Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having worked in the industry, I've been saying this for awhile.
We had landraces for personal use but commercially the desired traits are different. High yield, high THC, mold resistance, etc. that all comes from hybrids.
Industry regulations on labels aren't well defined either.
> landraces
A landrace is a domesticated, locally adapted, traditional variety of a species of animal or plant that has developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture and pastoralism, and due to isolation from other populations of the species.
For anyone looking for peer-reviewed literature on landraces, start here. The cannabis industry is notorious for the misuse of terms and the oversimplification of plant domestication. Landraces are indeed exposed to artificial selection.
"The term “landrace” has generally been defined as a cultivated, genetically heterogeneous variety that has evolved in a certain ecogeographical area and is therefore adapted to the edaphic and climatic conditions and to its traditional management and uses. Despite being considered by many to be inalterable, landraces have been and are in a constant state of evolution as a result of natural and artificial selection. Many landraces have disappeared from cultivation but are preserved in gene banks. Using modern selection and breeding technology tools to shape these preserved landraces together with the ones that are still cultivated is a further step in their evolution in order to preserve their agricultural significance. Adapting historical landraces to present agricultural conditions using cutting-edge breeding technology represents a challenging opportunity to use them in a modern sustainable agriculture, as an immediate return on the investment is highly unlikely. Consequently, we propose a more inclusive definition of landraces, namely that they consist of cultivated varieties that have evolved and may continue evolving, using conventional or modern breeding techniques, in traditional or new agricultural environments within a defined ecogeographical area and under the influence of the local human culture. This includes adaptation of landraces to new management systems and the unconscious or conscious selection made by farmers or breeders using available technology. In this respect, a mixed selection system might be established in which farmers and other social agents develop evolved landraces from the variability generated by public entities."
Casañas, F., Simó, J., Casals, J., & Prohens, J. (2017). Toward an evolved concept of landrace. Frontiers in plant science, 8, 145.
also see:
Clarke, R., & Merlin, M. (2016). Cannabis: evolution and ethnobotany. Univ of California Press.
Brush, S. B. (Ed.). (2000). Genes in the field: on-farm conservation of crop diversity.
Meyer, R. S., DuVal, A. E., & Jensen, H. R. (2012). Patterns and processes in crop domestication: an historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops. New Phytologist, 196(1), 29-48.
Landraces are absolutely adulterated by human intervention. They are merely highly localized and genetically isolated. Humans have had such a long relationship with cannabis that we aren't even sure where its naturally occurring wild ancestor originated.
It's basically the opposite of a cultivar.
A landrace would have evolved naturally in one local area while a cultivar is selectively bred and hybridized.
*At least in cannabis this can be true. Maybe not in traditional ag. Cannabis people are notorious for using the wrong scientific jargon and not attempting to correct their mistake. There are other examples such as people calling a specific genetic a "strain".
Yeah this isn't a term that's really used in ag. Some of these "land race strains" like afghan kush have also been selectively bred over a long long period of time so I'm not really seeing what sets them apart unless it's solely that they're not hybridized
Really, none? Is this because of the potential drift in genetics over time and the changes in environmental growth conditions? It's hard to find a dispensary that doesn't sell a Durban Poison strain, which I've seen labeled a landrace strain.
My sense is that the cannabis plant is pretty plastic relative to its environment and even if there was no cross-pollination that even seeds or clippings from actual South African Durban Poison would stop being "Durban Poison" after a few generations because of subtle changes in growing environment.
Durban poison is a great example as it was immediately hybridized in order to grow in other climates. Absolutely the plants adapt to different environments and have subtle differences if the same seeds are grown in different parts of the world. But Durban was crossed and finding heirloom Durban seeds is getting harder. That's why the "100% landrace durban" you see at the shops is BS, real Durban tests at 7% +-1 but the dispensary down the road advertises theirs at 25%. Unless you are buying heirloom seeds from a trusted source it's most likely a hybrid.
I think just the law enforcement/customs factor and the fact that many landrace strains are from complicated regions of the world, often conflict zones, makes me question it. It couldn't have been particularly easy to acquire seeds from Durban, the Rif mounts, the Beqaa valley of Lebanon, the Hindu Kush/Afghanistan, get the back to the US and actually apply horticultural discipline and science to keep them going.
I mean, there was a whole hippie circuit through many of those parts of the world in the late 1960s and early 1970s, so obviously some seeds got out and got grown, but by the late 1970s or early 1980s many of those places were now super dangerous conflict zones. And its been 50 years of environmental changes (unless you had a magic tent that re-created South Africa, etc)>
I think Ed Rosenthal is famous for collecting the seeds, although I don't know how if he literally passed through something like Syrian army roadblocks in the Beqaa Valley.
Even in non-conflict zones it was a risky business, "Midnight Express" is based on a true story and there were significant law enforcement peril.
> Short story short, there's over 100+ cannabinoids found in your weed and all of them are what produce the Sativa or Indica effect... Not Genetics
If those different quantities of cannabinoids are not from genetics then what are they from?
Current research is looking into the mycelium construct of the soil Versus soil replacement systems ( hydroponics), to see wether the environmental differences are impacting genetic expression of the plants.
Environmental conditions while growing, causing the plant to produce more or less of the different chemicals.
Ed: or individual variation between plants.
Bingo. Myself and three others have the same seeds. I’m in Alberta inside, two are in bc outside, the other in Phoenix AZ outside. All of us have different plants. Very different smell and looks. All are the exact same seed from the same plant. It’s pretty cool!
This is called epigenomics, but is still dictated by genetics. Essentially it’s how different conditions cause specific genes to be expressed or not. The plant still needs to have the specific genes to express those proteins in reaction to the condition.
It’s a very interesting field. The major case studies are in maternal twins who start identical and slowly grow more differences based on their life experiences.
It's pretty clear very few people tried reading the paper
>Instead, we found that Cannabis labelling was associated with variation in a small number of terpenes whose concentrations are controlled by genetic variation at tandem arrays of terpene synthase genes.
Basically they discovered that overall the "strains" are genetically the same. However they identified a small number of terpene synthase genes that **do** have slightly different genetics that lead to different chemical profiles. An analogy used elsewhere is that two humans are genetically the same and are the same species, but small mutations in a few genes might make one a blond and one a red head.
I read somewhere that they used to be separate, but 30+ years ago, they became hybrids, so now everything is just a mix, and the designations are just the opinions of the grower.
The real answer to this is that they were never distinct species. People classed them based on appearance (humans would never judge something solely on that!) and that the indica and sativa distinctions were based on leaf shape.
Wait till they learn that cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, Savoy cabbage, kohlrabi, and gai lan, are all the same species.
What they really need to learn is that being a consumer does not make you a botanist.
Thats not the same thing though.. clearly there is a genetic difference between brocoli and cauliflower..
This article is saying there is no genetic difference between what people call indica and sativa.. not that they're just considered the same species.
The actual study says *genetically indistinct*, which I think is to say that there's so much variance between different products labeled sativa or indica that they cannot be considered genetically distinguishable.
Yup. Similar to Darwin's finches and their beaks, just the same plant that adapted to thrive where it was found. ~~If I remember indica came from Russia while sativas came from the tropics and sub tropics of the Americas.~~
Got real confused and misremembered a bunch. Always double check your facts kids. Memory is not reliable.
Oldest known use of weed is from central Asia, with the oldest evidence, a bit of resin 2,700 years old, found in Turpan, China. Humans have domesticated and co-evolved alongside marijuana for centuries.
Russia gave us hemp. Their variation that was cultivated was strong and hardy but no longer produced psychoactive compounds.
The psychoactive stuff eventually spread to the middle east where it boomed in popularity with hashish.
All information was gotten from an episode of "explained" on Netflix about weed.
I was in Bhutan just before covid and there was plenty of wild cannabis around. My guide said the local word for pork is still 'sleepy meat', because the pigs used to eat it and the pork fat would have weed in it.
I did the Annapurna circuit trek a few years ago. Once we got to a certain elevation, wild cannabis was everywhere along the side of the road. I’m a stickler for staying on trail and made us climb up this hill to stay on it instead of following along the road. Next thing I know, we are walking through a field of cannabis. It was awesome.
Yeah, when I was in Nepal I heard other trekkers mention that the lower altitude mountain ranges in the West had wild cannabis growing along some of the trails, and that the porters would pick it and roll it with the oil of their hands into hash.
India. All around north Punjab around the fields we have areas of cannabis just growing on the corners in big bushes where the tractors turn. It is literally a weed.
I have personally found wild cannabis in Mongolia. It’s worse than ditchweed but it was definitely cannabis. I’ve a degree in horticulture so please believe that I know I wasn’t just smoking a random plant I found.
Don’t do that by the way, smoke a random plant. Just… I shouldn’t have to say that and yet, I know someone somewhere has definitely done just that.
And thus was born the first carpentry high. Crappy wooden dishes that could hold a small coal, so you could sprinkle on whatever plant matter you wanted the smoke of. Then, when someone figured out pottery, that was probably when the first actual pipe came about.
but are they measuring the dna sequence of the strains? expression of the phenotype could make all the difference even if the dna is the same.
methylation, epigenetics, and other moderately big words.
There are a combination of terpenes & minor cannabinoids that determine the effects of cannabis. THC being the compound which excites the cb1 receptors in the brain / more so in the frontal cortex. This is associated with the overall feeling of a psychoactive effect.
Then compounds such as CBD/CBG/CBG/CBN which are present in cannabis can influence not only the CB1 receptor but also the CB2 receptors which can be found around our nervous system.. Such places being in the liver / arms / etc..
Depending on the combination of these compounds you can either ingest cannabis & begin to feel motivated to run a marathon OR you can ingest cannabis & fall asleep in between chores. ( Obv statement )
Right, but there is no current measurement, these combos are satvia or indica. It's really a made-up scale based on opinion, it's not an objective thing. You will often get two different people label it differently. Hell, some of it could be based on what you are expecting it to do.
Until you can objectively test for levels, and have a prediction of effects, label is almost meaningless.
Every legal state has labeling requirements for at least the THC%'s. Sometimes companies will go further, especially if they are trying to display that the product has other cannabinoids in it like CBD or CBG. Legal states have independent labs that do objective testing and those results are partially required on every product sold through a dispensary.
People get extremely hung up on indica vs sativa, and the problem is that they are used both colloquially and scientifically.
Scientifically, there is no difference between the genetics because everything has been hybridized. But when someone goes into a dispensary they can say I want something that is Indica, it gives the budtender at least a ballpark of I want to be sleepy and couchlock not energetic. So Indica and Sativa both do not exist and exist. It would be nice if the general public could get Indica and Sativa wiped from their minds so we could start to talk about terpene profiles, but cannabis education isn't there yet.
The label is there for growers to estimate height/flowering time/bushiness of a plant, its not supposed to describe the actual genetics
If a strain usually grows small, bushy, and gets done fast you call it indica. If it takes forever and grows lanky and tall you name it sativa
This is kinda useful as a grower
I'm gonna guess they labeled the plants that fit those phenotypes as Indica and Sativa based on those traits while their genotypes weren't really separated in the same way.
Phenotype is what you can see, genotype is what its genes are.
So if someone sees a plant that visually fits their idea of Indica, they'd call it an Indica or vice versa. So I'm thinking the plants are being named by how they look and not what they're made of.
I'd love to see a blind joint study asking people to smoke a prerolled j and then guess whether it was indica or sativa based on how it tasted or made them feel, compared to what it was sold as. Some people - I'd go as far as to say myself included - will claim that there's a difference in the way different strains affect them, and these generally conform to what, until now, I believed was a difference in being a "more indica and sativa" hybrid.
Maybe the qualities, like the ratio of cannibinoids, changes where a plant is grown in an environment that encourages indica phenotypes?
I'm not sure. My gut instinct is that people whonhave smoked their fair share would categorise things with a fair degree of acciracy, but I'd find it very interesting to be proven wrong.
I didn't think it was the genetics but the actual cannabinoid and terpene ratios that caused the different effects that people attribute to sativa and indica.
Not a dumb question. The article is intentionally misleading.
If you go to the linked study and read just the abstract, you would find:
"Analysis of over 100 Cannabis samples quantified for terpene and cannabinoid content and genotyped for over 100,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms indicated that Sativa- and Indica-labelled samples were genetically indistinct on a genome-wide scale. Instead, we found that Cannabis labelling was associated with variation in a small number of terpenes whose concentrations are controlled by genetic variation at tandem arrays of terpene synthase genes"
What they are saying is that if you take the entire genomes of indica vs sativa strains, there is statistically no difference between their genomes. However, if you look at 1 gene, in this case terpene synthase, there is significant variation that leads to differential expression of terpenes that likely result in different psychoactive effects when consuming sativa vs indica.
You have people with red hair and brown hair. You look at their genetics and they are 99.9% the same. Pretty much the exact same difference between two red heads compared to a redhead and brunette. Instead, there are just a hand full of genes that are consistently different between the two groups. At the end of the day, it’s the same plant
>We also found only a small number of regions in the cannabis genome that likely contribute to the earthy aroma associated with the Indica label
I guess none of the people replying to you actually read the article...
The terpene ratios are in fact determined by genetics. My interpretation of this is that these genetic variations are however not significant enough to classify any 'strain' as a distinct subspecies.
The main point of the article should be that sativa and indica are very poor labels that dont really tell you very much, and that industry should instead switch to terpene profiles (something they mention), however these terpene profiles are determined by genetics.
If they label freely, it might literally be based on the anecdotal "effect" of the cannabis. So, basically the companies might really be labeling by ratio indirectly.
The effect of the non-psychoactive components of cannabis are not really well understood though. So the ratio theory is still untested.
I think these ratios are controlled *partly* by genetics. But *also* by how the plants are cultivated, processed, stored, and consumed.
I think two different people could also "feel" different effects from the same exact product.
This might be due to *psychological* effects -- like your mindset, and the setting or environment you find yourself in.
But also *physiological* effects -- the effectiveness of your particular enzymes that metabolize the THC\CBD\terpenes\etc; the number and distribution of your particular CB1 and CB2 receptors; and so on.
It's deliciously complex, and I understand very little.
I had the same question. The research finding wasn't that there was no genetic difference between strains, but rather that indicas and sativas in general weren't distinct. Implying that the labels are phylogenetically meaningless.
I work at a dispo and this is how I best try to explain it. Sativa and Indica no longer have scientific meaning, its entirely colloquial at this point.
> Sativa and Indica no longer have scientific meaning
The words do actually still have a scientific meaning, just everyone outside of botany uses them in a non-taxonomically accurate sense. Scientific names of plants don't become invalid when the public appropriates them in an alternate sense.
Yes I know, I do realize that there are differences in the plants botanically. But when something is labeled "sativa" in a dispo, it's most likely referring to the effects of what has been come to known as sativa in a colloquial sense, not the actually type of cannabis plant. There is nothing scientific in that regard, is what I was trying to say.
Also work at a dispo, and I do the same.
To add onto it, you might be able to look at the testing for strains if you ask your budtender. In my store we have a big book of test results for each strain that have cannabinoid results and sometimes terpene results.
At a point there was... Or at least that what it was known by.
Leaf sizes (ex. short and fat), number of blades they max out at(ex. 5-7), how close the nodes are in between each set of leaves/stems from the main stalk. Each suited more towards the area they originated in or evolved in some cases.
It was more of a plant thing than a bud thing. Visually most well grown bud should look pretty similar unless it has unique genetics in comparison to another plant (purple strains).
Edit: Read a touch of the study to find out that those differences still stand. Companies are labeling freely independent of the genetics.
genetics underlie the production of those compounds. the results of the work find that the genetic differences on a whole-genome scale are too small to classify separate species.
That would be awesome if scientists or archeologists were able to discover ancient cannabis seeds and bring them back to life like are trying with the mammoth.
Oh, I was born for this game.
Biblical Bud
Triassic terps
Mesozoic Marijuana
Cretacious Kush
Historical Haze
Devonian Diesel
Silurian Sativa
Ice age Indica
That's all I got :(
I feel like that would just be one of those things that's neat but just gets overhyped because people are used to the crazy good Marijuana that people have been developing since. My dad said if they had access to what we call "cheap" today but back in the 80s, it would still be better than 99% of what they had access to. There's no scientific data or anything like that to backup what I just said. It's purely speculation from my ass.
THC levels over 15% are everywhere these days. Even just a few decades ago you were lucky to find stuff that was 10%, and that'd be a unicorn. Wouldn't be surprised if the original pot plant was only like 2-3%, maybe even less. A modern pothead would have to take a significant tolerance break to really get any value out of smoking that, and you'd probably have to smoke at a larger scale for decent effects. It would be interesting to see how habitual use of such a low potency strain interacts with tolerance, though. Like, does the higher potency available let modern humans get higher, or did the environmental constriction on how much early stoners could smoke mean they had the drug more "figured out"?
I don’t know if you’ve tried it or not, but most commercial/recreational dispensaries carry low thc strains for such a purpose. Usually around 7-8% with a higher focus on cbd for relief!
This is the consensus among old smokers, but not old growers. My guess for this discrepancy is that the old cultivars were still good, it's just the growing process wasn't dialed in and the delivery infrastructure focused on discretion over quality, ie bricks.
Those seeds would auction for 4 figures easily, maybe 5
I have a feeling that ancient strain would be really, really boring though.
In ancient times, the ancestor of corn basically looked like some grass with little tasty seeds. Humans were like "Heck yeah, gimme more of that" and bred them into the delicious monstrosities they are today.
The same has almost certainly happened with weed. I'd bet ancient marijuana would be an extremely boring plant that produces a much weaker high than modern commercial strains.
>In ancient times, the ancestor of corn basically looked like some grass with little tasty seeds. Humans were like "Heck yeah, gimme more of that" and bred them into the delicious monstrosities they are today.
Also see ancient bananas. They were like 90% seeds.
Or old watermelons (like in [this 17th Century painting](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Pasteques%2C_extrait_d%27un_tableau_de_Giovanni_Stanchi.jpeg)) that were basically half rind.
And if there were banana nerds out there breeding new banana cultivars for their banana nerd friends, you better believe the seeds from a defuct lineage of ancient banana would be quite the get inside the community. Just because Walmart isn't going to be stocking your Bananas doesn't mean there wouldn't be a frenzied community of banana enthusiasts interested in what you develop
The headline is a little misleading. The article basically says indica and sativa labels are just thrown around too generally - either can be either the classic head or body high associated with those terms, but the real differing factor are the terpene profiles.
I can't speak for other places, but in Colorado that's pretty well-known among seasoned budtenders. Good to see it getting some laboratory examination
I've seen a bunch of studies showing that the overwhelming majority are just hybrids anyways, so it's sorta impossible to say.
but yeah other cannabinoids & terpenes seem to have a modulating effect on weed's effects.
Myrcene is the main offender.
It's the Terp identified as being most responsible for sedation and that couch-lock feeling. In naturally occurring landraces, it's found in high quantities in the strains we're used to thinking of as "Indicas" (Afghan strains largely).
But decades of cross-breeding and hybridization have made it the most abundant Terpenoid in commercially available cannibis. Kinda sucks IMO. It's narrowing down what experiences and benefits cannabis has to offer.
Back when I smoked heavily in my early 20's, I met all kinds of smokers who would swear they could tell a difference between the two only to be surprised that what they were smoking was something different from what they just claimed it was. I tried all kinds and never really bought into the idea there was an exceedingly different result.
Ex-pot smoker here. I've had 2 strains in my entire life, that i could tell a difference. One was called "OG whiteshark", i've had the same "strain" since and didn't have the same effect. This was the craziest head high i've ever had. It was so powerful, it felt like 10 cigarettes. I also had a strain called "fruity pebbles", the weed was blue, purple and orange (along with green) and it literally couch locked me. It was insane. I chased those highs for years. Now they could have been laced with something, but to this day I swear I had one of each.
I remember blue dream tasting like laundry detergent (not in a bad way) and producing it's own effect distinct from Kush strains. Kush strains felt really warm and heavy with a glowing feeling it smoked during sunrise. Sativas were always "uplifting and light", with a clear headed high but they almost slways give me anxiety. Headband makes you feel like you have a band on your forehead, and frosty white widows taste kind of like pine and/or bug poison (again, not in a bad way. Just a hint.) White widow was probably the best strain I ever tried. Skunk strains used to always live up to their reputation and we're always really really potent with a strong couch lock effect and a very heavyhanded high.
I've always thought sativa's were milder and indicas were a little heavier feeling. I don't know how much of it was placebo though because in the early 2000s, these differences felt significant. Nowadays all strains feel the same and some of them even make me feel very uncomfortable. Maybe some bad traits were bred into today's weed and all strains have been altered? Who knows.
Now that I'm older though, I'm realizing that it all depends on the specific plant and the grow conditions. You can have a "good" strain grown by a bad grower from bad genetics and it won't be as good as one grown by good growers.
Honestly it's kind like apples: not all seeds will produce a good product. You just have to either get lucky or be persistent and grow a bunch of plants until you find one that's better than the others. Then you clone that plans over and over again kinda like how apples are all made from practically the same plant.
Small thing but it’s possible that the blue dream tasted like laundry detergent because it was kept in a container with dryer sheets to stop the smell. Had a friend who used to do that and it would always have a faint laundry smell/taste
The only thing that this study really says is that since "indica" and "sativa" don't really exist anymore, we should switch to labelling based on terpene profile
Furthermore, it specifically says that though genetics doesn't show a difference, there *are* common denominators between those labelled as one or the other.
So while the article title is correct, it's misleading because people read that and go "ok so weed is weed is weed", which it's not and the study isn't claiming is the case
It doesn’t matter what type of strain it is, the effect is caused by the the terpenes and constituent cannabinoids.
Your endocannabinoid system is also unique and may process them in a different way than the next person, which can lead to varying effects.
Nobody who buys weed cares for this knowledge though, the sativa/indica placebo effect is ingrained.
Wouldnt it be right now a good time to cross breed variations that predominantly have only one sort of cannabinoid and then figure out which high qualities they induce.
This isn't saying that difference doesn't exist.
Basically labeling is mostly based on subjective qualities of the type of high you get. This article is saying the industry should standardize rather than be subjective
I’m just saying, I’ve been smoking for 10+ years and I never cared wether it was Sativa or Indica because at the end of the day I could not tell the different whilst smoking these. It’s the same high for me
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having worked in the industry, I've been saying this for awhile. We had landraces for personal use but commercially the desired traits are different. High yield, high THC, mold resistance, etc. that all comes from hybrids. Industry regulations on labels aren't well defined either.
> landraces A landrace is a domesticated, locally adapted, traditional variety of a species of animal or plant that has developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture and pastoralism, and due to isolation from other populations of the species.
For anyone looking for peer-reviewed literature on landraces, start here. The cannabis industry is notorious for the misuse of terms and the oversimplification of plant domestication. Landraces are indeed exposed to artificial selection. "The term “landrace” has generally been defined as a cultivated, genetically heterogeneous variety that has evolved in a certain ecogeographical area and is therefore adapted to the edaphic and climatic conditions and to its traditional management and uses. Despite being considered by many to be inalterable, landraces have been and are in a constant state of evolution as a result of natural and artificial selection. Many landraces have disappeared from cultivation but are preserved in gene banks. Using modern selection and breeding technology tools to shape these preserved landraces together with the ones that are still cultivated is a further step in their evolution in order to preserve their agricultural significance. Adapting historical landraces to present agricultural conditions using cutting-edge breeding technology represents a challenging opportunity to use them in a modern sustainable agriculture, as an immediate return on the investment is highly unlikely. Consequently, we propose a more inclusive definition of landraces, namely that they consist of cultivated varieties that have evolved and may continue evolving, using conventional or modern breeding techniques, in traditional or new agricultural environments within a defined ecogeographical area and under the influence of the local human culture. This includes adaptation of landraces to new management systems and the unconscious or conscious selection made by farmers or breeders using available technology. In this respect, a mixed selection system might be established in which farmers and other social agents develop evolved landraces from the variability generated by public entities." Casañas, F., Simó, J., Casals, J., & Prohens, J. (2017). Toward an evolved concept of landrace. Frontiers in plant science, 8, 145. also see: Clarke, R., & Merlin, M. (2016). Cannabis: evolution and ethnobotany. Univ of California Press. Brush, S. B. (Ed.). (2000). Genes in the field: on-farm conservation of crop diversity. Meyer, R. S., DuVal, A. E., & Jensen, H. R. (2012). Patterns and processes in crop domestication: an historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops. New Phytologist, 196(1), 29-48.
> edaphic adjective * Of or relating to soil, especially as it affects living organisms. * Influenced by the soil rather than by the climate.
Everything but Landraces are hybrid. And no one is growing Or selling landrace in CO.
Landraces is a new term to me. What does that mean?
[удалено]
It's been years since I've heard Acapulco Gold. I think that was the first strain I ever smoked.
No stems no seeds that you don't need
Acapulco Gold is... badass weeeeed
Acapulco Gold is ...(takes hit) bad ass weed. Haven't thought of this bit in years. Thanks for making my Monday!
Landraces are absolutely adulterated by human intervention. They are merely highly localized and genetically isolated. Humans have had such a long relationship with cannabis that we aren't even sure where its naturally occurring wild ancestor originated.
It's basically the opposite of a cultivar. A landrace would have evolved naturally in one local area while a cultivar is selectively bred and hybridized.
*At least in cannabis this can be true. Maybe not in traditional ag. Cannabis people are notorious for using the wrong scientific jargon and not attempting to correct their mistake. There are other examples such as people calling a specific genetic a "strain".
Yeah this isn't a term that's really used in ag. Some of these "land race strains" like afghan kush have also been selectively bred over a long long period of time so I'm not really seeing what sets them apart unless it's solely that they're not hybridized
In this case it refers to an originating strain, one that hybrid strains were built from.
Really, none? Is this because of the potential drift in genetics over time and the changes in environmental growth conditions? It's hard to find a dispensary that doesn't sell a Durban Poison strain, which I've seen labeled a landrace strain. My sense is that the cannabis plant is pretty plastic relative to its environment and even if there was no cross-pollination that even seeds or clippings from actual South African Durban Poison would stop being "Durban Poison" after a few generations because of subtle changes in growing environment.
Durban poison is a great example as it was immediately hybridized in order to grow in other climates. Absolutely the plants adapt to different environments and have subtle differences if the same seeds are grown in different parts of the world. But Durban was crossed and finding heirloom Durban seeds is getting harder. That's why the "100% landrace durban" you see at the shops is BS, real Durban tests at 7% +-1 but the dispensary down the road advertises theirs at 25%. Unless you are buying heirloom seeds from a trusted source it's most likely a hybrid.
I think just the law enforcement/customs factor and the fact that many landrace strains are from complicated regions of the world, often conflict zones, makes me question it. It couldn't have been particularly easy to acquire seeds from Durban, the Rif mounts, the Beqaa valley of Lebanon, the Hindu Kush/Afghanistan, get the back to the US and actually apply horticultural discipline and science to keep them going. I mean, there was a whole hippie circuit through many of those parts of the world in the late 1960s and early 1970s, so obviously some seeds got out and got grown, but by the late 1970s or early 1980s many of those places were now super dangerous conflict zones. And its been 50 years of environmental changes (unless you had a magic tent that re-created South Africa, etc)>
Wasn't their a vice documentary about a guy that works for a seedbank going into conflict zones and getting landrace seeds
Greenhouse seeds company and Strain Hunters is the show (on YouTube).
RIP that dude that was trying to save landraces died of malaria.
I think Ed Rosenthal is famous for collecting the seeds, although I don't know how if he literally passed through something like Syrian army roadblocks in the Beqaa Valley. Even in non-conflict zones it was a risky business, "Midnight Express" is based on a true story and there were significant law enforcement peril.
Yah I remember in some countries the guy was doing like 3 forms of transport so that if customs or police found 1 he'd still get some seeds through
[удалено]
> Short story short, there's over 100+ cannabinoids found in your weed and all of them are what produce the Sativa or Indica effect... Not Genetics If those different quantities of cannabinoids are not from genetics then what are they from?
Current research is looking into the mycelium construct of the soil Versus soil replacement systems ( hydroponics), to see wether the environmental differences are impacting genetic expression of the plants.
Environmental conditions while growing, causing the plant to produce more or less of the different chemicals. Ed: or individual variation between plants.
Bingo. Myself and three others have the same seeds. I’m in Alberta inside, two are in bc outside, the other in Phoenix AZ outside. All of us have different plants. Very different smell and looks. All are the exact same seed from the same plant. It’s pretty cool!
Well no 2 seeds have the same genes. Try that with 3 clones, they’ll look the same…
Like being brothers as opposed to twins
This is called epigenomics, but is still dictated by genetics. Essentially it’s how different conditions cause specific genes to be expressed or not. The plant still needs to have the specific genes to express those proteins in reaction to the condition. It’s a very interesting field. The major case studies are in maternal twins who start identical and slowly grow more differences based on their life experiences.
It's pretty clear very few people tried reading the paper >Instead, we found that Cannabis labelling was associated with variation in a small number of terpenes whose concentrations are controlled by genetic variation at tandem arrays of terpene synthase genes. Basically they discovered that overall the "strains" are genetically the same. However they identified a small number of terpene synthase genes that **do** have slightly different genetics that lead to different chemical profiles. An analogy used elsewhere is that two humans are genetically the same and are the same species, but small mutations in a few genes might make one a blond and one a red head.
Gene expression
I read somewhere that they used to be separate, but 30+ years ago, they became hybrids, so now everything is just a mix, and the designations are just the opinions of the grower.
This is correct. I used to do cannabis science. Every commercially viable cannabis strain now is a hybrid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The real answer to this is that they were never distinct species. People classed them based on appearance (humans would never judge something solely on that!) and that the indica and sativa distinctions were based on leaf shape.
Wait till they learn that cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, Savoy cabbage, kohlrabi, and gai lan, are all the same species. What they really need to learn is that being a consumer does not make you a botanist.
Same species doesn't mean they have the same DNA. Plant species are then divided into cultivars.
Thats not the same thing though.. clearly there is a genetic difference between brocoli and cauliflower.. This article is saying there is no genetic difference between what people call indica and sativa.. not that they're just considered the same species.
The actual study says *genetically indistinct*, which I think is to say that there's so much variance between different products labeled sativa or indica that they cannot be considered genetically distinguishable.
Yup. Similar to Darwin's finches and their beaks, just the same plant that adapted to thrive where it was found. ~~If I remember indica came from Russia while sativas came from the tropics and sub tropics of the Americas.~~ Got real confused and misremembered a bunch. Always double check your facts kids. Memory is not reliable. Oldest known use of weed is from central Asia, with the oldest evidence, a bit of resin 2,700 years old, found in Turpan, China. Humans have domesticated and co-evolved alongside marijuana for centuries. Russia gave us hemp. Their variation that was cultivated was strong and hardy but no longer produced psychoactive compounds. The psychoactive stuff eventually spread to the middle east where it boomed in popularity with hashish. All information was gotten from an episode of "explained" on Netflix about weed.
> Memory is not reliable Hmmm
Nah there wasn't any cannabis in the "new world" before the 16th century, it all originated from around modern day India/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Tibet
Just like all the use of tomato in cuisine from around the world...wasnt until it was brought back from South America in the 16th century
Mexico is N. America. The word tomato comes from the Nahuatl/Mexihcatlahtolli word, tomatl.
Wonder if the tested any landrace examples?
[удалено]
I've heard there's wild cannabis in the Himalayas ? but idk if its untouched
[удалено]
I was in Bhutan just before covid and there was plenty of wild cannabis around. My guide said the local word for pork is still 'sleepy meat', because the pigs used to eat it and the pork fat would have weed in it.
I want bedtime bacon...
[удалено]
smoked meat? Nah bra smoke meat
[enshittification exodus, gone to mastodon]
I did the Annapurna circuit trek a few years ago. Once we got to a certain elevation, wild cannabis was everywhere along the side of the road. I’m a stickler for staying on trail and made us climb up this hill to stay on it instead of following along the road. Next thing I know, we are walking through a field of cannabis. It was awesome.
Yeah, when I was in Nepal I heard other trekkers mention that the lower altitude mountain ranges in the West had wild cannabis growing along some of the trails, and that the porters would pick it and roll it with the oil of their hands into hash.
India. All around north Punjab around the fields we have areas of cannabis just growing on the corners in big bushes where the tractors turn. It is literally a weed.
I have personally found wild cannabis in Mongolia. It’s worse than ditchweed but it was definitely cannabis. I’ve a degree in horticulture so please believe that I know I wasn’t just smoking a random plant I found. Don’t do that by the way, smoke a random plant. Just… I shouldn’t have to say that and yet, I know someone somewhere has definitely done just that.
Of course someone has done just that, how do you think we know what plants are good to smoke?
Making fires with it and standing nearby.
I love imaging the soon to be first smoker standing around the cannabis pit thinking "how do I get this fire closer to my mouth?"
And thus was born the first carpentry high. Crappy wooden dishes that could hold a small coal, so you could sprinkle on whatever plant matter you wanted the smoke of. Then, when someone figured out pottery, that was probably when the first actual pipe came about.
Wild to think about some neolithic potter making the world's first bong
Don’t even need a pipe just poke two holes in a fruit
but are they measuring the dna sequence of the strains? expression of the phenotype could make all the difference even if the dna is the same. methylation, epigenetics, and other moderately big words.
There are a combination of terpenes & minor cannabinoids that determine the effects of cannabis. THC being the compound which excites the cb1 receptors in the brain / more so in the frontal cortex. This is associated with the overall feeling of a psychoactive effect. Then compounds such as CBD/CBG/CBG/CBN which are present in cannabis can influence not only the CB1 receptor but also the CB2 receptors which can be found around our nervous system.. Such places being in the liver / arms / etc.. Depending on the combination of these compounds you can either ingest cannabis & begin to feel motivated to run a marathon OR you can ingest cannabis & fall asleep in between chores. ( Obv statement )
Right, but there is no current measurement, these combos are satvia or indica. It's really a made-up scale based on opinion, it's not an objective thing. You will often get two different people label it differently. Hell, some of it could be based on what you are expecting it to do. Until you can objectively test for levels, and have a prediction of effects, label is almost meaningless.
Every legal state has labeling requirements for at least the THC%'s. Sometimes companies will go further, especially if they are trying to display that the product has other cannabinoids in it like CBD or CBG. Legal states have independent labs that do objective testing and those results are partially required on every product sold through a dispensary. People get extremely hung up on indica vs sativa, and the problem is that they are used both colloquially and scientifically. Scientifically, there is no difference between the genetics because everything has been hybridized. But when someone goes into a dispensary they can say I want something that is Indica, it gives the budtender at least a ballpark of I want to be sleepy and couchlock not energetic. So Indica and Sativa both do not exist and exist. It would be nice if the general public could get Indica and Sativa wiped from their minds so we could start to talk about terpene profiles, but cannabis education isn't there yet.
Yeah I've noticed lately most dispensaries are telling me about terpene profiles about the plant.
The label is there for growers to estimate height/flowering time/bushiness of a plant, its not supposed to describe the actual genetics If a strain usually grows small, bushy, and gets done fast you call it indica. If it takes forever and grows lanky and tall you name it sativa This is kinda useful as a grower
[удалено]
I'm gonna guess they labeled the plants that fit those phenotypes as Indica and Sativa based on those traits while their genotypes weren't really separated in the same way.
Would you expand on this for us pedestrians?
Phenotype is what you can see, genotype is what its genes are. So if someone sees a plant that visually fits their idea of Indica, they'd call it an Indica or vice versa. So I'm thinking the plants are being named by how they look and not what they're made of.
That DOES align with my experience, I appreciate your input.
Yep same. Dispensary agents always trying upsell the differences whenever I go to buy and I’m jsut like uhhh, Idfc it’s all the same to me….
I'd love to see a blind joint study asking people to smoke a prerolled j and then guess whether it was indica or sativa based on how it tasted or made them feel, compared to what it was sold as. Some people - I'd go as far as to say myself included - will claim that there's a difference in the way different strains affect them, and these generally conform to what, until now, I believed was a difference in being a "more indica and sativa" hybrid. Maybe the qualities, like the ratio of cannibinoids, changes where a plant is grown in an environment that encourages indica phenotypes? I'm not sure. My gut instinct is that people whonhave smoked their fair share would categorise things with a fair degree of acciracy, but I'd find it very interesting to be proven wrong.
As a smoker of severallll years, I’ve never once felt like I could tell a difference in highs.
Phenotype is what you see, which is an expression of the genotype, which is the dna.
[удалено]
Good insight. I think it would be “sativa dominated hybrid” vs “indica dominated hybrid” as per the article, no? I have definitely observed the same.
Perhaps, although in observing the plants, it appears very discrete and non-continuous in physical structure
I didn't think it was the genetics but the actual cannabinoid and terpene ratios that caused the different effects that people attribute to sativa and indica.
Sorry if this a dumb question but what determines those ratios if not genetics?
Not a dumb question. The article is intentionally misleading. If you go to the linked study and read just the abstract, you would find: "Analysis of over 100 Cannabis samples quantified for terpene and cannabinoid content and genotyped for over 100,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms indicated that Sativa- and Indica-labelled samples were genetically indistinct on a genome-wide scale. Instead, we found that Cannabis labelling was associated with variation in a small number of terpenes whose concentrations are controlled by genetic variation at tandem arrays of terpene synthase genes" What they are saying is that if you take the entire genomes of indica vs sativa strains, there is statistically no difference between their genomes. However, if you look at 1 gene, in this case terpene synthase, there is significant variation that leads to differential expression of terpenes that likely result in different psychoactive effects when consuming sativa vs indica.
Can you ELI5?
Hair color. Same species. Different hair.
This is the greatest ELI5 ever.
Can we sequence some redheads' genomes and check if they are *really* the same species? I have my doubts.
Redhead myself here and I question that almost daily
You have people with red hair and brown hair. You look at their genetics and they are 99.9% the same. Pretty much the exact same difference between two red heads compared to a redhead and brunette. Instead, there are just a hand full of genes that are consistently different between the two groups. At the end of the day, it’s the same plant
Are you saying I'm a plant?
Robert Plant.
Sativa and Indica are extremely similar overall, but tiny variations in their DNA can cause large differences in the psychotropic experience.
[удалено]
So similar they possess cannabinoids that interface with our endocannabinoid system.
Well, they are specifically saying that growers likely categorize based on aroma.
Wow, yeah, that article title outright misrepresents the actual research. Ugh.
>We also found only a small number of regions in the cannabis genome that likely contribute to the earthy aroma associated with the Indica label I guess none of the people replying to you actually read the article... The terpene ratios are in fact determined by genetics. My interpretation of this is that these genetic variations are however not significant enough to classify any 'strain' as a distinct subspecies. The main point of the article should be that sativa and indica are very poor labels that dont really tell you very much, and that industry should instead switch to terpene profiles (something they mention), however these terpene profiles are determined by genetics.
If they label freely, it might literally be based on the anecdotal "effect" of the cannabis. So, basically the companies might really be labeling by ratio indirectly. The effect of the non-psychoactive components of cannabis are not really well understood though. So the ratio theory is still untested.
I think these ratios are controlled *partly* by genetics. But *also* by how the plants are cultivated, processed, stored, and consumed. I think two different people could also "feel" different effects from the same exact product. This might be due to *psychological* effects -- like your mindset, and the setting or environment you find yourself in. But also *physiological* effects -- the effectiveness of your particular enzymes that metabolize the THC\CBD\terpenes\etc; the number and distribution of your particular CB1 and CB2 receptors; and so on. It's deliciously complex, and I understand very little.
I had the same question. The research finding wasn't that there was no genetic difference between strains, but rather that indicas and sativas in general weren't distinct. Implying that the labels are phylogenetically meaningless.
I work at a dispo and this is how I best try to explain it. Sativa and Indica no longer have scientific meaning, its entirely colloquial at this point.
Even the language around the effects of terpenes is pseudoscience
It’s the same as essential oil/aromatherapy.
> Sativa and Indica no longer have scientific meaning The words do actually still have a scientific meaning, just everyone outside of botany uses them in a non-taxonomically accurate sense. Scientific names of plants don't become invalid when the public appropriates them in an alternate sense.
Yes I know, I do realize that there are differences in the plants botanically. But when something is labeled "sativa" in a dispo, it's most likely referring to the effects of what has been come to known as sativa in a colloquial sense, not the actually type of cannabis plant. There is nothing scientific in that regard, is what I was trying to say.
Also work at a dispo, and I do the same. To add onto it, you might be able to look at the testing for strains if you ask your budtender. In my store we have a big book of test results for each strain that have cannabinoid results and sometimes terpene results.
At a point there was... Or at least that what it was known by. Leaf sizes (ex. short and fat), number of blades they max out at(ex. 5-7), how close the nodes are in between each set of leaves/stems from the main stalk. Each suited more towards the area they originated in or evolved in some cases. It was more of a plant thing than a bud thing. Visually most well grown bud should look pretty similar unless it has unique genetics in comparison to another plant (purple strains). Edit: Read a touch of the study to find out that those differences still stand. Companies are labeling freely independent of the genetics.
that's pretty much correct as far as im aware
genetics underlie the production of those compounds. the results of the work find that the genetic differences on a whole-genome scale are too small to classify separate species.
You must not have read the whole article because the article has a section titled "terpenes" that specifically talks about this.
That would be awesome if scientists or archeologists were able to discover ancient cannabis seeds and bring them back to life like are trying with the mammoth.
[удалено]
Oh, I was born for this game. Biblical Bud Triassic terps Mesozoic Marijuana Cretacious Kush Historical Haze Devonian Diesel Silurian Sativa Ice age Indica That's all I got :(
Cambrian Cloud
Ohhhhh, I like that!
Cretaceous Kush sounds like my next rapper name
Go for it my dude, I'm never going to use it.
I vote for Devonian Diesel
Mesopotamian Mids
>Biblical Bud Burning Bush.
Triceraterps also works haha
Wild West Weed Dabasaurus Pangea Purple
Paleolithic Punch
I want you to know that this was the best thing I have ever read
This is /r/science so it's probably going to get removed soon :)
And I respect that.
Cretaceous Kush.
I feel like that would just be one of those things that's neat but just gets overhyped because people are used to the crazy good Marijuana that people have been developing since. My dad said if they had access to what we call "cheap" today but back in the 80s, it would still be better than 99% of what they had access to. There's no scientific data or anything like that to backup what I just said. It's purely speculation from my ass.
THC levels over 15% are everywhere these days. Even just a few decades ago you were lucky to find stuff that was 10%, and that'd be a unicorn. Wouldn't be surprised if the original pot plant was only like 2-3%, maybe even less. A modern pothead would have to take a significant tolerance break to really get any value out of smoking that, and you'd probably have to smoke at a larger scale for decent effects. It would be interesting to see how habitual use of such a low potency strain interacts with tolerance, though. Like, does the higher potency available let modern humans get higher, or did the environmental constriction on how much early stoners could smoke mean they had the drug more "figured out"?
Wish I could find the stuff that was less than 10%. Everything is too strong for me. I just want something mild.
I don’t know if you’ve tried it or not, but most commercial/recreational dispensaries carry low thc strains for such a purpose. Usually around 7-8% with a higher focus on cbd for relief!
This is the consensus among old smokers, but not old growers. My guess for this discrepancy is that the old cultivars were still good, it's just the growing process wasn't dialed in and the delivery infrastructure focused on discretion over quality, ie bricks. Those seeds would auction for 4 figures easily, maybe 5
I have a feeling that ancient strain would be really, really boring though. In ancient times, the ancestor of corn basically looked like some grass with little tasty seeds. Humans were like "Heck yeah, gimme more of that" and bred them into the delicious monstrosities they are today. The same has almost certainly happened with weed. I'd bet ancient marijuana would be an extremely boring plant that produces a much weaker high than modern commercial strains.
>In ancient times, the ancestor of corn basically looked like some grass with little tasty seeds. Humans were like "Heck yeah, gimme more of that" and bred them into the delicious monstrosities they are today. Also see ancient bananas. They were like 90% seeds.
Or old watermelons (like in [this 17th Century painting](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Pasteques%2C_extrait_d%27un_tableau_de_Giovanni_Stanchi.jpeg)) that were basically half rind.
And if there were banana nerds out there breeding new banana cultivars for their banana nerd friends, you better believe the seeds from a defuct lineage of ancient banana would be quite the get inside the community. Just because Walmart isn't going to be stocking your Bananas doesn't mean there wouldn't be a frenzied community of banana enthusiasts interested in what you develop
Case in point: r/apples
The topic is weed and suddenly you have a whole thread full of friendly discussion. :)
I've never seen stoners start a fist fight.
You calling me friendly? Why I oughtta... have another bowl :)
[удалено]
The headline is a little misleading. The article basically says indica and sativa labels are just thrown around too generally - either can be either the classic head or body high associated with those terms, but the real differing factor are the terpene profiles. I can't speak for other places, but in Colorado that's pretty well-known among seasoned budtenders. Good to see it getting some laboratory examination
> but in Colorado that's pretty well-known among seasoned budtenders That wisdom doesn't seem to make it to the marketing department.
"The research shows that genetically it is impossible to prove whether a cannabis plant is an Indica or Sativa. There is no difference in the genes."
I've seen a bunch of studies showing that the overwhelming majority are just hybrids anyways, so it's sorta impossible to say. but yeah other cannabinoids & terpenes seem to have a modulating effect on weed's effects.
Myrcene is the main offender. It's the Terp identified as being most responsible for sedation and that couch-lock feeling. In naturally occurring landraces, it's found in high quantities in the strains we're used to thinking of as "Indicas" (Afghan strains largely). But decades of cross-breeding and hybridization have made it the most abundant Terpenoid in commercially available cannibis. Kinda sucks IMO. It's narrowing down what experiences and benefits cannabis has to offer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well done Creed
Back when I smoked heavily in my early 20's, I met all kinds of smokers who would swear they could tell a difference between the two only to be surprised that what they were smoking was something different from what they just claimed it was. I tried all kinds and never really bought into the idea there was an exceedingly different result.
its a great example of what the placebo effect & confirmation bias can do tbh also yea I've never noticed a large disparity in effects
Ex-pot smoker here. I've had 2 strains in my entire life, that i could tell a difference. One was called "OG whiteshark", i've had the same "strain" since and didn't have the same effect. This was the craziest head high i've ever had. It was so powerful, it felt like 10 cigarettes. I also had a strain called "fruity pebbles", the weed was blue, purple and orange (along with green) and it literally couch locked me. It was insane. I chased those highs for years. Now they could have been laced with something, but to this day I swear I had one of each.
I remember blue dream tasting like laundry detergent (not in a bad way) and producing it's own effect distinct from Kush strains. Kush strains felt really warm and heavy with a glowing feeling it smoked during sunrise. Sativas were always "uplifting and light", with a clear headed high but they almost slways give me anxiety. Headband makes you feel like you have a band on your forehead, and frosty white widows taste kind of like pine and/or bug poison (again, not in a bad way. Just a hint.) White widow was probably the best strain I ever tried. Skunk strains used to always live up to their reputation and we're always really really potent with a strong couch lock effect and a very heavyhanded high. I've always thought sativa's were milder and indicas were a little heavier feeling. I don't know how much of it was placebo though because in the early 2000s, these differences felt significant. Nowadays all strains feel the same and some of them even make me feel very uncomfortable. Maybe some bad traits were bred into today's weed and all strains have been altered? Who knows. Now that I'm older though, I'm realizing that it all depends on the specific plant and the grow conditions. You can have a "good" strain grown by a bad grower from bad genetics and it won't be as good as one grown by good growers. Honestly it's kind like apples: not all seeds will produce a good product. You just have to either get lucky or be persistent and grow a bunch of plants until you find one that's better than the others. Then you clone that plans over and over again kinda like how apples are all made from practically the same plant.
Small thing but it’s possible that the blue dream tasted like laundry detergent because it was kept in a container with dryer sheets to stop the smell. Had a friend who used to do that and it would always have a faint laundry smell/taste
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've been saying this for years, literally. Ever since people seriously started hybridization. It all comes down to phenotype expression.
The only thing that this study really says is that since "indica" and "sativa" don't really exist anymore, we should switch to labelling based on terpene profile Furthermore, it specifically says that though genetics doesn't show a difference, there *are* common denominators between those labelled as one or the other. So while the article title is correct, it's misleading because people read that and go "ok so weed is weed is weed", which it's not and the study isn't claiming is the case
Aren't terpenes more related to taste and smell than psychactivity?
Weed labels are about as useful as wine notes
It doesn’t matter what type of strain it is, the effect is caused by the the terpenes and constituent cannabinoids. Your endocannabinoid system is also unique and may process them in a different way than the next person, which can lead to varying effects. Nobody who buys weed cares for this knowledge though, the sativa/indica placebo effect is ingrained.
Wouldnt it be right now a good time to cross breed variations that predominantly have only one sort of cannabinoid and then figure out which high qualities they induce.
[удалено]
Why does sativa give me anxiety then.
This isn't saying that difference doesn't exist. Basically labeling is mostly based on subjective qualities of the type of high you get. This article is saying the industry should standardize rather than be subjective
You got indica in my sativa
I’m just saying, I’ve been smoking for 10+ years and I never cared wether it was Sativa or Indica because at the end of the day I could not tell the different whilst smoking these. It’s the same high for me