Is real sour diesel still clone only?
- Thread starter cmbajr
- Start date
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
I respect what other breeders have to say but I hardly take any one as the absolute authority on the topic, I have been growing and breeding longer than chimaera. Why would I assume he has any more experience? I respect his opinion but that's what it is an opinion. Of course there is no such thing as a perfect match, ever. It is nature not manufacturing. I have seen clones not even represent their mother due to poor growing. This particular discussion is pointless, you guys are missing the point of how to selectively attain desired traits. I never claimed the process can produce a clone, that is stupid and jogro put that idea as if I said it.
No it was really easy, I flamed your ass so you would self destruct all over the page. To address your endless banter is counter productive, you can't have any more of my time you troll!
Clankie
Well-Known Member
While you're here, what is your most diesel strain? Not concerned about smell at all, just looking for that pure raw diesel taste, and the likelihood of passing it on to offspring. Also, currently growing a cut of corleone kush and it looks dank as hell. Stretches like a mofo, but I think that's a selection thing. If I got a pack, would I find a pheno that was still crazy potent but more compact? This one has like a 3x stretch, and the buds are a little too bubba-like for it to be taking up that much space.
TriPurple
Well-Known Member
Oh, I seed
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
The original sour diesel is like huffing off the tank of 18 wheeler, the smell/taste is pungent! The pheno I am enjoying has a slight whiff of pine/lemon pledge in the background that I wasn't expecting but it's understated.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Didn't see that, and thanks for posting it. That's a really great explanation by Chimera, and its nice to read something by a breeder who actually knows something about genetics. Needless to say, I believe he's correct.
Just to be clear here, of course you can do three successive backcrosses ("cubing") if you like; the "myth" is that any amount of self or backcrossing can take a polyhybrid "clone only" plant into similar stable ceed form.
More simply, crossing a hybrid to itself doesn't really "stabilize" it, every backcross just creates another genetic roll of the dice.
In the case of a true-breeding line (ie NOT a hybrid), it is possible to repeatedly backcross a single individual to eventually create uniform stable ceeds genetically similar to the parent. But very few "clone only" strains are actually true-breeding.
Fresh 2 De@th
Well-Known Member
i didn't know that you were familiar with breeding, let alone for so long, so much respect to you. however, my point is that everyone is looking for these clone only's in seed form is only fooling themselves, no matter what a breeder or his testers tell you. don't get me wrong you can find something similar or in a lot of cases even better (reason why some breeders rather out cross than in cross), but it will never be that clone only that one desires.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Its not a question of experience.
Either you CAN stabilize something with backcrosses, or you CANNOT. That's all. There can be different "opinions" here, but they can't both be right.
Not incidentally, since you yourself said that "cubing" was only good for eliminating some unwanted traits and bringing out others, from where I sit it seems to me that you actually AGREE with chimera here.
I didn't say you said that, but you were the one who brought up "cubing" to start with.
Again, the issue here is what constitutes "the real sour diesel". That was the question. . .is it available in ceed form or not?
I think its perfectly reasonable to take the position that the only "real sour diesel" is the clone-only plant.
Now, personally, I don't actually agree with that. To me something bred from the original or from similar genetics, that yields something similar to the clone is legitimately a "sour diesel". I think that's the sort of standard that most people apply to OTHER lines as well. But this really is a question of perspective/opinion.
You mean you didn't address anything specific I said, used a lot of four letter words, and made yourself look like an idiot. Strong work, there.
Serious question, where you sober last night when you were posting?
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
There is a step here, male selection. If you don't know what traits are exhibited and just grab a male and bx, then grab a male and bx, etc. your getting nothing of value. The purpose of the punnets is proofing that filial pair representations statistically gain prevalence. Filial generations are a better means of establishing this but you start to loose vigor as you proceed down the generations. None of this is "myth", it is fact. However unlike you I speak from experience not hear say.
True breeding has nothing to do with weather or not a plant is a hybrid.... NOTHING! It is about selection and selective pressure.
Here is a quote from Vic High
"Cubing works on the basis of mathamatical probabilities with respect to gene frequencies. The more males you use with each cross, the better the chance that your reality matches the theory. In theory,* with the first backcross, 75% of your genepool will match the genepool of the P1 parent being cubed. Squaring increases this to 87.5% and cubing increases it to 93.75%.* You can arrive at these numbers by taking the average between the two parents making up the cross. For instance, you start by crossing the P1 mom (100%) with and unrelated male (0%)* getting 100% + 0% divided by 2 = 50%. Therefore, the offspring of this first cross are loosly thought of as being 50% like the mom. Take these and do your first backcross and you get 100% (mom) + 50% divided by 2 = 75%. And this is where we get the 75% for the first backcross. Same thing applies as you do more backcrosses. As you will see later, you can apply this same probability math to specific genes or traits, and this can have a dramatic effect on your methodology and selection methods.*
Your selection of the right males for each backcross are the crucial points for success with this technique. In each case, you could select males that contain the genes you want, or you could inadvertedly pick those individuals that carry the unwanted recessive genes. Or more likely, you could just pick individuals that are heterozygous for both genes like the P1 mom being backcrossed. The easiest way to deal with this is to start by only looking at one gene and one trait, like lets assume that flavour is determined by a single gene (in reality it's probably not). And do some punnet squares to show gene frequencies through 3 generations of* backcrossing. Now lets assume that we found a special pineapple flavoured individual in our pine flavoured population that we wanted to keep. The gene causing the pineapple flavour could be dominant or recessive and the selection abilities and cubing outcome* will be different in both cases. "
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
What is interesting Jogro is that you DO have a lot of good information and insightful OPINIONS but you often blur the lines between what is FACT and what is YOUR OPINION which to someone without much experience looks like expert knowledge (that was my beef). You also have a penchant for going on HUGE rants of this for which is the reason I called you out. I truly am not coming at you from a point of anger and I would like to take a minute and appologize for berating you that was unnecessary. I also would like to address the fact that this discussion has our viewpoints not that far off from one another which was not really my point in addressing you on this topic.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Oh, I see what you're getting at. But I think this is a bit removed from what chimera was saying, let alone from the question at hand.
One more time, while you might be able to use "cubing" to bring out certain traits if you do it correctly, you can't use it to turn a polyhybrid (like ECSD) into a stable line identical to the original. That's the "myth" Chimera claims is untrue. Do you disagree?
Well, yes and no.
True breeding in the genetic sense has to do with genetic variability at loci that control the traits you're interested in. If there is no variability, or not enough to cause phenotypic variation, the plant "breeds true" for the traits in question. I think that's pretty straightforward.
The problem here is that the term "hybrid" is a bit imprecise; some people use it to mean different things. At some level any drug cannabis plant that isn't a landrace strain is a "hybrid" ultimately derived these lines, including really stable inbred lines like Skunk #1, etc.
When I say "hybrid" I'm referring to a heterozygote derived from two genetically different lines. By definition, this sort of hybrid won't breed true; offspring of two such plants will exhibit a variety of traits in different combinations.
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
See what I mean man, there is ambiguity in your post.
In response to the variety exhibited by the combinations, this is where selection and in many cases recombining with a different individual comes to play and where the negative connotation comes in with respect to these processes. The Gamete pairs have to come to alignment for dominant vs recessive traits to make a "true breeding strain" therefore a heterozygous individual is true breeding because this match has occurred! Whether or not it was because of luck or diligence on behalf of the breeder cannot be determined by virtue of assumption. This of course where I deviate from your perception, but I think we are actually not far in opinion on this, but the unscrupulous acts of some commercial breeders casts disparity on techniques that have merit.
** BTW, I have read that article by chimaera and I cannot offer my experience on that particular plant because I haven't any experience with it. However much of my experience is working with South/Central American so called landraces and in my experience I would be loath to say that there are any genetic expressions that cannot be locked down given enough time and effort.
Now I like how you made your distinction here, thank you!
In response to the variety exhibited by the combinations, this is where selection and in many cases recombining with a different individual comes to play and where the negative connotation comes in with respect to these processes. The Gamete pairs have to come to alignment for dominant vs recessive traits to make a "true breeding strain" therefore a heterozygous individual is true breeding because this match has occurred! Whether or not it was because of luck or diligence on behalf of the breeder cannot be determined by virtue of assumption. This of course where I deviate from your perception, but I think we are actually not far in opinion on this, but the unscrupulous acts of some commercial breeders casts disparity on techniques that have merit.
** BTW, I have read that article by chimaera and I cannot offer my experience on that particular plant because I haven't any experience with it. However much of my experience is working with South/Central American so called landraces and in my experience I would be loath to say that there are any genetic expressions that cannot be locked down given enough time and effort.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
That's my understanding as well.
In general, ECSD has a reputation as a hermie-prone line. Its not uncommon for the clone only line to go hermie and make S1 ceeds. So it shouldn't be surprising that various lines created from it may also be hermie prone.
From what I've seen ECSD S1s will also put out a number of phenos. Its possible to find phenos that are similar to the original, but you may have to grow out a number of plants before you do. In other words if you think you're going to just pop an S1 ceed and get an ECSD plant, you're probably wrong.
For colonuggs, usually people who are deliberately trying to create S1 ceeds (rather than having them created accidentally by hermies) make the male flowers on one plant kept in one place, then harvest the pollen to fertilize another kept in a different place. That helps avoid loose pollen and cross-contamination in the flower area.
While you definitely "can" self-pollinate a plant from accidental hermie flowers from that plant, one problem is that often hermie flowers appear late in flowering, and you may not have enough time for ceeds to mature if created this way. The only thing worse than accidentally ceeded bud, I think, is accidentally ceeded bud where none of the ceeds are viable!
Jogro
Well-Known Member
I accept your apology.
Again, if you think my facts are wrong, please correct them. I certainly make mistakes, and at least some of the time I'm even willing to admit them.
If you have a different opinion or experience, state it.
That's how the truth comes out. Believe it or not, newbies reading here can read different takes on things and make up their minds.
Name calling and infantile posturing just pollutes the thread.
Let me add something relevant here. Having genetics knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient for good breeding (though it definitely helps). People have been successfully breeding cannabis and just about everything else for thousands of years before Mendel or Darwin. To this day there are good breeders who know very little about formal genetics. There are also any number of "breeders" that empirically aren't very good. There are also good breeders who "know" things that are just superstition, or just plain wrong.
The point is, just because someone is breeding (and I'm not aiming this at you in particular), doesn't mean they're good, or even that they know what they are talking about.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Well, to be clear I used the term "hybrid" in the precise biological sense referring to genetic heterozygosity. What I said isn't ambiguous if you know what the term means in the genetic sense.
In any case, I stand by my assertion that by definition hybrids can't be "true breeding"; this is genetics 101.
Well, either a heterozygote (hybrid) IS true breeding, or it is NOT. It can't be both, and I don't think this is a matter of opinion.
By definition the term "true breeding" implies homozygosity, and heterozygotes are not true breeding.
I do agree with you that "dumb luck" can play an important role in breeding. The whole line ECSD is probably the result of "dumb luck", as one example.
This is an interesting point.
Landraces, by definition, are highly inbred, stable lines. The traits these inbred lines express that you'd probably be interested in (flavor, structure, whatever) are mostly likely due to combinations of homozygous allelles, and I think exactly as you say with that sort of parent line most of their traits should be able to be stabilized into new lines if you put in the work.
The problem occurs when you have a hybrid plant like ECSD. In a case like that many of the traits that make ECSD interesting require heterozygous alleles.
You can definitely create offspring that show these traits, you just can't STABILIZE them to the point where ALL the offspring of a given line will have all the traits and pass them to their offspring too.
Its like Chimera's example of blood groups. Lets say you're a vampire, and you think AB blood tastes the best. No matter how many AB humans you breed together or even with other non-AB blood type humans, you'll always create offspring that give A and/or B bloodtypes too. Its simply not possible to create a stable "AB" line. The only way you can create offspring that are consistently AB is if you cross an AA parent to a BB parent.
Getting back to ECSD, what this means is that in practice if you're trying to make ceeds, you can either
a. Create an unstable line where SOME of the phenos will be just like ECSD. . .just not all of them, or
b. Create a stable line that may be similar to ECSD in many ways (ideally highly similar), just not identical.
In fact, examples of both these sorts of lines do exist. If you're a consumer its up to you to decide which way you want to go, and why. If you have the ability to grow out 10 plants and do selection "a" may be the way to go. If you can only grow out one plant, but just want something close to ECSD, b may be better.
Are either of these things the "real sour diesel"? Again, that's debatable. Does it matter? That's subjective.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Well, the original question was about getting "the real sour diesel" in ceed form, which is specifically trying to recreate a hybrid.
If you're asking why someone wants this particular hybrid, its because this strain has been a dominant commercial one in the Northeast for a while now and is highly popular. If you're from the Northeast, you've probably smoked it, and having done so, I can see why you might want to try and grow your own.
Why not better it?
If you think you can breed a better sour diesel than the original, by all means, please do so!
In seriousness, "better" in what way? There are all sorts of ECSD-based lines out there, some arguably "better" than the original in different ways.
i don't know how swerves osd compares to the original, but it is very nice indeed. i had two main phenos, one that purpled and one that remained green through flower. the latter tasted much more chemmy and had a tendancy to make you cough after it had a nice cure. i preferred the purpler ones, which had a nice fruity taste almost like pineapple/mango with a mettalic aftertaste. swerve i have a question if you don't mind, how would i spot a diesel leaning male? i'd like to make my own hack with agent orange but it would be nice to know what was what in the males. thnks. oh and i got a nice 6 ladies out of 7 beans
atb
atb
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
OK, were almost there.... Your one statement here is the crux of my point. You CAN get the important (subjective) traits stabilized into the offspring of a given line as true breeding traits. This is done various ways (not going back there, is irrelevant) but through dominant to recessive pairing. Again, it is through selection and experimentation but the correct pairing absolutely sets these paired alleles. Successive generations (again means are subjective), given specific selection criterion increase the statistical observation of the given traits selected for.
That being said, even "stabilized", "true breeding" inbred lines still exhibit gene pool influences and are only one off pairing away from showing the entire gene pool.
Purity is as you say "subjective" since all cannabis in it's root state would be hemp, all forms of "drug cannabis" are the result of selective pressure going back thousands of years as your aware.
**Identical is not a worthy goal of target breeding, you may select for some traits but identical is a goal that nature doesn't allow. thank goodness ..... master race?!?!