What's inherited as far as auto-flower genetics?

That is true. But the more you do, the closer the true ratio is determined. I feel confident that 200 will be a large enough base for accurate numbers.
 
Very true, was just saying that might be why it turned out to be a third of the ones you have done. Oh and good luck to you too mate, hope it works outs for you
 
You may well be right ochocinco. I can not explain the 1 out of 3. I can only record the results.
 
I am intersted also in what goes with the auto gene. My Catherines are 1/2 photo and 1/2 the auto mother. But she has at most 50% rudaralis genes. So the most possable of auto genes is 1/8 . I have pollenated this now full auto with the same photo again. Now they will be 3/4 photo and only 1/16 rud. genes. After the photo group again I will hit it again with the same photo. Now the rud. gene is own to 1/32, right? I am wanting to see what I can lose of the rudaralis gene and still auto flower. Does anyone know if this has been done? If so what was the result. I will be doing this anyway as a way to stablize it and increase potentcy.
 
yes, my autos are 12 generations from LR, with a bx to the mother clone along the way.

Think of the LR gene as herpes once you stick your pistol into it, your stuck with it for life..
 
Is there a difference in low ryder and rudaralis? I was carfull the keep LR out of my program. So you have back crossed the auto to the photo 12 times? Wow , you should know what other charicteritics are linked to it. Please do tell. That would save me a lot of wasted time. I am so glad to know this. I thought when breeders talked about squaring and cubing it was back to a full auto from the photo/auto cross. That would keep the percentage of auto genes the same. If you are backcrossing to the photo mother, then that is far different. If I remember the math right, that would mean the auto gene was only 1/144 of the total genes.Wow. And still autoflowering! Any other auto traits follow the auto flower gene?
 
At that point who cares..

I have worked only a few Auto genes, and IMO there are so many lies out there, you must be very very careful what you believe. In 1988 when I started to grow there was only one auto, the rudy that sensi was selling, then nevil crossed to it but didnt know shit... not his fault just what happened.

IMO LR is a dom gene.

DP is using a "canadian rudy"... IMO there is only one canadian rudy... Mighty Mite.

There is a story behind LR and if you want to believe it OK... I dont. and I dont know what to believe, other than 20- 25 years ago the was rudy from sensi.
 
When most of us first came here we, sooner or later, were told that autos are very different from photos. To go outside they need 3 weeks inside, very carefull transplanting, 1/2 strenght ferts and give us much smaller yeilds. We were told this is a trait of autoflowering.I think this is what this thread is about. Is this true that no matter how many times you backcross to a photo, these traits follow the autoflowering gene? Semour buds shows us the yeilds can be higher than was thought to be the case. So the smaller yeids are from something we the growers are doing or not doing. So low yeilds are not an autoflowering trait. What else is or is not trait.
 
Is this true that no matter how many times you backcross to a photo, these traits follow the autoflowering gene?
The Mendelian ratios are, approximately held to in the F2s. This would seem to indicate that the autoflowering trait is down to a single gene. The mistake is to divide the world into photo and autoflowering. What there is is alleles, variants of the sequence which can be found at that locus. Thus the autoflowering gene, is the allele introduced from the first landrace crosses. Different ruderalis from around the world will probably have a slightly different gene (sequence at that locus). Likewise there will be multiple alleles within the photo gene pool. The one that is 'dominant' depends on the whole transcription etc process.
 
Back
Top