a selected bunch with the first pollination series i feel the males should be seperated this way when you grow the f2's out you would get a better idea of which would be superior and then by doing this you would be able to gain more available space to a more superior phenom of plant.I do breed dogs and have been for many year yes it is true that alot of people that do breed and call them selves breeders really have no buisness breeding at all but i am not one of those .I am a true breeder of rotts and i do, do line breeding but you need to no what your dealing with , with each pedigree i need to know what there pedigree is for at least 8 generations and i have been around long enough to know most of the dogs in their pedigrees and all there medical problems by knowing all these things and keeping records of it for future breedings i keep and have kept very typey dogs in all my years of breeding knock on wood i have yet to have any dogs with hip displaysia they have all been OFA cert. So i just feel that if the right person does their homework that they are better off then letting nature have a hack at it i feel it gives you more control over what your breeding by isolating male pollen.

------------------
DONT WORRY BE HAPPY !!
Dr. StoneVic - Excellent explanation of the practical use of RRS. Even though some people don't seem to get it, it is a nice example of how far a little THINKING (preferably sativa bubble potentiated ;-) can get you. Hope to see some interesting crosses coming from you in the future that put these thoughts into action.

As for some of the problems people are having, it is important to keep in mind the goal of a breeding program following this model. It is to gradually develop two populations that, when crossed, produce a really stunning F1 hybrid population. It ensures: 1) minimal chance of inbreeding depression in the candidate inbred lines, by working with populations, 2) elimination of subsets of the population that don't contribute positively to the eventual cross, and most importantly, 3) retention of genes in the candidate lines that, when crossed, produce at least better qualities, at best outstanding qualities in the hybrid offspring.

Toadspitstout - You seem to have totally misunderstood the nature of selection applied in RRS. The two hybrid populations are evaluated ONLY to determine the quality of the results of the cross, not for continued breeding. It is quite possible under a single 400watt light to screen, at nine square feet, 9 x 16 per square foot, or 144 seedlings, at each cross testing. It is a simple matter to evaluate seedlings at this stage and determine how many are up to your selection standards. The percentage you discard (or want to discard) gives a nice numeric index of the success of that particular cross. After discarding all but the best, using Vic's total of 20 plants flowering, there are still likely 4 plants from each male represented in the final cross test plants, unless of course one male consistently produced better offspring, in which case it may be overrepresented in the test results.

You then choose the best two batches not for further breeding, but to choose the female parents for further breeding. We know, thanks to the crosses, that these females produce the best results with ALL of the males you've used. If you're really worried about the males, collect pollen from all of them, mix it together well, and pollinate the females with the mix. Then no quirks of your growroom setup or non-random placement of males can affect the distribution of pollen. But narrowing to one male at each cross will simply introduce far too much genetic restriction with far too little potential gain.

In effect, RRS uses females to narrow the genetic population, and males (which are notoriously difficult/expensive to judge on all but the most basic qualities) are mostly used to keep as much genetic variability as possible (simplifying considerably, of course).

RRS may be an old breeding strategy, but theories about breeding don't go stale, rot, or otherwise lose any value with time. Actually, that RRS is still used among knowledgable breeders shows that it really is a valuable strategy. That the cannabis community at large, and "breeders" here are just hearing about it doesn't speak very highly of our interest in producing the best plants we possibly can.

What has been developed with RRS? Trinity was developed in the early 80's with RRS, starting with a very resinous indica IBL and a low gland count, but still very potent sativa-indica stable hybrid line. The best plants were as potent as available, exhibited a mostly sativa high, and yet had a very high gland count. RRS is the only way such a variety could be developed that consistently acquires the resin quantity of one parent line and general cannabinoid profile and quantity of another. Only selection for combining ability can even begin to produce control over such results. Even Trinity, which was always seen as an F1 hybrid (clone these days, unfortunately) in its true form, when grown from seed exhibited some variability in the traits of interest, demonstrating the clear influence of multiple genes on the desired qualities, but at least a quarter of the plants were truly amazing keepers (Better live in the Ozark mountains if you're going to find any of the real deal, the ultra-funk, though).

Some of you may get a kick out of this: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Stay high,
Dr. Stone

Oh, and is anyone breeding for THCV these days? Or other propyl analogues?
hyb.

This message has been edited by hyb on March 26, 2002 at 08:58 PM
Vic High</B>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Ok i here what you are saying but i dont agree with random pollen from different males

Agree or don't agree, but I'm basing my position on advanced breeding concepts, not personal "feelings". I have mentioned that this (family selection) is how one breeds for traits like yield, potency, and fitness, are you saying that this academic statement is incorrect? Do you have an academic argument against or just an emotional one? I didn't start this thread to discuss feelings and the other quasi sciences that runs traditional breeding concepts. The concepts of full sib vs half sib breeding methods is well researched and documented. If you can show that full sib breeding WON'T direct a breeding project into the right direction, please by all means share.

Rotty, much of the dog model applies to cannabis, but the improved breeding options available to both is one thing that isn't. You painted a pretty picture of your breeding program and I salute you for wanted to raise the bar in your profession. However, it's also naive. I have seen a stud male become a celebrity on a north american scale and basically own any conformation show it entered. That stud's marketvalue was tops and the owner was able to be extremely picky as to who was allowed access to the stud services. And then when the dog reached about 8 years, it's genetics crumbled and instead of disclosing the problem to the breeding community, the owner quietly had the dog put down. almost a decade later, seeing that dog's name in a pedigree makes that pedigree more valuable. No matter how hard you THINK you can control you genetics, you can't, and thinking you can is what has gotten many dog breeds like your rottys into the trouble they are.

The dog breeding books can't consider the mixed pollen method because such a technique isn't practical for the dog breeding paradigm. However, before discounting it, you may want to read up a bit on manipulating quantitative or biometric genetics, particularly those with low heritability. Compare the pros/cons of full sib vs half sib breeding programs. One is faster, one is more practical, but both work. Plus, adding this knowledge, even if it isn't directly applicable to the methods available to a dog breeder, will help you better understand your selection choices.


Hibe, I built the model by placing my head into the closet grower's paradigm and trying to create an RRS model based upon the constraints of that paradigm. Obviously such things as lightmovers and more lights would severely influence and improve the model and make it better. I just wanted to create a model that addresses every closet hack's arguments against even trying to try an improved breeding method. Just creating a starting point based on the reality that closet growers ARE going to continue breeding seeds for the market because the market is going to continue buying them. So, which is better, my flawed RRS model, or the closet hack one on one method? Just opening doors with the prototype here. Like yourself, I will let the end users come up with ways to upgrade the model into a "higher performance" one. Definately feel I have done more than enough spoonfeeding so far.


**********************************************

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
juicyfruitmanIf your not selecting for individual traits, then what is the goal? The breeding that is done with dogs, is done to select the best idividuals. Your taking a process Vic, and trying to transition it to a gene pool that does not act in anyway in that of dogs.
Sounds like taking your best bitch. Mating her with 3 different males on 3 seperate days just to get a selection of all 3 in one shot. (no pun intended) This process is not widely used, and cannot be used for pedigree idividuals...unless your a genetist and can determine who's who. RRS leaves out the individual selection and adds up to nothing but a short cut to a variable F1, that no emphasis has been put on individual traits, but basis on group traits only. Got a million bag seeds, they'll be just as good as ones done from RRS.
I'm with Joker on this. All that's to be gained is $$, by posting of this over and over again.

Peace
JFM
hyb.

This message has been edited by hyb on March 26, 2002 at 09:00 PM
SkunkWiz*Great post vic. shame others didn't see it that way. I have only a basic knowledge of genetics, and even with just that i was able to see what u said made sense.

the chaos of the gamete production and fusion results in quite different plants from the same plants, one male might produce good plants but only 4 out of 10, u could use it but. with vics method it creates a strain that produces more good plants because all the plants would eventually be brimming with good genetics after a few gens. the single male method however, could infact get worse as times goes by.

im sure theres a mathmatical model for this.
i think i got this right, please feel free to correct me

good work vic. if i ever start breeding, it seems a sensible, effective method
BullwinkleVic,
A little off the topic but I'm curious.

I went over and just looked at your seed list at HS. I notice most of your strains are either c99 crossed with something or Rumulan, etc. The Blueberry is an F2 from choice parents. None of the strains seem to have that much work into them.

My question is: With the breeding knowledge you have, has any of the procedures went into effect towards your strains? I was curious why you haven't made a signature strain like Grimm has. Seems you could have your very own "Superior" strain that could really wow the folks like Grimm has.

Just curious, hope not to offend. Maybe you have something "Original" in the workings. I just feel "as a closet hack" that I could create the same strains with my "closet hack" techniques.

Like I said, hope not to offend. Peace and good tidings.

------------------
Bullwinkle

Gee Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

This message has been edited by Bullwinkle on January 28, 2002 at 09:17 AM
Vic High</B>Thanks for the move Mr Ito, I guess I should have just started here


Now I have done some ruthless housecleaning. trimming the fat from the meat, I hope this clarifies the standards I expect from those participating in this thread. If you want to offer critism, please do, but back it up with academic substance. If you want to offer praise or support please do, but back it up with academic substance If you just have general questions to aid in clarifying what has been mentioned, please feel free to ask. I have left a few questionable posts that don't quite fall into one of these three catagories, but they were left because they were written by someone that has a history of indicating that they have invested the time and effort into studying the subject matter in detail.

Bullwinkle, if you have read other threads on this subject, you would realize that I have no problem being frank when discussing my seedlines. To date, my seedlist contains projects that are laying the foundations of my "real" breeding projects. I don't consider any of them to be properly "finished" by any professional standard. I feel this truth and the fact that my seedlines can compete as well as they do indicates just how sloppy the cannabis breeding around the world truly is. I've sampled seeds from breeders from around the world and nobody's work is pushing the envelope and the quality of cannabis varieties is not improving.

While the quality of the available flowers may be holding, the adaptability (or overall vigour) of the plants behind the flowers is definately decreasing. This has been observed by many of us oldtimers who have shared 20 plus year old clones that do well in almost all of our gardens while newly bred seeds we share only do well in a few. While "unfinished" my seedlines do in fact represent attempts to preserve overall seedline vigour and adaptability. You will often hear me at my help desk say that I need more info before recommending a strain to a newbie and state, that no strain is the best strain for all growing situations, as the reason. Well if cananbis breeders stay on the same path they are on now, this statement will become increasing true on a narrower scale. In 20 years, please feel free to quote me on this, haha

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
BullwinkleThanks Vic, btw, this was a really informative thread for me.

------------------
Bullwinkle

Gee Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Memy SelfandiI'll mention the 'meat' of this whole thing here, too...

what is your take on Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and its relationship to RRS breeding strategies.

how is it possible to achieve HWE (p^2 2pq q^2) with 10 plants? oh wait, you said best 2 females? make that 7 plants (5 males, 2 females).

'splain Lucy!
Vic High</B>Memy, your first time here and I'm happy to give you a chance to adapt before I ....

You raise a valid issue, but instead of expecting others to address your issue, to participate in one of my academic threads, you must contribute some of the academics yourself when making your point. In layman's terms, if you want to discuss the effects of hardy's equations, then apply them and and make your points with the calculations, not the name of the equation.

Then maybe we can move forward and apply the same standards (calculations) to other closet breeder methods and compare the methods. See how this works? Bring something of academic substance to the table and you can stay and contribute. Otherwise ....

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Memy Selfandihere's the OG thread for details of the 'equation' (???)

G.H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg...
independently formulated the model which predicts genotype frequency. many assumptions are made:

1. the organism is diploid

2. Reproduction is sexual

3. generations are nonoverlapping

4. the gene under consideration has two alleles

5. the allele frequencies are identical in males and females

6. mating is random

7. population size is very large (in theory, infinite)

8. Migration is neglegible

9. mutation can be ignored

10. natural selection does not affect the allele under consideration

frequencies are given by: AA^2, Aa: 2pq, aa:q^2, where p^2, 2pq, and q^2 are the frequencies of the genotypes AA, Aa, and aa in zygotes of any generation, p and q are the allele frequencies of A and a in the previous generation, and p+q=1.

this is the Hardy-Weinberg principle, or Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

now, RRS uses very large populations and random matings to preserve HWE, how can you do this with 7 plants, i ask again?

I'm just getting up to speed here, myself; it's like those old milk commercials...I'm reading books...and in a few weeks...well, you know...

it is a proportion, not really an equation. the HWE describes the ratios of homozygotes to heterozygotes in certain situations. when using very small population sizes, homozygosity increases with inbreeding, drift becomes a problem, and mutation can have a large effect. this is why HWE is only valid in very large populations (infinite), and why C7T had recommended the numbers that he did.



This message has been edited by Memy Selfandi on January 28, 2002 at 05:53 PM
Vic High</B>memy, you still haven't actually APPLIED the equation. Although I and Hyb already know what Hardy's equation is and it's significance, thanks for taking the time of attempting to giving it a quick going over for those that are not up to speed. However, you may want to backtrack and verify exactly what it means and how it's used ie. pay particular attention to #6, are you sure the mating is random?


But still, you need to show it in action to get MY interest.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Memy Selfandii can't take the time to do this in two threads, so i'll have to keep my replies over at OG in the seedmakers thread.Vic High

</B>ok, I think I'm pretty much finished editing the model and I added a couple of figures in hopes that it will help clarify. If anyone is having trouble understanding a step, please speak up and I'll do what I can to clarify it. The second figure is a useful concept for anyone wanting to breed for complicated traits such as potency and yield.


Memy, Joker, Joey, Hibe, Toad, and anyone i missed. You all were very vocal expressing opinions before I decided to set some ground rules for the discussion. Now that unsubstantiated opinions are no longer an option, don't any of you have anything to add of factual or academic value? Chimera, you have been silent throughout most of this discussion, what's your calulator tell you?

Memy, have you figured out how The Hardy Weinberg equations fits into all of this? Inbreeding coefficients? Anyone else?


Just remember, when posting, try and ensure that your post satisfy's one of the following three criteria, that will help you seperate emotional opinions from factual based ones.


1) disagree and back up your reasons with academic facts/insight.

2) agree and back up your reasons with academic facts/insight.

3) raise questions to clarify specific academic points.


------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Joker1.5Well here are some points I disagree with before I'm deleted.
I looked at VICS equation he posted. I really don't know what math you are using VIC but the way I figure it p2 + 2pq + q2 =1. I really don't know what your eqation is trying to relate to anyone.


1. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium deals with evolution. Random breeding with random selection. You have removed random from the principle by selecting parents and confining them in a small area.
2. Hardy based his theory on Mendel's. Mendel was trying to establish rules for plant breeding. Mendel was using Peas tyo show how he could control characteristics. Hardy has thrown Mendel's controls to the wind in favor of EVOLUTION . Mendel learned that in the organism there is a pair of factors that controls the appearance of a given characteristic. (genes.) The organism inherits these factors from its parents, one from each.
[BOLD]Each is transmitted from generation to generation as a discrete, unchanging unit.
When the gametes are formed, the factors separate and are distributed as units to each gamete. This statement is often called Mendel's rule of segregation.
If an organism has two unlike factors (alleles) for a characteristic, one may be expressed to the total exclusion of the other (dominant vs. recessive). This is very basic genetic math. Which allele will be expressed. It's really not that hard to determine. Once you have the dominant traits determined the math is very easy. I have posted about the rythm of genetic math. Here is where it comes into play. Genetic math is very reliable and predictable if you understand the principle Mendel describes. Mendel spelled it put for Hardy. Mendel spelled it out for everyone.
As genomes are defined we learn that Mendel was right on the nut. His math was very accurate and he correctly predicted his plant genetic models w/o the advantage of PCR.
Now given Mendel's Rule (what anyone with any knowledge on the issue relies on) why would you look to Hardy's theory on evolution? A complete divergent theory on how to breed plants. [/BOLD]
You also say that the organism is Diploid? You'll have to clarify that for me. You also state incorrectly
quote: that it is a proportion, not really an equation
You could not be more wrong. You really have a very poor understanding of Hardy. You failed to mention Mendel at all which is what Hardy based his entire theory on. What was Hardy saying? DO you have any ideas at all? You make no mention of EVOLUTION which is the basis for the Hardy-Weinberg principle. In addition you fail to state Hardy's assumptions for the model he used to predict frequncies. In Hadry's model the population was infinitely large. Please explain how you will adjust your model for this.
Hardy stated; "There is no mutation (at least none at rates high enough to make a significant change in allele freqency)." You're saying you have a diploid population. I say to you how will that diploid population affect allele frequency. Please be specific because it is certainly going to cause a change (significat) in your equation model.
Please give a definition of mutation, as used in your HW model. OK


And to Hyb

quote: Joker:" Just say over and over Vic, Cannabis has male and female flowers. Maybe you'll catch on to how this type of cross relates to selective breeding.
We'll wait and see.

&gt;&gt;&gt;what was your point here Mann? its lost in your vagueness."type of cross"?? can you elaborate Joker?
My point was this XXXXX,
Cannabis has male and female plants. The field crops you were speaking of have both male and female sexual organs on the same plant. Making a comparison of these type plants to cannabis is soooooo irrelevant it's absurd. (censored)

This message has been edited by Joker1.5 on February 03, 2002 at 03:24 PM
Vic High</B>Ok joker, you seem to be catching on. For the most part you stuck with the academics of the discussion. You didn't reference your points of rebuttle but IMO this doesn't matter because you used points of "common knowledge" to make them. Just be prepared to back them up with refs if challanged.


I don't usually edit posts that I intend to keep around, usually they are either kept or deleted as a package deal. However, because we are trying to prepare for a new forum, I edited yours slightly as a demonstration of what's going to effect your ability to participate in the new forum. I could go back and do the same with Hyb's but I suspect Hyb will have no problem adapting to the new environment. The editing is for you, not this thread.

********************************************

As for your HWE comments, thanks for jumping in. However, I'm going to defer further personal input until the new forum is in place. And then we can start a thread that will dissect HWE on it's own. And this will be the way we will try and structure the forum. Each thread will remained focused to one topic. When another subject comes into play that some participants don't fully comprehend, we will start a new thread to dissect the topic and then take what was learned back to the initial topic. This way future readers won't have to wade through RRS discussion to learn about HWE and the RRS discussions won't get sidetracked by HWE. It's my goal for us to create an educational forum who's archives will be extremely valuable to us and those who follow us.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Vic High</B>Just saw your edited post with the initiual question.

&gt;&gt;&gt; I really don't know what math you are using VIC but the way I figure it p2 + 2pq + q2 =1. I really don't know what your eqation is trying to relate to anyone.


Well apply HWE to a real life breeding situation and it should become obvious. Remember that each plant has 2 alleles, not just one.

So say you want to make a random cross between BB and bb, with bb making up 40% of the starting genepool. Whether we are discussing mendel or hwe, the equation I posted will calculate the finished genotypes assuming random mating. I'll leave this at that for now for you and memy to scratch your heads over. When we have the new forum, we can take it further.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
subcoolVic I just wanted to thank you yet again for opening my feeble brain to new idea's. I have finally begain to understand RRS and will aply it to the best of my abilty in the future. I am not sure I can always create the exact numbers in the formula as sometimes the genetics I work with are limited in supply ( few special seeds horded over time) but I totally see the benifit to the plant itself. The Plant has always looked after me so I might as well do my best for it.Reading everything I can just don't feel I know enough to contribute on the boards. I am a lurking fool though.
Thanks again learned alot this year from ya already.
The hash plants in super soil and larger pots are the best I've ever done indoors.
Peace Subby
Vic High</B>Hey Sub, just try and keep the RRS in perspective when considering it as a breeding tool. While it is the best tool for some jobs, one doesn't use a rachet for every aspect of mechanical work Alot of work can be done to a genepool before even starting the RRS portion of a breeding project. The RRS portion is nothing more than a superior tool for combining two seperate genepools. But alot can be done to create and improve a genepool without ever considering combining it with another.

Like your comments about starting with limited numbers of seeds, this really doesn't have any relavance to an RRS project as it would be dealt with long before starting an RRS project. Like take my blueberry project. Because I paid $28.50 a bean to initiate the genepool, I was severely limited in the numbers I had to start with. So my first task was to bulk up my blueberry genepool by doing a half-sib cross with as many "acceptable" individuals as possible, each female creating a different blueberry seedlot. I didn't select the best, I removed the worst. This is important when first working a new genepool that is limited in numbers and you are inexperienced with. From there I tested each female's progeny (now that I had 1000s of seeds representing blueberry) and made selections based on the best. It is only AFTER I bulked up the seedline that I started any actual selections that directed the genepool .... While allowing me to preserve genetic diversity as best as possible under the circumstances. It's only after doing this prelim work and various test crosses would one start using the blueberry in an RRS project. Lots of breeding programs are carried out before an RRS project that builds the genetic foundations of a breeder. The RRS is just a method of finishing them off

We will be opening a forum soon that will be dedicated to exploring these various methods and the academics behind them in detail. While you may not understand some of the topics, or specific details about them to offer academic insight, I'm sure you could offer some valuable input in the way of questions that assist in clarity.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
ShipperkeThis new forum thingy sounds exciting...

Not trying to sidetrack anything but I have to say that Hardy-Weinberg theory describes a NONEVOLVING population. As far as I can tell, the only reason people bring it up is to sound fancy, cuz it really is meaningless in the context of any breeding program.
Bahlumyou are correct Shipperke.
biology profs also use it to ascertain which sophomore biology students are incapable of algebraic thought.
Memy Selfandiinteresting information about the bottleneck in your blueberry project, vic.

how many males and females did you use for each cross, or were they 1:1 crosses?

you say you did half-sib crosses, where did you get half sibs (cousins)the first cycle? or did this take several cycles?

Thanks for some specifics!
memy

Vic High</B>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;you say you did half-sib crosses, where did you get half sibs (cousins)the first cycle?


Memy, why do you continue cheapening yourself by continueing this witchhunt with an unloaded gun? Do you even understand what a half-sib cross is? It's just a breeding system where the breeder tracks one gender of the breeding system and not the other. Often both genders are selected for quality traits but one gender is pooled while the other is tracked. Like in the RRS project, the selected males randomly pollenate the select females. The breeder always knows who the seed parent is, but only knows that the pollen came from a select male. Is this, not understanding what a half-sib mating is, the reason you failed to comprehend the significant of your inbreeding coefficient graph? Wish OG wasn't down, if you want to post the graph here, please feel free. That graph highlights why the half sib mating system of the RRS project is the best choice all around. Half-sib mating provides the best compromize between applying selective pressure and minimizing inbreeding depression.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;how many males and females did you use for each cross, or were they 1:1 crosses?


As for blueberry, my blueberry has always been a half sib breeding program. There has been test controlled crosses in limited numbers for personal interest, but the overall strategy has been half sib all the way.

I posted my selection ratios in my blueberry reports, including details of the number of males used. I almost never give exact numbers but a scaled representative of the numbers instead. I'm sure if you really think about it, you will understand why. But if you must know, look up my report and multiply what you find by five. This is the bottleneck that founded my version of blueberry. I wish it was more, but increasing it simply isn't possible without adding impure genes that are not blueberry originals. I even went back and purchased more, but was too late and ended up with plants that didn't match the orginal pure verson of blueberry. Now it doesn't matter if the breeder is starting with 10 or 50 seeds, the breeder is starting in a dangerously small bottleneck where selection should take a back seat until the population can be bulked up. I say this from the benefit of experience, and realizing where I could have done things differently. Looking back, and after learning more about what effects blueberry traits, I wish that I had kept plants that I initially discarded. I should have maintained about twice as many of the females as I did, only culling the obvious runts, severely deformed, and the ones that were really heavy into autoflowering. But I also selected for blueberry traits not realizing how much the environment effected the expression of these traits, and my environment was not optimum at the time. It was the wrong time to make those selections.

I was able to add some more original blueberry dna via a gift from Oldtimer who bought his blueberry around the same time I did. His F2s very much matched the orginal blueberry version so they have been aded to my blueberry breeding stock, effectively increasing the genepool. Hopefully his different environement was able to maintain adaptability genes that I lost with my premature selections.

Now memy, check your personally motivated agenda at the door or I will quit giving you the benefit of the doubt and start deleting anything from you that I suspect is less than genuinely focused on learning about breeding concepts.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Memy Selfandii didn't realize i had an agenda other than learning...

i asked simple questions, why do you take it as an attack? paranoid?

quote: a half-sib cross is? It's just a breeding system where the breeder tracks one gender of the breeding system and not the other...

I was under the impression that a half-sib mating was between plants that only share a single parent. that's how the term is used in the breeding texts. so, you do full-sib matings, but call it half-sib because you don't track your males?
interesting...

This message has been edited by Memy Selfandi on February 05, 2002 at 10:59 AM
Memy Selfandihere are a few charts for discussionMemy Selfandithere we go...
i gotta go read...
only about 50 more pages!
woo hoo!
isn't it great when stuff starts to 'gel' in your brain, and instead of knowing, you understand?
Vic High</B>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;i didn't realize i had an agenda other than learning...i asked simple questions, why do you take it as an attack? paranoid?

Your history, your only fooling yourself. You have been on a witch hunt ever since you entered the improved breeding threads initiated by Hibe.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I was under the impression that a half-sib mating was between plants that only share a single parent. that's how the term is used in the breeding texts.

Then if you want to persist, I strongly recommend that you reference your texts. You keep making reference to them, but never actually reference them in your arguments. Therefore others can verify your interpretations and more importantly, others will know which texts to avoid if they want to avoid the same confusion you are constantly getting from them.

And I'll do the same.

pg 167 of Wright 1976 Intro to Forest Genetics. I will scan it later, but in the meantime, you are issuing the challange, back it up if you want to proceed.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;so, you do full-sib matings, but call it half-sib because you don't track your males?
interesting...

unloaded gun, again you are incorrect.

one by one mating = two shared parents = full sib

one by many mating = one shared parent = half sib mating

many on many = no shared parents = bulk mating

Once the new forum is open, I will start a thread on distinguishing between full sib and half sib and the various ways in which the terms are used.



------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Vic High</B>thanks for the posting of the graphs, can you post the one comparing inbreeding coefficient to breeding method again? The curve of the backcross method would be counter-intuitive to most and could make for a very interesting discussion down the road.

And again, can you reference your souce, it's only fair to incluse it with the scanned photos. Plus is a prerequisite to being able to challange concepts To be fair, it sounds like you have a credible source, but are just having trouble interpreting what is written.

------------------
**************************************
BC Growers Association

www.coastnet.com/~bcga/bcg.htm
Memy Selfandimaybe you'll agree that a person's motivation is only clearly understood by that person, and quite often misunderstood by others?

The source of the graphs is Principles of Population Geneticsthird edition, Daniel Hartl and Andrew G. Clark, c1997. The intended audience is 3rd and 4th year undergraduate students, and first year graduate students. it has been quite enlightening to say the least.
Memy Selfandioops
forgot the other graph.
this text does not differentiate between human and plant species when discussing relationships between elements of a population. as this text refers to half-sib mating is the same as if we were talking about a half-sister or half-brother in a human family. one common parent, one unrelated parent.

Memy Selfandithat looked the same, but no cigar...
here is the requested graph.


oh, btw, i'm not confused...



This message has been edited by Memy Selfandi on February 05, 2002 at 02:54 PM
FilthybeastVery nice, to the point. Thank you!ngc7579Vic:

Belated, but, thanks for assimilating and posting this information. Nice insight into the mind of a breeder...
three_little_birdswe bird's have studies Vic's work and writings . . . can't help but get a kick out of his style . . . like it or not . . . agree with him or not . . .

there's things to be learned here . . . a good read . . . this doesn't deserve to be buried . . .
HypeYeah Vic was always a hoot wasn't he?HypeOf course the real funny part I suppose. Is that neither Vic nor Me My Self and I, ever stabalized a single strain.

So I always viewed it sort of like the 2 drunks on a railway, Where one says "Someday I'm going to buy this railroad. And the other drunk says "No your not, because I won't sell".
whiterastaBest leave work like that to us closet hacks instead of Kloset Queens eh?
Stability is a quality best earned not learned
BTW howdy Vic! Merry Xmas!
WR:rasta:
FlowermanThought I would move this thread from the old forum to here. Still have to finish reading it though, but thought it was too interesting to leave it where it was collecting dust balls.