Schwaggy P's Random Stuff

[H.A.F.]

LMAO what if you wrapped it like a burrito in plastic wrap lol

Use the duct tape to strap a vibrator on the thing so it shakes the pollen real good.

 

[PrayerMantis]

Hey Schwaggy I’ve read through, may have missed it, but what work are you doing with the SSH?

 

[Schwaggy P]

Hey Schwaggy I’ve read through, may have missed it, but what work are you doing with the SSH?

Hitting her with this male and seeing what pops out.

I’ve been working on a mainstay male. I wanted a plant that would allow the female’s smell, taste, and high to come through relatively unscathed. Ideally, his influence would be expressed as:

• Increased frost
• Denser nugs
• More compact structure
• Mold resistance
• Stabilizing intersex tendency
• Quicker finish

Some of these traits may not be "sexy" (think about the last time you saw an IG post with, "Holy shit! Look at the mold resistance on that bitch!" -or- "Man, I can really taste the structure"), but I think these are important.

After growing out multiple crosses using my selected Skunky Brewster male, I’ve noticed that he has many of these qualities. I’d credit the Iraqi male used in the SkunkyB for the increasing frost, solidifying yield/density, and stabilizing any hermie hints.

I’ve been very pleased with the Skunky crosses; the Skunky D in particular, as it seems to have amplified the Chem D profile across many phenos. In an effort to tamp down the SkunkyB male's terp profile, I used my favorite Skunky Brewster female that is very light on terps and more of the compact height after stretch to “backcross” a SkunkyB hybrid using the F1 male. I’ve since selected a male from this population that will hopefully check all of the boxes.

Skunky B female
View attachment 31284
He has started dropping pollen and I’ll be dusting every female as they pass through the flower rooms. I like the Chems and OGs but they can throw a nanner later in flower and stretch incredibly. The SkunkyB F1 male hybrids showed a more compact flower height, strengthened branch structure, beefier/frostier buds while sporting the momma’s terps. My aim is to continue this trend with a male that has even less influence on the traits that made the females so beloved.

New male dropping pollen
View attachment 31132
This male will hopefully be able to accomplish multiple goals with broad application:

1) As a commercial flower grower, you will be able to have great representations of popular cuts that express the traits observable as a smoker (smell, taste, bag appeal, high) while improving the traits observable as a grower (better structure, quicker flower, less finicky, reduced nannerism). Some cuts are great smoke, but non-grower smokers have a tendency to think the only thing that’s good is “super dense nugs bro!”, so fluffy buds can get overlooked. These beefed up versions of the cuts greatly increase bag appeal while maintaining the mother’s character.

2) As a breeder, you will have stock from which to draw that keeps the character of the beloved female cuts with practical improvements that will impart great grower-conscious traits.

3) As a personal small-scale grower, you’ll be able to experience ceiling buster famed cuts in a small-space friendly package.

I love skunk funk, but this particular male needs to be muted so the mommas can shine through in a quicker, frostier, shorter frame. With all hopes articulated, the ultimate test of how close this male is to success will come from growing out multiple mixes of progeny.

As of today he's dusted:

• Chem D
• ECSD
• Strawberry Cough
• SSH
• Granny Skunk
• Gelato 45
• Trainwreck S1
• Alien Grapevine

 

[GCG]

Got my Granny D from the Headie Gardens auction and my day just got a little broghter because of it.

 

[PrayerMantis]

Hitting her with this male and seeing what pops out.

Sweet man thanks!

 

[Schwaggy P]

I would like to be able to describe the concepts in an easily understood manner. To this end I will try to limit this presentation as not to come across as a pedantic Biology class lecture. There are many exceptions to the assumptions, but ultimately, my goal is to make this digestible to readers of varying understandings and attention spans in order to give a working knowledge for real world applications.​

When breeding cannabis, your main focus is taking plants exhibiting exceptional traits and creating new plants that express some targeted bouquet of said traits in order to create new and “better” plants.

Each trait is decided by a pair of alleles (uh-leels). These alleles code for traits such as potency, height, flowering time, etc. For example, a female could have either red or brown pistils. Both of these gene variants can be present in the same plant and are coded by alleles. Which of these pistil colors express are dependent on which of the alleles is dominant. The dominant alleles will decide which traits are expressed.

​

The total sequencing and coding of all the alleles is known as the plant’s genotype. The observable expression of the dominant traits is known as the phenotype. When you are “pheno hunting”, you are essentially rolling the genetic dice to see which combination of alleles from a genotype lined up to give you a specific phenotype.

The variability you encounter when pheno hunting is limited to the genetic pool of the parent plants. This is why your different phenos will revolve around a related grab bag of traits. The gene pool is relatively limited (you aren’t going to find an oak tree pheno), but made more so by long term targeted breeding, which seeks to shrink the possible phenos, you experience.

Punnett Squares are a way of illustrating/calculating the probability of genotypes/phenotypes produced by crossing plants of a certain genotype.

Let’s say we want to cross a short Skunk with a tall Haze. For this example let’s assume we know the alleles and genotype for both plants’ height.

Possible alleles: S=tall, s=short

The uppercase letter is the dominant allele and will dictate the trait’s expression. Anytime you see the uppercase dominant allele, the plant will express a tall phenotype. Only when your plant has both alleles as lowercase ‘s’, will your plant express a short phenotype.

Skunk: ss – The pair of alleles are expressed as ‘ss’. The lowercase ‘s’ corresponds to “short” height.
Haze: Ss – The dominant ‘S’ allele coding for “tall” height is present and expresses a tall phenotype.

We can arrange this cross in a Punnett Square to see the possible combinations that can be made with these two plants to see what the progeny produces.

​

When we cross 2 plants, each plant will contribute one allele to the new plant. By arranging the genotypes in the Punnett Square, we can see each of the possible combinations of these alleles to calculate the frequency of phenotypes.

Keeping in mind that the presence of a dominant allele (S) means the resulting plant will express the tall trait, let’s list the possible combinations.

SS=tall
Ss=tall
sS=tall
ss=short​

By using the Punnett Square, we now see that our Skunk x Haze cross will result in 50% tall plants and 50% short plants.

Let’s see how things change if we alter the genotype of the Haze from (Ss) to (SS).

​

Now we see that all of the resulting plants are tall. This change of our Haze to (SS) is known as “true-breeding” since he will reliably pass on this tall trait.

Remember that this difference between Ss and SS is a difference of genotype, something we cannot observe. We can only “see” the phenotype of a plant. By making crosses and noting observations we could work backwards with the frequencies to better understand our plant’s genotype for breeding purposes. Breeding usually aims to create plants of a true breeding nature in order to have reliable tools that can influence projects in a way you see fit.

The Punnett Square can be used for multiple traits, but becomes staggering as you add more traits.

Punnett Square for 2 traits

​

Punnett Square for 5 traits

​

Let’s see how this can help decide a couple of breeding questions.

1) How many seeds do I pop?
2) Are feminized seeds inherently bad breeding stock?

 

[Schwaggy P]

How many seeds do I pop????​

When starting a breeding project, you’ll come to this question at some point. In general, you’ll want to pop as many as your space can handle as this is ultimately a roll of the dice. But, we can approach this with a bit more intent using Punnett Squares and the illustrated frequencies.

Ideally, your breeding project is a well thought out plan that includes specific targeted traits that you’d like to have express in a new line. This is what I would consider the difference between a cross and a strain.

A cross is just a mushing together of 2 plants because they’re totally dank bro. There is usually very little forethought behind the exercise and little care given to what exactly constitutes a “finished product”. Crosses rarely go beyond an initial F1 hybrid and serve to be an abyss of pheno possibility; but don’t stray too far from the parent stock.

A strain on the other hand is a more carefully thought out end goal that entails a specific group of expressed traits that serves to either bolster an already great line or create a genuinely new line such that the original parent stock is not immediately obvious in the progeny. These aimed-for traits will help guide the breeding process by deciding how far one must go to achieve the finished product. If your finished product were spitting out predictable plants of a different arrangement of traits or variations that the breeders of the original parent stock wouldn’t immediately identify, then I’d consider it a new line.

When you’re deciding how many seeds to pop to create a cross, it’s usually a blind search as no roadmap exists for you to know where to look for what. Since the deciding factor is total dankness bro, this implies an implicit understanding of what constitutes total dankness bro. In other words, “you’ll know it when to see it.” Some say it’s as good a compass as any, but among the downsides to this approach is employing a Punnett Square for predictive purpose. This is usually the approach of the grower for smoke as the genotypes are irrelevant. You’d only care about the expressed phenotype.

When you make your target traits explicit: Tall and Sleepy effect for example; you can now use the Punnett Square to figure how many seeds to pop. This differs greatly from the cross or grower for smoke, because you’ll want to be more aware of the genotypes as you move through your breeding project. Picking a plant with (SS) instead of (Ss) will affect the next generation and your ultimate goal, so this is an important point to consider.

For example:
S=Tall, s=short
E=Sleepy effect, e=not sleepy effect

If you wanted to have a true breeding strain that reliably expresses tall height and sleepy effect, you’d ideally choose the plant with the genotype (SSEE). If you have a cross you made (or bought) using parents that expressed these traits (phenotype) like OG, then you could assume the parents were at least dominant for the traits.

This assumption would look like: (SsEe) since the parents expressed the traits, we can at least assume this much about the parent genotype. It could also be (SS) or (EE), but we’re being conservative with our assumption, as (SS) would actually make things easier.

​

Since we can only make selections based on phenotype (we cant see the genotype, but we now at least know the frequency at which they appear), you’ll be picking the plants with either (SsEe), (SsEE), (SSEe), or (SSEE) as these all have the same phenotype (tall with sleepy effect).

This means you can expect 56.3% of your popped seeds to at least express the phenotype you’d like. But for this example, our aim is for a true breeding genotype (SSEE). Based on the Punnett, that appears 1 in 16 seeds. This ratio is for the total population and since females are only 50% of the total, we’ll need to double the amount of seeds (16 to 32 total seeds) to make sure we have the minimum number of seeds to statistically expect the appearance of our female target genotype.

While the Punnett Square can’t tell you who of the potential genotypes is the SSEE, it gives you a baseline number to increase your chances of finding it. Given the traits and assumed genotype of the parents, we now know that we should pop at least 32 seeds to have the genotype we’d like for our project. You would need to do some more work to figure which plant has the (SSEE) genotype, but the point is we have a baseline seed number to pop in order to expect it.

There are tons of avenues to travel toward reaching a breeding goal, you can focus on one trait at a time and slowly build on them with subsequent generations or try for multiple traits per breeding step. The purpose here is not to give every possible example, but to show how the Punnett Square can be a tool to help you figure how many seeds to pop in order to find desired plants.

 

[Schwaggy P]

Is it a bad idea to use feminized plants for breeding?​

At some point in forum perusal, you will likely encounter some form of this question: “Can you use a feminized plant for breeding?” Answers will generally fall along yes or no, but lack a more full-throated explanation as to why the poster feels this is a good/bad practice.

Answers in the affirmative are usually guided by experience and take the form, “I have a feminized plant that is more stable than most reg plants. She doesn’t put out any hermie progeny.” While others take an opposite stance (can be guided by experience, but many times just repeating an assumption read from someone else), “No way! Feminized plants are inherently bad stock and will lead to hermie prone progeny.”

I will balance my stance by playing each side of this question and say that both of these sides are correct. While it seems counterintuitive to say both apparently contradictory answers are the case, I’ll illustrate using Punnett Squares.

Many times, traits that are considered bad can be recessive (think small letter allele), but can be “hidden” when paired with a dominant allele (think uppercase allele). Much like disease in humans, both partners must be carriers of specific genes in order for the disease to express in progeny. Statistically speaking, the chances of any two random partners ensure the appearance of these genetic disorders is relatively low.

By selfing, or breeding a plant to itself, you are guaranteeing that whatever undesirable recessive traits lurk in the gene pool will necessarily double down and increase the chance of its expression in the progeny. What was before a possibility, has now been made a certainty.

Let’s see an example:

We have an OG Kush female we kept from a pack of fems. This OG did not express any intersex traits while growing, but some of her sisters did. We feel good about this plant because the phenotype did not show any hermie trait, but let’s remember we cannot see the genotype.

We’ll use H(no hermie) and h(hermie) to describe the alleles that code for stability. Since this pheno does not express the hermie trait, but the sisters did, we can assume our chosen OG Kush has the genotype (Hh).

Let’s see what happens to the progeny when we self this OG Kush

​

We see that 25% of the resulting S1 plants are hermie prone (hh). Now we can appreciate the importance of genotype and its role in subsequent generations. Even though the chosen OG Kush phenotype was as stable as could be, the presence of the recessive hermie trait allele (h) means you’ll be dealing with some presence of hermie prone plants down the line.

Now does this mean feminized seeds are inherently bad stock? Let’s keep in mind that the phenomenon just described would also be true of masculinized seeds as the true culprit here is simply the fact that by breeding the exact same genotype to itself, we are guaranteeing a doubling down of the recessive traits. If only 10% of a population is a carrier for a disease, this means that only couples that happen to both be carriers will produce affected children. By selfing, we now went from 10% to 100% and the rate of recessive expression has just increased.

So my answer to the question would be Yes and No.

Yes, selfing can produce a higher rate of issues in progeny, but only because of the logical conclusion that you’ve ensured recessive alleles are present for both contributing parents.

No, if you notice from the Punnett Square, we’ve also produced true-breeding stable (HH) plants. So it’s not that all progeny are forever cursed with the hermie trait, you can also create very stable plants.

You could use this OG Kush for a regular seed-breeding program and “cleanout” the hermie trait phenotype assuming your male is true-breeding.

Let’s see our OG Kush fem plant (Hh) crossed to a true-breeding Skunk (HH)

​

Now we can see that all of the progeny have a stable no hermie phenotype. It would be understandable how you could then come to the conclusion that breeding regular seeds is superior to selfing.

An interesting point to consider: While all of the phenos are hermie-free, some genotypes here (Hh) still include the ingredients for hermie-prone plants appearing again in later generations. Navigating proper selection is the hallmark of a solid breeding program. This should also hint toward why F2 populations can be so variable coming from otherwise "stable" F1.

Only limiting ourselves to phenotype (can’t see genotypes) it now makes sense why there are so many seemingly contradictory opinions on this subject.

Ultimately, the answer to this question is, “It depends.” This may not be totally satisfactory, but using the Punnett Squares, we can gain a better appreciation for the nuances involved with this concept.

 

[Gweedo]

🖒🖒🖒 thats a fantastic read sir, right up my alley

 

[GCG]

I remember studying Mendel punnet squares in HS. Who knew 30 years later they'd be relevant to me. Wouldnt have believed it then. As always, awesome stuff @Schwaggy P

 

[Hydro]

Fantastic read good sir.
Supposed to be getting some stuff done but got caught up in a good read. Lol

Haha right, same here....I got stuff to do. Damn you @Schwaggy P got me sidetracked like a moth to flame lol

 

[Bodyne]

Is it better, er so to speak, to reverse an f3 or higher, as compared to f1? Or does that stability not affect the possible hidden recessives?

 

[Bodyne]

Mendel, Clarke and chemdog all rolled up into one, the Schwaggman is.

 

[ZezoZose]

Great stuff, Schwaggz! Content like this is what keeps me coming back again and again...

 

[Cob_nUt]

Thank you for breaking it down (even further), for lesser minds such a mine...the laymen.

 

[Schwaggy P]

Is it better, er so to speak, to reverse an f3 or higher, as compared to f1? Or does that stability not affect the possible hidden recessives?

Assuming you made selections towards a more true-breeding plant, then the later filial generation plants would make better reversals than the earlier filial generations.

 

[Old ST1R]

The SSH kept pushing out fresh bud after the official dusting. I got pissed with the careful brushing, cut off a branch from the male and beat the shit out of her with it. I left the branch laying on the SSH to open up and continue to drop pollen on her.

View attachment 34183​

Do you basically T-Bagged her! LMAO.

 

[Cob_nUt]

Giesal x Skunky D testers
5 of 6 popped a tap after 24hr soak.
The 6th that didn't pop a tap was put into a peat pellet same day as the rest.
3 Days later all 6 are up above the pellet.

 

[ChronicWonders]

Giesal x Skunky D testers
5 of 6 popped a tap after 24hr soak.View attachment 34976
The 6th that didn't pop a tap was put into a peat pellet same day as the rest.
3 Days later all 6 are up above the pellet.
View attachment 34977

I’ll be getting me some of those hopefully in the new year. That Giesel piques my interest. Curious how much sweet candy skunk comes through.

 

[Cob_nUt]

I’ll be getting me some of those hopefully in the new year. That Giesel piques my interest. Curious how much sweet candy skunk comes through.

I'm hoping to find pure raunch,sour hot garbage, that lifts you up before it takes you out.
I'm not hip on where the candy comes from.

edit*^ nevermind I found a link.
Off to do more research.