Scientist says all cannabis basically the same?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/character-favorite-marijuana-strain-may-head

That article is filled with poor research and assumptions. Of course they are different. Even when you harvest can make a single plant different. We have a lot of work to do on research if science comes to this conclusion.

Well a cursory glance at that article and I think its safe to say we all know that is nothing but a load of old flange.

This kind of assuming bilge will never be debunked all the while cannabis remains a clandestine issue not covered by science and pharmaceutical research - but I think even the most rudimentary cannabis enthusiast knows well from experience that different strains clearly have different effects.

A quick look into the background of the company "Phylos" tells you all you need to know.

Id say all plants on earth, are "basically the same".

Silvio Dante said:

we all know that is nothing but a load of old flange.

Click to expand...

PBS disseminating 100% politically motivated bullshit and propaganda to the public?

NO WAY!

If you don't compare strains under controlled, double blind conditions then you can't really say if one has a different effect or not Set, setting, and various biases have too much influence. Just knowing something is an 18 week sativa is enough to make a grower jumpy. Can they really tell the difference if nobody in the room knows which is indica and which is sativa? There is only one way to find out and AFAIK nobody has gone through the effort to do it even for fun in an evening with friends.

Wine tastes better if you know it is more expensive, hand lotion is more soothing when it comes in a blue instead of a red bottle, Chinese food gives you headaches if you know it has MSG in it. All products of the mind but not reality.

im no scientist but they are "basically" the same. Like they even look "basically" the same.

I think there is something to what they are saying. There has not been enough research to say for sure that this strain is good for this or that strain is good for that. I think this is the point of the article. I agree to some extent that the "industry" has no problem telling you bullshit to make you feel better about trying a certain strain. A budtender is there to sort of close the deal; they really don't care what happens after you leave the store.
Of course each strain contains different terpenes, flavors, and effects because the levels of active compounds contained therein vary greatly from one to another. This IMO is more due to the result of experimental overbreeding than controlled strain engineering. Then again...
I've never bought weed legally. Nor have I ever asked the dude bringing me weed if this will this help with my back pain? Dude would probly say yes to anything as long as you had the cash you owed him. The dude is probably even just a friend of a friend; not a dealer. I judge weed like most do: by looks, smell, taste, and potency. If I find myself in front of the fridge every 10 mins looking for snacks I know I've got some fire. I think most stoners think the same...if it tastes good and gets you baked it's good weed. I've always thought the medical thing was bullshit because I don't think there has to be something wrong with you to smoke. I always thought that while it is medicine it is not meant to treat any specific affliction; only to improve your life and overall health & well being.

Who benefits by putting cannabis into compartments? IMO separating cannabis only serves governments and bureaucrats not people. It is my belief that separating cannabis from hemp also only sets artificial limits to the potential of this plant in terms of benefit to the people.

I"m Not entirely in agreement with their findings but acknowledge that there are fewer actual "strains" than people believe.
F1 is not something to be named, not even f3.
There are established rules and breeding methodologies in mainstream botany and cannabis is no exception.
Too much "bro" and "dude science" has made our art a laughing stock.

I couldn't find that article now but basically a scientist from a genome project have a hard time to decode cannabis genome according to the individual strain. Basically, what they are saying in terms of genome a strain like white widow is not unique at all because its genome also appears in other strains that is not even what we consider near related to white widow. Same thing when we said that plant is Kush or Haze at this point.

In some crop and organism, there is/are specific genome markers that identify a breed/strain unique. This is what is missing in today different Cannabis strain out there. Basically the word "strain" is heavily misused in the cannabis culture. To genome scientists...there is no strain in cannabis, it's all the same (which I call..every weed today is glorified bagweed).

Our so called breeders are mostly to be blamed with this mess. How we understand and define cannabis breeding is at best elementary, at worst its a guessing game with a lot of hypes furthermore confounded by heterosis. Our practice of breeding is technically understood as "out crossing" in real breeders term. So we end up crossing this strain to this strain and the result is crossed again to this plant and so on and on and on...…. we never stop crossing..... until it becomes full circle....that all unique landraces have been crossed so many times that our current plant have similar genome markers.....in other words, nothing is unique. Best example of this problem is OG Kush.

Well, we cant really blame the so called breeders, after all, this plant is schedule 1 drug so all breeding program are under constrain and clandestine. Real breeding, takes a lot of resources, space, and serious planning.

But I believe, due to legalization, we will get there where we can openly practice serious breeding program....until then, we'll just enjoy our over hyped bagweed.

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.

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...

Monsanto hasn't even laid claim yet, have they? The more commercialized it becomes, the harder steady genes are to find. Once monsanto grabs ahold of psychoactive marijuana, that's game over. There are farmers who get sued every day by them because someone else's Monsanto crop cross pollinated theirs, or they find Monsanto genetics on the outskirts of someones field, and they run a genetics test on your crop and file lawsuit, all the while the farmer was trying to save seed and not go GMO...Legalization f'd us I think, but at the same time, people know what's at risk now, and 15 years from now, the strains we have available now, who knows if we'll be longing for those? Remember "Marinol"? Synthetic THC. Really?

Except now the actual plant genetics are on the slab.

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

Very interesting

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 hard to say, it's fairly probable that growers have unconsciously bred some traits out. CBD is rarely found in modern strains because it creates a milder buzz & we generally select for high potency.

Growing out large numbers of landraces & roguing out off types would probably be the easiest way to try to recreate the landrace gene pools. You'd really have to do it in-situ though as otherwise you may influence selections unconsciously

It's interesting to see how this seemingly reinforces the belief that most seed descriptions are more fiction then fact. It doesn't really surprise me when most strains are hybrids of hybrids, showing a lot of pheno's. Obviously there's distinct, known cuttings but I'd agree that calling them strains or cultivars is a bit of a stretch.

These are the kinds of things I think we need to honestly look at, especially when the science goes against our collective belief's.

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...

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..

Being "basically" the same and the same are two completely different things.

After all, Vodka and Scotch are "basically" the same.

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...

Thanks!
That is so damn interesting.


Does anyone know why Indica evolved to have the thc, cannabinoids, resins etc? Or vise versa?
Was it as a pest/disease repellent?
Or was it temperature, humidity, altitude etc?
Or both?
Or none of them?

This is fascinating.

TimBar said:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/character-favorite-marijuana-strain-may-head

That article is filled with poor research and assumptions. Of course they are different. Even when you harvest can make a single plant different. We have a lot of work to do on research if science comes to this conclusion.

Click to expand...

Great thread op.