The traits to select away from

[Cannabutcher]

I have been listening to a few different autoflower discussions lately. One concept that keeps coming up is about selecting away from the less desirable Ruderalis traits.

So my question the the group is, What do those traits look like to you?

I know trait selection can be subjective, but I was wondering about the major “nobody likes them” traits

 

[Mossy]

I have been listening to a few different autoflower discussions lately. One concept that keeps coming up is about selecting away from the less desirable Ruderalis traits.

So my question the the group is, What do those traits look like to you?

I know trait selection can be subjective, but I was wondering about the major “nobody likes them” traits

Morning @Cannabutcher ... Honest opinion from one who dabbles...Ruderalis is so far back in the gene pool of modern Autos that you would have a hard job picking it up if you wanted it...

That being said..the highest Rudi traits would go back to the Original Autoflower description...which was 12 inches high and 8 weeks start to harvest time...

Good Luck......

 

[Cannabutcher]

Thanks Mossy! “Dabblin” might be the understatement of the day

I’m looking through the F1’s of my first photo to auto cross and seeing some odd symmetry and other wonky things in some of the plants. The good news is there are some well structured and fragrant boys that will likely get to move on.

 

[BII]

What, if any, legacy ruderalis traits does anyone actually want these days?

I have never even seen a C. ruderalis plant, but I presume the only trait a current auto breeder would want from this legacy wild strain is autoflowering. If legacy C. ruderalis were available, I presume it would be a poor candidate for breeding. Ruderalis/autoflower genes have surely been substantially improved through recent decades of mutation, selection and purposeful breeding. For essentially every genetic trait, there are surely now better strains to breed with.

 

[Cannabutcher]

What, if any, legacy ruderalis traits does anyone actually want these days?

I have never even seen a C. ruderalis plant, but I presume the only trait a current auto breeder would want from this legacy wild strain is autoflowering. If legacy C. ruderalis were available, I presume it would be a poor candidate for breeding. Ruderalis/autoflower genes have surely been substantially improved through recent decades of mutation, selection and purposeful breeding. For essentially every genetic trait, there are surely now better strains to breed with.

Not trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, more of wondering people’s experience with keeping regression (if there is much) at bay.

 

[Mossy]

Not trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, more of wondering people’s experience with keeping regression (if there is much) at bay.

Personal opinion... remember...I'm not a Botanist...just a Potanist ... And #ISmokeDope ..

Avoiding Rudi traits..

It's your Males that you need to count in.

On a sliding scale..with all things being equal...an Auto male will flower between 14-21 days

Don't select the Fastest male..more likely to be the short fast gene.

Select the mid range males ..flower time 16 - 20 days in.....

Also...and this is pure experience...once in a while you will get a late flowering male..24-30 days...it is the biggest hulking Stud Muffin you have seen... Stunning.....but.. avoid it like the Plague...that is the one that is making the non-auto Autos........


I would avoid any male that took over 21 days to flower...but that is a personal opinion...

 

[Fladawg01]

I have been listening to a few different autoflower discussions lately. One concept that keeps coming up is about selecting away from the less desirable Ruderalis traits.

So my question the the group is, What do those traits look like to you?

I know trait selection can be subjective, but I was wondering about the major “nobody likes them” traits

Many don't realize that there are several varieties or cultivars of Ruderalis plants. There is a Siberian version, A NA version and I believe several other varieties where they have short summers and long cold winters. I think many of the younger EU seed sellers uses very quick and short growing versions of the plant, where some of the geneticists here use a variety that has a slightly longer grow and larger plant. Guys like Speedrun, Night Owl use some dencent strains fo rthier breeding and it shows in their genetics.
Look for strains that they advise Topping helps or just use LST, these will help determine if the plant you chose will not stunt as easy. I have seen Fast Bud Autos that state " Does well with topping and LST", this helps in should I or shouldn't I do this questions.

Traits I would like to see eliminated:
1) not easily stunted
2) super short plants
3) 6 weeks of vege vs 3-4 weeks
4) Land race seeds not being labeled as such due to being bred with Ruderalis..They truly are not once bred.

 

[Azton]

According to the internet the Royal Queen Seeds Quick One is Ruderalis x Old school indica.

Autos seem to foxtail a lot more than photos. That's a trait I would like to have gone.

I'm no scientist, just a home grower and stoner.

 

[BII]

....

Autos seem to foxtail a lot more than photos. That's a trait I would like to have gone.....

For me, the sole consumer, foxtailing is a bonus - more trichomes that are well exposed to light and air. And with foxtails usually airy, fluffy, with more exposed surface area, there could well be more trichomes per weight (higher potency). Is there any evidence or general consensus that foxtails are less potent or lower quality high vs. the buds they are attached to?

But with prejudice against foxtails so common, even to the point of considering them ugly or associating them with a failure in growing, I can see how they would be unwanted for buds to be sold.

[Note, I am not suggesting that foxtailing is desired or should be bred into cannabis strains; just that if they do happen, foxtails shouldn't be considered so bad].

 

[Azton]

For me, the sole consumer, foxtailing is a bonus - more trichomes that are well exposed to light and air. And with foxtails usually airy, fluffy, with more exposed surface area, there could well be more trichomes per weight (higher potency). Is there any evidence or general consensus that foxtails are less potent or lower quality high vs. the buds they are attached to?

But with prejudice against foxtails so common, even to the point of considering them ugly or associating them with a failure in growing, I can see how they would be unwanted for buds to be sold.

[Note, I am not suggesting that foxtailing is desired or should be bred into cannabis strains; just that if they do happen, foxtails shouldn't be considered so bad].

The trichomes don't mature on the tails though, or maybe they do but it would take ages? Maybe someone else knows, but for me, not within 13 weeks at least