Scientist says all cannabis basically the same?

TimBar

TimBar

Well-Known Member
Beachwalker said:
Many (most?) who smoked in the 60s, 70s would agree with your statement. In my opinion cannabis changed sometime after I quit growing after 95.

Since I started again 3 years ago I've been very disappointed with what's offered out there, no breeder got the killer or we'd all know about it and I'd be lined up to buy it too!

In my opinion it's all mediocre, so in that sense I also kind of see it as all the same I suppose ..meh, wish the hell I'd kept my seeds..

It's hard to believe that in 20, maybe 30 years tops all that good bud we knew and loved all disappeared ?? At the same time if people were still growing it I would think we would have seen it come out by now, so I'm not overly encouraged but still hopeful..
Click to expand...
I am afraid that will law changing and making it more and more legal - they will want to breed for faster growth and bigger buds...the weed from the 60-70, the good stuff Panama, Columbian, Maui and the like were not huge producers or fast growers and matured longer. I hope research on cannabis develops like tech has - amazing that this plant has not been completely studied more.
 
Novabudd

Novabudd

Well-Known Member
TimBar said:
I am afraid that will law changing and making it more and more legal - they will want to breed for faster growth and bigger buds...the weed from the 60-70, the good stuff Panama, Columbian, Maui and the like were not huge producers or fast growers and matured longer. I hope research on cannabis develops like tech has - amazing that this plant has not been completely studied more.
Click to expand...
IMHO it will be up to indivdual home growers, like yall here, to try breeding and seeding for more "old-time" qualities. Big commercial growers wont be interested in anything that doesnt fit their business needs ( pure profit). Quick grow and turn-over.
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
im no scientist but they are "basically" the same. Like they even look "basically" the same.
Click to expand...
98% of the weed is the same, Then you get stuff like real DP that will fuck your shit up with THCv and 6% terpenes, still tastes and smells like weed, then if you haven't discovered the flavoured weeds, you are missing out. Fruity cheese, chocolaty coffees, grapes, citrus, guava etc. Some are only flavors while others translate trough even to taste.
I'd say there is more variation in cannabis than in roses.
 
Silvio Dante

Silvio Dante

Active Member
Bad Karma said:
The article is actually correct guys. It checks out with what author Richard C. Clark wrote in his book "Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany". All of the plants that we use to get "high" are various forms of cannabis indica, which are called broad leaf, and narrow leaf. True cannabis sativa has no psychoactive properties and is literally just hemp. Only cannabis indica carries the drug producing qualities that we seek out.

So technically, its all cannabis indica, yet each plant has an unique chemical fingerprint, and that fingerprint will interact differently with each individual that uses it.

We've been using the wrong terminology on these plants for decades now. Indica/Sativa are geographical descriptions, not genetic descriptions.

Source: https://merryjane.com/culture/sativa-indica-cannabis-classification
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_sativa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_indica

Well I never... how have I never even noticed this? It seems so obvious now that you point it out.

I have always been of a mind on my own psychoactive research and notes of effect of cannabis on the body that it is the chemical balance of ones brain that is the driving factor for different high experiences, and not the bud itself. Different flavours and smokes yes, but I reckon the psychoactive effects are very much down to the individual.

I'd back this up with the various research that suggests that cannabis exacerbates mental health conditions in those with a pre-disposition to them, but does not actually cause them to manifest in its own right.

Fascinating stuff.
 
tyke1973

tyke1973

Well-Known Member
Like Saying Chicken tastes like Pheasant .I mean there both a bird right .
But I do agree that a lot of Strains out there are just going Crazy
Blueberry X Haze, Blue Dream
Haze X Blueberry,Blueberry haze .Its gone fucking stupid .
You be telling me that Coke and Crack ,are not the same Drug soon .Same Drug just Cooked up different .
 
Last edited:
Xs121

Xs121

Well-Known Member
Tim1987 said:
Anyone think it's too late for reverse breeding?
I'd like to feel optimistic about it.
But I think a lot of the strong genes are lost, and it's a really big shame if they are.
Click to expand...
It's not too late to purify a strain, you just need 2 things.

1. A new name. example Tim White Widow
2. A dedication to a proper breeding system

Our so called strains are so unstable that their phenotypes are so diverse that it's so ridiculous. So for medical purposes our so called strains are unreliable, this is the point of the OP article. If you want to cure a health issue with a specific strain then that strain have to be rock solid stable. So its effect can be monitored/studied in different individuals having the same health issue. Only then, the strain can be labeled as medically beneficial to treat said health issue.

Unfortunately...same strain from different breeders/seed bank...can have diversifying effect on the same individual. The opposite of what the medical community is hoping for.

It always ticked me off to see breeders glorify their F1....and call it a new strain and start selling it <<==== this here is the dumbass breeder mentality. I have yet to see a breeder selling F6 or later generation.... but I guess our so called breeders haven't heard of F2 and beyond.

What our breeders need or what we need is proper training on proper breeding techniques/system. Until then when we can back our strains with at least 5 generations of breeding record, we should stop calling it a strain and stop calling ourselves as breeders....which we are not....we are Producers.
 
GroErr

GroErr

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Being "basically" the same and the same are two completely different things.

After all, Vodka and Scotch are "basically" the same.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. From strictly a scientific view they're finding that the genetics in many so-called "strains" do not differ that much. Nor does alcohol, at the molecular level. But we all know there's a huge difference in flavours between say scotch and brandy. Although both are alcohol there's no question that they have completely different flavours. Really no different in MJ plants in that respect.

Not sold on the whole "entourage' effect discussion. I think we'll eventually find (through proper studies) that certain combinations of cannabinoids and terpenes will have different properties and effects. I have many strains on the go and many are similar but have different effects. For example I have two that produce extreme dry/cotton mouth, but several others that don't. Flavour could be called subjective but if I have a strain that 9 of 10 people like, that tells me there's something in there to pursue and wouldn't discount it even if the genetics at the DNA level say it's "the same" as another strain.

Phylos has done some nice work at the genetics level in documenting and classifying genetic varieties. I've used their database not to find common varieties but to find more unique varieties. Recently got a hold of some landrace Columbian Gold due to the findings in their database. It's an uncommon variety and hasn't been used in many crosses which could produce something a little different. We'll see what happens, still trial and error until there's more science available. Their database is nowhere near complete but they're adding varieties daily and it's a good resource as any out there right now.

https://phylos.bio/galaxy/variety/2f9a8828f896-TSCA/cw-analytical/bobs-gdp?source=website

Type a strain name in the search box then generate a Genotype Report, interesting stuff.
 
WeedFreak78

WeedFreak78

Well-Known Member
ANC said:
98% of the weed is the same, Then you get stuff like real DP that will fuck your shit up with THCv and 6% terpenes, still tastes and smells like weed, then if you haven't discovered the flavoured weeds, you are missing out. Fruity cheese, chocolaty coffees, grapes, citrus, guava etc. Some are only flavors while others translate trough even to taste.
I'd say there is more variation in cannabis than in roses.
Click to expand...
I grew a Durban pheno years ago that I've been trying to find again with no luck. I've been through a dozen+ seeds in the last couple years, and while it's been good, not one has been the donkey dick cola, resin dripping, pinesol taste, speedy high like that first one. Anyone that smoked it loved it, it made you want to just get up and go do something.

You lucky bastard actually getting the real deal.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
i wonder if any of these researchers have ever smoked the weed they're testing? after they get their results, they should smoke one "identical" sample a day, just to see how "identical" they are. shit, the same weed can hit me different from day to day, depending on my stress levels.
the difference between one terpene and another can make a huge difference, not just in taste, but in effect. weed that has 18%thc, 1.1% cbd, and three particular terpenes can have a totally different effect than weed that has 17% thc, .9% cbd, and the same three terpenes...
 
WeedFreak78

WeedFreak78

Well-Known Member
The article doesn't say anything about plants looking or smelling different, nothing about physical properties. It's saying there's no scientific proof that a certain mixture of THC, terpenes and other cannabinoid has a specific effect, that it's all just anecdotal at this point.

The approval of Syndros for medical use is total bullshit if it's the same fucking THC molecule. Just more proof it's about extortion of the general public.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
thats true, a lack of research has resulted in a lot of speculation. all we're working with right now is anecdotal evidence, people telling other people how it makes them "feel".
i'm all in favor of clinical experiments, i feel like they can only have good results.
 
morgwar

morgwar

Well-Known Member
Xs121 said:
It's not too late to purify a strain, you just need 2 things.

1. A new name. example Tim White Widow
2. A dedication to a proper breeding system

Our so called strains are so unstable that their phenotypes are so diverse that it's so ridiculous. So for medical purposes our so called strains are unreliable, this is the point of the OP article. If you want to cure a health issue with a specific strain then that strain have to be rock solid stable. So its effect can be monitored/studied in different individuals having the same health issue. Only then, the strain can be labeled as medically beneficial to treat said health issue.

Unfortunately...same strain from different breeders/seed bank...can have diversifying effect on the same individual. The opposite of what the medical community is hoping for.

It always ticked me off to see breeders glorify their F1....and call it a new strain and start selling it <<==== this here is the dumbass breeder mentality. I have yet to see a breeder selling F6 or later generation.... but I guess our so called breeders haven't heard of F2 and beyond.

What our breeders need or what we need is proper training on proper breeding techniques/system. Until then when we can back our strains with at least 5 generations of breeding record, we should stop calling it a strain and stop calling ourselves as breeders....which we are not....we are Producers.
Click to expand...
Well said, however check out sannies killing fields, I believe it's f5 or f6. Very consistent and homogeneous.
My family has had it's own heirloom veggies and herbs for centuries.
I'm working on my own stuff though I'm only able to pick from 50 plants at a time
Simple selection and in-crossing over time does the trick and is tried and true.
There's no magic to it just patience.
 
T

Tim1987

Well-Known Member
morgwar said:
Well said, however check out sannies killing fields, I believe it's f5 or f6. Very consistent and homogeneous.
My family has had it's own heirloom veggies and herbs for centuries.
I'm working on my own stuff though I'm only able to pick from 50 plants at a time
Simple selection and in-crossing over time does the trick and is tried and true.
There's no magic to it just patience.
Click to expand...
What's the general idea of reverse breeding?

Hang on to the parent seeds?
Then cross the seed with new introduced parents, of the same geographic origin?

Making sure you keep the OG parent seeds as a backup. So we can revert if need be?

All the F's have always been confusing to me.
Aren't the seeds just like animal breeding in a way?
You can't inbreed very far. Or defects and anomalies start popping up all over the place?
 
Last edited:
Xs121

Xs121

Well-Known Member
Tim1987 said:
What's the general idea of reverse breeding?

Hang on to the parent seeds?
Then cross the seed with new introduced parents, of the same geographic origin?

Making sure you keep the OG parent seeds as a backup. So we can revert if need be?

All the F's have always been confusing to me.
Aren't the seeds just like animal breeding in a way?
You can't inbreed very far. Or defects and anomalies start popping up all over the place?
Click to expand...
This is what newbie breeders fear about inbreeding. Fear that if they go beyond F1 they gonna lose heterosis (or fire if you will) and all manners of weakness will manifest.

If you have no idea what you are doing then all the above fear is true this is why education in proper breeding technique is important. Breeding is more than just pollinating a female flower.

There are techniques in inbreeding that avoid/minimize the close relative breeding. One example of this, is...never breed brother and sister, it's a big no no. Breeding is a science and an art by itself.

Take the case of Game Fowl Breeders, not so popular group due to the nature of the animal they breed (for cockfighting or used to be). Game fowl breeding started since the early history(Aztec, pre-roman Britain, etc) yet to this day, breed line are as pure as they can be and as vigorously vicious as they used to be if not more. Makes you wonder how they can maintain such pure breed. Modern breeding whether for crop or livestock have adopted these techniques from the game fowl breeders.

The F's explain the generation of the same bloodline without outcrossing, the moment you cross such bloodline to a different strain or even unrelated same strain, you start again from F1

F1 = cross of 2 unrelated strain
F2 = offspring of F1 cross with either of the following Father/Mother/Uncle/Aunt/Cousins
F3 = offspring of F2 cross with either of the above or Grandparents
F4... F5... so on

When you hit F6 and have done due diligence in selecting, culling, and pairing...you pretty much have a new breed/strain. the genetics at this point is pretty much stable and it would be a rare instance when a different pheno would express itself. This process is called Linebreeding or Inbreeding.

As a "breeder" it is your duty to maintain the purity of this bloodline otherwise the moment you cross this out this bloodline is gone. So you continue your F's F7, F8 and so on and on. We don't see this in cannabis, everything in cannabis is F1
 
morgwar

morgwar

Well-Known Member
Tim1987 said:
What's the general idea of reverse breeding?

Hang on to the parent seeds?
Then cross the seed with new introduced parents, of the same geographic origin?

Making sure you keep the OG parent seeds as a backup. So we can revert if need be?

All the F's have always been confusing to me.
Aren't the seeds just like animal breeding in a way?
You can't inbreed very far. Or defects and anomalies start popping up all over the place?
Click to expand...
Plants are more forgiving with inbreeding and studies show that they have mechanisms to correct genetic damage.
Start from scratch and grab any regular or poly hybrid "strain" pop ten pick out two decent males and 4 to six decent females. Assign 2or3 fems to each male and chuck. Grow out groups of offspring from each female and select for the standard of like plants with parent traits.
Your not looking for a keeper your looking to stabilize a mess of stupid chucking.
Once stable and homogeneous start improvement selection.
 
T

Tim1987

Well-Known Member
morgwar said:
Plants are more forgiving with inbreeding and studies show that they have mechanisms to correct genetic damage.
Start from scratch and grab any regular or poly hybrid "strain" pop ten pick out two decent males and 4 to six decent females. Assign 2or3 fems to each male and chuck. Grow out groups of offspring from each female and select for the standard of like plants with parent traits.
Your not looking for a keeper your looking to stabilize a mess of stupid chucking.
Once stable and homogeneous start improvement selection.
Click to expand...
Thank-you
Makes a lot of sense.
 
T

Tim1987

Well-Known Member
Xs121 said:
This is what newbie breeders fear about inbreeding. Fear that if they go beyond F1 they gonna lose heterosis (or fire if you will) and all manners of weakness will manifest.

If you have no idea what you are doing then all the above fear is true this is why education in proper breeding technique is important. Breeding is more than just pollinating a female flower.

There are techniques in inbreeding that avoid/minimize the close relative breeding. One example of this, is...never breed brother and sister, it's a big no no. Breeding is a science and an art by itself.

Take the case of Game Fowl Breeders, not so popular group due to the nature of the animal they breed (for cockfighting or used to be). Game fowl breeding started since the early history(Aztec, pre-roman Britain, etc) yet to this day, breed line are as pure as they can be and as vigorously vicious as they used to be if not more. Makes you wonder how they can maintain such pure breed. Modern breeding whether for crop or livestock have adopted these techniques from the game fowl breeders.

The F's explain the generation of the same bloodline without outcrossing, the moment you cross such bloodline to a different strain or even unrelated same strain, you start again from F1

F1 = cross of 2 unrelated strain
F2 = offspring of F1 cross with either of the following Father/Mother/Uncle/Aunt/Cousins
F3 = offspring of F2 cross with either of the above or Grandparents
F4... F5... so on

When you hit F6 and have done due diligence in selecting, culling, and pairing...you pretty much have a new breed/strain. the genetics at this point is pretty much stable and it would be a rare instance when a different pheno would express itself. This process is called Linebreeding or Inbreeding.

As a "breeder" it is your duty to maintain the purity of this bloodline otherwise the moment you cross this out this bloodline is gone. So you continue your F's F7, F8 and so on and on. We don't see this in cannabis, everything in cannabis is F1
Click to expand...
Thank-you too.
This makes a lot of sense as well.
 
Cold$moke

Cold$moke

Well-Known Member
Good thread

I know several years ago if you said you where going to dust anything

People labeled you a stupid pollen chucker and that you would muddle the gene pool
And only people like mr nice (shanti) where considered real breeders.



Now every one is chucking and i will be too soon haha

I should have started years ago :)

But in growing all the vareties i have (in limited numbers remember it used to be illegal )

I never found one that straight up knocked me over or blew.me away (i smoke like a choo chooo train) no matter how good they where after a zip or 2 im used to it haha sure i found stuuf that i kept around but

I still havent smoke a weed that was life changing ....let me know if you guys find it or where to get it ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top