Schwaggy P's Random Stuff

Schwaggy P

Schwaggy P

.
spyralout said:
These knowledge drops are insanely awesome. So much great info on this thread. Looking forward to absorbing it all, I'm an info junkie. Thanks @Schwaggy P đź‘Ť
Click to expand...
Thank you! I'm happy to share the info. The interesting part is that much of this info sharing is the result of someone asking a question about something that's in the background of a pic I posted.

For example, I posted this pic of Banana Crack (other forum) and just mentioned the paper bag in the back was covering a single branch pollination. Someone asked how to do a single branch dusting and that's why I wrote-up the whole Flowering a Male/Collecting Pollen/Single Branch series of posts.
bananacrack.jpg​
 
Last edited:
Schwaggy P

Schwaggy P

.
Polyandric Backcross
An attempt to mitigate the potential loss of recessive contributions inherent in observational breeding while simultaneously assessing step-wise male contributions.

“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.”​

INTRODUCTION
The backcross method of breeding is a great process for getting an elite clone-only female into seed form. It’s most widely used form can be seen in the cubing method of repeating backcross generations until the resultant progeny have a ~94% genetic contribution of the target plant. Cinderella 99 is a great example of the cubing method.

The backcross process, as has been practically employed in the example of C99, makes the assumption that the successive genetic contribution passes to subsequent generations monolithically. The assumption then concludes that the repeated selection of a male will pollinate the original target female, resulting in progeny that is converging to her phenotype.

While the assumption of monolithic heredity (the human application would be to assume you would look like your father on the left side and your mother on the right side) seems ignorant of the myriad dynamics of genetic reality, it has utility as a method of herding the genetic range/pool into a purposeful direction (the target plant).

This ostensible oversimplification is almost mandatory in observational breeding as the selection of the male is based on phenotype instead of genotype. If I can only select based on what I see, then phenotype necessarily becomes the motivation irrespective of the “unseen” alleles. In a lab setting with unlimited technological resources, marker assisted backcrossing and other highly advanced techniques allow for the attempt to include the more nuanced dynamics of heredity. This is not the normal scenario for cannabis breeders, but does not diminish the classical backcross procedure as a powerful breeding tool.

BACKGROUND
The process of backcrossing as practiced, usually calls for the selection of a singular male from the initial F1 generation (Target female x Outcross Male) that most resembles the target female. This creates a bias for phenotype. A problem can arise if the constituent traits that make up the target female are double recessive. If you select a male based solely on observable phenotype and choose a male whose corresponding trait is heterozygous, then you will have created a scenario in which the targeted double recessive trait of the mother can be “washed out” by the true breeding dominant male (one could try to recover in a further generation, but this assumes you know it’s required and can select the necessary genotype for this attempt).

Here is an example of a scenario in which the limitation to a single male selection for the next backcross pollination can impact the resultant frequency of a targeted recessive trait:

EXAMPLE
Let’s assume we have a target female H.A.OG and a male Black Triangle. We would like to backcross with 2 traits in mind, leaf blades and stigma color. After the initial F1 cross, we see that the progeny all have the leaves of the Black Triangle, so we assume the leaf trait is double recessive in the target female (H.A.OG).

AA = Black Triangle leaves
Aa = Black Triangle leaves
aa = H.A.OG leaves

Now, let’s add a second trait that cannot be observed in the male, stigma color (pistils).

BB = Black Triangle red stigma
Bb = Black Triangle red stigma
bb = H.A.OG brown stigma

In the scenario where you have only chosen one male based on the observable phenotype, you choose a male with the genotype: AABb (Black Tri leaves, Black Tri stigma color)

Our genotypes are:
H.A.OG – aabb
Black Triangle – AABb
1.png​
We see that the progeny from this cross results in 2 distinct phenotypes suffering from the same issue we had in the previous generation (remember we already made the F1 and selected a male), namely a “washing out” of the recessive H.A.OG leaves and have a trait, stigma color, which cannot be observed in the males (pic 1). By limiting our choice to one male from this population for the next backcross, we are essentially flipping a coin on the potential frequencies of desirable traits. Since our selections are practically blind (because we cannot observe the genotype) we are at the mercy of probability.

Let’s see what happens if you selected a male of the AaBb variety (red boxes) to backcross with our H.A.OG (aabb):
2.png​
We end up with 25% of the population with the target female phenotype aabb (pic 2). So when you blindly choose a male from this population, you only have a 1 in 4 shot at choosing the “right” male for the next round of pollination.

Now we will see what happens if I had chosen the other phenotype from the previous generation, Aabb (green boxes) to backcross to the H.A.OG:
3.png​
In this case, we see that the target female phenotype is 50% of the population (pic 3). Contrast from the other male selection (pic 2), you now have a 1 in 2 shot at choosing the “right” male for the next generation.

The point being that limiting the male selection for the next backcross to one male, can hinder the success rate and total time required to reach the goal of increasing the desired target female traits.


POLYANDRIC BACKCROSS (polyBX)
I endeavor to attempt a modification to the backcrossing method that seeks to manipulate the probabilities such that the inherent blindness to the genotype does not breed one’s self into a corner in the case of singular male selection. I have dubbed this process Polyandric Backcrossing. "Polyandric", refers to a female with multiple male mates (more specific form of polygamy).

Instead of limiting to one male selection for continued backcrosses, multiple males will be chosen to pollinate the target female on different branches and kept separate (not mixing the pollen of all males). By choosing multiple males, the probability that the selection will include the necessary genetic ingredients to eventually converge on the target phenotype is augmented. In essence, this hedges against a wrong male selection at some point in the extended backcrossing process. The Polyandric Backcross (polyBX) can be thought of as multiple classical single male backcrosses happening concurrently. Since this polyBX process is to have a practical application to the at-home breeder, I will choose 3 males for each backcross generation.

In an effort to better benchmark the contribution of each chosen male, I will flower his daughters while simultaneously pollinating the target female with his son I choose for the next BX generation (pic 4). This allows me to have flowered examples of his contributions to the target female harvested and observed at the time the seeds for the BX are complete and ready to pop for further male selection.
4.jpg​
In a scenario where the flowered daughters have shown stark deviations from the female, this line will be discontinued, and only the converging males will continue for further male selections (pic 5). Meaning, I will select my next multiple males only from those male lines that show a converging tendency. This will ensure a benchmarking or testing of each male selection without adding any extra time to this already involved process.
5.jpg​
The other advantage to flowering each backcrossed generations’ daughters, is that the extent to which the polyBX generations must continue can be better assessed based on the results, instead of the classical backcross assumption of raw monolith percentage contribution. Where classical BX may do a full cube, the polyBX may only require a couple generations as evidenced by the performance of the flowered daughters.

While cutting down the required BX generations seems promising, it would require saving veg copies of the males in the event you find you’ve “nailed it” at a certain early BX generation. I will instead hybridize the classical and polyBX procedures to set out to do at least a certain number of BX generations (3-6) and save only the last set of selected males. This will allow me to toss earlier males, but keep the final male that gives me the best result for the final parental ingredients (Target female and polyBX’d male) to make large populations of the “winning” combo.

The final stage of the polyBX process could include filial breeding the final polyBX generation instead of replicating the final BX generation. I believe this decision will become more persuasive to either approach as information is gathered from the process. I can see pros and cons to this approach, but will reserve the decision after having assessed the efficacy of this Polyandric Backcrossing.
 
Schwaggy P

Schwaggy P

.
CONCLUSION
Backcrossing with single male selections can involve a “shot in the dark” aspect. Polyandric Backcrossing attempts to mitigate this somewhat by keeping the gene pool more open throughout the process while still converging the totality of the expressions to the target female. This also has the added benefit of testing the steps along the way while not adding any more time to the process.

I will be putting this theory into practice with the Hells Angels OG, in an attempt to get a regular seed version that is as similar as can be created within the limitations of smaller-scale observational breeding.

I also can see some advantage to starting this process by first selfing the target female into S2-S4 iterations in an attempt to first “lock-down” heterozygous pairings within the truncated gene pool of the target female first, and then employing the polyBX. This more intricate version is the subject of another project currently taking place with the Chemdog’91(skva).
 
SoHappy

SoHappy

Member
Schwaggy P said:
Polyandric Backcross
An attempt to mitigate the potential loss of recessive contributions inherent in observational breeding while simultaneously assessing step-wise male contributions.

“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.”​

INTRODUCTION
The backcross method of breeding is a great process for getting an elite clone-only female into seed form. It’s most widely used form can be seen in the cubing method of repeating backcross generations until the resultant progeny have a ~94% genetic contribution of the target plant. Cinderella 99 is a great example of the cubing method.

The backcross process, as has been practically employed in the example of C99, makes the assumption that the successive genetic contribution passes to subsequent generations monolithically. The assumption then concludes that the repeated selection of a male will pollinate the original target female, resulting in progeny that is converging to her phenotype.

While the assumption of monolithic heredity (the human application would be to assume you would look like your father on the left side and your mother on the right side) seems ignorant of the myriad dynamics of genetic reality, it has utility as a method of herding the genetic range/pool into a purposeful direction (the target plant).

This ostensible oversimplification is almost mandatory in observational breeding as the selection of the male is based on phenotype instead of genotype. If I can only select based on what I see, then phenotype necessarily becomes the motivation irrespective of the “unseen” alleles. In a lab setting with unlimited technological resources, marker assisted backcrossing and other highly advanced techniques allow for the attempt to include the more nuanced dynamics of heredity. This is not the normal scenario for cannabis breeders, but does not diminish the classical backcross procedure as a powerful breeding tool.

BACKGROUND
The process of backcrossing as practiced, usually calls for the selection of a singular male from the initial F1 generation (Target female x Outcross Male) that most resembles the target female. This creates a bias for phenotype. A problem can arise if the constituent traits that make up the target female are double recessive. If you select a male based solely on observable phenotype and choose a male whose corresponding trait is heterozygous, then you will have created a scenario in which the targeted double recessive trait of the mother can be “washed out” by the true breeding dominant male (one could try to recover in a further generation, but this assumes you know it’s required and can select the necessary genotype for this attempt).

Here is an example of a scenario in which the limitation to a single male selection for the next backcross pollination can impact the resultant frequency of a targeted recessive trait:

EXAMPLE
Let’s assume we have a target female H.A.OG and a male Black Triangle. We would like to backcross with 2 traits in mind, leaf blades and stigma color. After the initial F1 cross, we see that the progeny all have the leaves of the Black Triangle, so we assume the leaf trait is double recessive in the target female (H.A.OG).

AA = Black Triangle leaves
Aa = Black Triangle leaves
aa = H.A.OG leaves

Now, let’s add a second trait that cannot be observed in the male, stigma color (pistils).

BB = Black Triangle red stigma
Bb = Black Triangle red stigma
bb = H.A.OG brown stigma

In the scenario where you have only chosen one male based on the observable phenotype, you choose a male with the genotype: AABb (Black Tri leaves, Black Tri stigma color)

Our genotypes are:
H.A.OG – aabb
Black Triangle – AABb
We see that the progeny from this cross results in 2 distinct phenotypes suffering from the same issue we had in the previous generation (remember we already made the F1 and selected a male), namely a “washing out” of the recessive H.A.OG leaves and have a trait, stigma color, which cannot be observed in the males (pic 1). By limiting our choice to one male from this population for the next backcross, we are essentially flipping a coin on the potential frequencies of desirable traits. Since our selections are practically blind (because we cannot observe the genotype) we are at the mercy of probability.

Let’s see what happens if you selected a male of the AaBb variety (red boxes) to backcross with our H.A.OG (aabb):
We end up with 25% of the population with the target female phenotype aabb (pic 2). So when you blindly choose a male from this population, you only have a 1 in 4 shot at choosing the “right” male for the next round of pollination.

Now we will see what happens if I had chosen the other phenotype from the previous generation, Aabb (green boxes) to backcross to the H.A.OG:
In this case, we see that the target female phenotype is 50% of the population (pic 3). Contrast from the other male selection (pic 2), you now have a 1 in 2 shot at choosing the “right” male for the next generation.

The point being that limiting the male selection for the next backcross to one male, can hinder the success rate and total time required to reach the goal of increasing the desired target female traits.


POLYANDRIC BACKCROSS (polyBX)
I endeavor to attempt a modification to the backcrossing method that seeks to manipulate the probabilities such that the inherent blindness to the genotype does not breed one’s self into a corner in the case of singular male selection. I have dubbed this process Polyandric Backcrossing. "Polyandric", refers to a female with multiple male mates (more specific form of polygamy).

Instead of limiting to one male selection for continued backcrosses, multiple males will be chosen to pollinate the target female on different branches and kept separate (not mixing the pollen of all males). By choosing multiple males, the probability that the selection will include the necessary genetic ingredients to eventually converge on the target phenotype is augmented. In essence, this hedges against a wrong male selection at some point in the extended backcrossing process. The Polyandric Backcross (polyBX) can be thought of as multiple classical single male backcrosses happening concurrently. Since this polyBX process is to have a practical application to the at-home breeder, I will choose 3 males for each backcross generation.

In an effort to better benchmark the contribution of each chosen male, I will flower his daughters while simultaneously pollinating the target female with his son I choose for the next BX generation (pic 4). This allows me to have flowered examples of his contributions to the target female harvested and observed at the time the seeds for the BX are complete and ready to pop for further male selection.
In a scenario where the flowered daughters have shown stark deviations from the female, this line will be discontinued, and only the converging males will continue for further male selections (pic 5). Meaning, I will select my next multiple males only from those male lines that show a converging tendency. This will ensure a benchmarking or testing of each male selection without adding any extra time to this already involved process.
The other advantage to flowering each backcrossed generations’ daughters, is that the extent to which the polyBX generations must continue can be better assessed based on the results, instead of the classical backcross assumption of raw monolith percentage contribution. Where classical BX may do a full cube, the polyBX may only require a couple generations as evidenced by the performance of the flowered daughters.

While cutting down the required BX generations seems promising, it would require saving veg copies of the males in the event you find you’ve “nailed it” at a certain early BX generation. I will instead hybridize the classical and polyBX procedures to set out to do at least a certain number of BX generations (3-6) and save only the last set of selected males. This will allow me to toss earlier males, but keep the final male that gives me the best result for the final parental ingredients (Target female and polyBX’d male) to make large populations of the “winning” combo.

The final stage of the polyBX process could include filial breeding the final polyBX generation instead of replicating the final BX generation. I believe this decision will become more persuasive to either approach as information is gathered from the process. I can see pros and cons to this approach, but will reserve the decision after having assessed the efficacy of this Polyandric Backcrossing.
Click to expand...

 
Cob_nUt

Cob_nUt

"Justa Ganja Lover"
Nice concept and targeted breeding approach while cutting down grow & observe time during the process.
Coming from a laymen approach to breeding and or bean creating,I figured I'd use multiple males on a target plant but do so with a male per selected branch as you stated above.
It's weird to me that I understood your post.I will have to read and reread those charts and pictures a few times to get the crosses and percentages down but I understood the gist and meat of the Polyandric Backcross procedure. Golden post Schwaggy. Much props & respect. I'm learning!👊🏼
 
SEBUD

SEBUD

Super Active Member
Schwaggy P said:
I would like to share my method of pollen collecting and targeted single branch pollination. If you decide to replicate this process for yourself, please be warned that having a male dropping pollen requires great care. I have organized this information into 3 sections: Flowering the Male, Collecting/Storing Pollen, and Pollinating a Single Branch.

FLOWERING THE MALE
I usually take clones of males to keep their size manageable. Once they are rooted, I plant them in a 3” square pot and put them in a clear storage tote (pic 1). You will want to keep the tote lid slightly ajar to allow for air exchange.

Where to keep him depends on whether you have a free tent, separate veg space, or just another room with sunlight. For times when all tents are taken, I keep the male in my veg area (pic 2). It is important to remember that he will be separated from the flowering females.

⚠ In the corner of your veg room or peripheral splash over light is just fine to trigger the male. There’s no need to put him 3” beneath a 1000W DE, I’ve flowered males from the spillover light of a T5.

If you have a single tent with females flowering, the ambient light in another room is enough to accomplish our task.

The 12hr dark cycle is achieved by placing a box over the male’s clear tote (pic 3). This 12/12 box covering will trigger and maintain flowering through the entire process until you’ve collected enough pollen.

âš  Make sure the box is large enough to cover your storage tote before you begin.

If you are triggering a male for a one-time pollination without storing pollen, then timing will be important. Males will usually develop flowers pretty quickly relative to their female flower setting counterparts. Since we want our females to have a decent flowerset to accept pollen, we have to give her some time to develop them. With most strains, weeks 3-4 will give us the best window to have both nice flower setting and early enough to give the seeds time to mature.

⚠ Don’t trigger your male until about day 10 of flower for your females. This gives females the head start to ensure there will be nice sized buds to give you seeds, as well as not have to deal with and worry about a male dumping tons of pollen too early.

This 12/12 box cycle will continue for the duration of pollen collection.

⚠ You want to approach most things in this process slowly and carefully. There is no extra credit for speed. Being gentle and deliberate with him will ensure any pollen stays within the tote. Pretend you’re doing tai chi at the senior center when you interact with him.

As you gain confidence and success with this process, you can flower multiple males simultaneously (pic 4).
Keep in mind, the goal here is to be aware of his maturity in order to collect pollen long before he creates dust storms. At first, his flowers will be small balls (pic 5) that are not much of a threat to your females at this point. As they begin to develop, you will notice that they cluster and start to hang (pic 6). Usually this timeline window can be from 10-20 days. As the male flowers begin to individualize from the clusters you are now on pollen watch.

âš  This is the point at which you will need to be very careful about moving him around and watering him.

Once you begin to see the male flowers open, the yellowish anthers will be visible (pic 7) but not drop pollen just yet. The pollen is only hours away at this point, so remain vigilant. If you try to collect pollen as soon as the male flower opens, you’ll find no pollen freely drops, so wait until you see the anthers go from a tight smooth sheen, to bloated matte yellow (pic 8 ).

If you find that you are having issue timing the pollen drop, you can wait until one of the flowers releases pollen onto a leaf below (pic 9).

The male flowers will reach maturity at different rates, which we can use to our advantage. The older male flowers will be first to drop and keep in mind we are only needing a few flowers worth of pollen in order to pollinate multiple single branches. By collecting the first few pollen drops, we are containing the threat of stray pollen.
Click to expand...
Very nice and informative thanks for the lesson 🌱🔥🔥✌
 
Schwaggy P

Schwaggy P

.
HydroRed said:
What should someone be looking for in those "Gelato 45 x Ectocooler"? I might know someone who snagged a pack with their Useful order. :whistle:
Click to expand...
;) I would be looking for the taller Gelato leaners with a citrus profile. The Ecto Cooler phenos tend to be shorter and have an orange/citrus terp profile. The orange smell, (if the pheno has it) are usually easy to pick up during stem rubs once they sex. My goal with that cross was to add a citrus note to the Gelato, keeping the more modern look and earthy depth of smell/taste. It's an F1, so I didn't work it to a specific direction.
 
Schwaggy P

Schwaggy P

.
TerpEupdate.jpg​
So far the Terp Enhancinator as been in the rez for 3 weeks and the Green Crack S1 are putting off more intense smell than runs without any terp additive. The difference I'm observing between the Terpinator vs. Terp E. is that where the Terpinator really augmented the fruit/guava profile first, the Terp Enhancinator is bringing out the onion/B.O./astringent terps more early on.

The GC terp profile is: Astringent/Sour/Garlic/Guava
The Terpinator crop did finish with the smell profile "rounding out" with the other components of the GC smell, but the Guava aspect seemed more prominent than other GC runs. The Terpinator produced a more pronounced smell to the crop, so it seemed to do what it claimed.

The Terp Enhancinator has really turned up the more offensive parts of the smell. I'd assume the final smell will also round out with the other usual terps. If the pattern of what comes on strong first remains accentuated, then it seems Terp Enhancinator may be a better choice for the more skunky funky terp boost. I put a couple Chocolate Covered Strawberries on the tray to see how fruity/sweeter profiles are affected, and they don't seem to be showing as much of a kick in intensity.

The dosage as calculated seems to be just fine, the ppm boost is no problem (as seen in the testing) and the plants are not expressing any adverse reactions. The Terp E. crop still has some time to go, but I'm feeling pretty good about what I'm seeing so far.
terp enhancinator.jpg​
 
Bruno8437

Bruno8437

Super Active Member
Schwaggy P said:
CONCLUSION
Backcrossing with single male selections can involve a “shot in the dark” aspect. Polyandric Backcrossing attempts to mitigate this somewhat by keeping the gene pool more open throughout the process while still converging the totality of the expressions to the target female. This also has the added benefit of testing the steps along the way while not adding any more time to the process.

I will be putting this theory into practice with the Hells Angels OG, in an attempt to get a regular seed version that is as similar as can be created within the limitations of smaller-scale observational breeding.

I also can see some advantage to starting this process by first selfing the target female into S2-S4 iterations in an attempt to first “lock-down” heterozygous pairings within the truncated gene pool of the target female first, and then employing the polyBX. This more intricate version is the subject of another project currently taking place with the Chemdog’91(skva).
Click to expand...
Great write up. Genetics ain't my bag but I'm trying to learn. I'm going to have to re-read it a couple times to digest it all. Thanks for taking us to school Professor Schwaggy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top