Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
DIAGRAM OF SELECTION OF MONOECIOUS HEMP
Recurrent Phenotypic Selection - Familial
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
year 1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cycle 1
year 2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
year 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cycle 2
year 4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
year 2
n
+ 1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cycle
n
Registration in the
official catalogue
of varieties
year 2
n
+ 2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
year 2
n
+ 3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cycle
n
+ 1
year 2
n
+ 4
Fig. 4.14.
Recurrent phenotypic selection model for families.
been used in the creation of varieties,
where their use remains somewhat
controversial.
Work has been undertaken in Italy to iden-
•
Research on the biosynthesis of fibres dur-
ing the growth cycle has been initiated in
to determine the genes involved, to study
their variability and any potential for the
creation of new varieties.
•
tify markers for THC. Published results
are encouraging.
