What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Vavilov, Afghan Sativas, and Uzbeki Giants

zamalito

Guest
Veteran
With $200 petrolia headstash packs Afghanis seem to be a popular strain lately and I wanted to run my theory on this by you. I'm a sativa guy and not a fan of the latest trichome covered purple f1 indicas but the afghani is something I've always loved w/ a flavor that can't be produced by anything else.

Ok, the commonly accepted history of the afghani is something many of you know but I'll run thru it just bring the rest of you up to speed.

In the late 1800's the Russian explorer Vavilov (a sort of Russian version of a combination Linnaeus and Louis & Clarke) explored Afghanistan. He noted that the afghans were cultivating sativas for hashish production and the variety of wild plants used by nomadic groups were indica. So what happened to the legendary afghan hash sativa? My theory is this. First off our definition of indica is probably quite different from Vavilov's 120 years ago. Interestingly one of vavilov's criteria for the taxonomic classification of indica was a height of less than 3 feet. The afghan hashish culture was composed of immigrants from Russian and ChineseTurkestan (approx location of modern day uzbekistan and xinjiang province of china) I believe that what vavilov labeled as cultivated sativa were actually giant pure indicas brought to afghanistan from turkestan. The reason these plants are no longer in afghanistan is while the climate of the two countries are similar and they both are irrigated by melted runoff from snow melting in the spring afghanistan is prone to EXTREME drought lasting sometimes ten years. The regions around Samarkand and Yarkand (the two areas of turkestan that supposedly produced hash that would make bubbleman blush even before christ existed) have large areas of deciduous forest showing that there's ample water supply to support very large cannabis plants. Because of these droughts afghanistan doesn't have any very large deciduous forest covered areas. Another piece of evidence is the gorgeous 6-9 ft tall uzbek hash plant indica strains (of which I have two hehe). One of which is the Tashkenti from cannabiogen. I purchased some about 2-3 years ago and it stretches more indoors than my zamal!! But its 100% indica and makes wonderful hash. If you look at the structure of a true p1 afghan you see short height, short branches that stay close to the main stem, and a dense covering of resin covered wide leaves with little actual flower weight. All of these are adaptations that allow the plant to conserve water in dry air during drought and simultaneously use the sun to efficiently produce trichome. Since I don't believe that resin helps the plant deal with drought it just seems far fetched that the plants developed their resin producing ability simultaneous to adapting to such a terrible climate. The hi resin trait must have been developed separately then combined with the wild afghans. While the afghani does have the traits that matter for producing good hash I believe that the genes from the wild indicas that allowed them to survive the hellacious afghan drought eventually carried over to the hash plants out of neccessity for survival. So the afghan hash sativas probably either never existed or are something we've been overlooking for a while now depending on how you look at it (at least in my opinion). BTW It takes a lot of balls for me to disagree RC Clarke who says it actually was a sativa.
 

Reign of Terror

Active member
so indicas came from china, then europe, and lasty afghanistan/middle east?!

wow...

I can't argue because it makes complete sense

Reign
 

zamalito

Guest
Veteran
I'm glad you find it interesting. I was kinda scared you guys would all rip me apart. As far as the origins of the first indica I can't make too much argument one way or the other. The most accepted theory is that it was created in the hindu kush range. I don't argue with this but I think the originals had much more genetic diversity having more traits in common with sativas and still weren't exactly what you and I would call a true breeding inica. Over the years I think environment has played a roll in decreasing that genetic diversity (like the droughts in afghanistan wiping out the genes for larger plants). One of the things DJ short says about ruderalis is that its a pheno that's created when indica is bred for a northern climate and I agree with this. So ruderalis and indica are the same thing. This (morphology) I feel is the only true difference between indica and sativa. Indicas when feral in a northern climate become the ruderalis pheno of indica. Sativas when feral in a northern climate become weedy hemp. Sativas show a strong correlation between latitude and thc/cbd content and fiber production suitability. This is how a wild malawi specimen can be 10% thc (better than beasters) and most wild cannabis in the us and canada is ok for hemp production although that is what its descended from. Indicas on the other hand will retain their chemotype better until the climate gets cold enough to produce the ruderalis pheno which typically kills the thc content.
 

Raco

secretion engineer
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Good read!
A couple months ago I enjoyed a lot the outdoor Taskenti F6...yes,I´ve said F6 :joint: that CharlieBioGen sent to me....really smooth,well cured herb,medicine IMHO
 

jaykush

dirty black hands
ICMag Donor
Veteran
i can deff see how you believe it was all enviromental caused, if there was any sativas along with the soon to be pure indicas. over generation most of them probly died beacuse of the draught, higher elevation, temperature. which made them adapt to it in growing small, short, dense nugs and heavily coated with resin so they could live in that enviroment. same thing as if you throw a group of indicas in the tropics and see what happens after a few years.
 
G

Guest

i'm sure its not an f6... if taskenti was an ibl, then there's no 'f's' involved
 

zamalito

Guest
Veteran
I'm by no means saying that potency isn't genetic. I'm saying that the genetic morphology of a pure sativa attaches genes together in such a way that the genes that allow a plant to become fully acclimated and feral in a higher latitude are attached to the genes for low thc/cbd content and the genes that allow a plant to become fully acclimated and feral in low latitudes are attached to genes that promote high thc/cbd ratio. Whereas with pure indica it is less so until you get to a high enough latitude to cause autoflowering then the autoflowering trait is somewhat attached to low thc/cbd ratio. And this morphology i feel is the only true difference between indica and sativa. I must admit that my knowledge is somewhat dated and anecdotal but if you take feral hemp and allowed it to go feral in malawi it would almost always develop into a drug strain having a high thc/cbd content. This is how drug cannabis was spread all over the equator. It was originally weedy hemp for european explorers. However the low latitude environment selects plants automatically for poor fiber production and good drug production. I always read that all cannabis even the weakest ruderalis or feral hemp produces thc to some extent. I don't think its quite as simple as having either all thc all cbd or 50/50 due to one or two genes being present. I'm by no means a genetic scientist but the standard burbank description of how genetics work isn't satisfactory in that it doesn't explain how phenotypes form or how morphology works. If you look thc/cbd ratios of feral and landrace sativas you'll see that the the it is inversely proportional to the latitude . DNA has an emergent behavior. I personally think that at least speaking anecdotally there is a strong correlation between latitude and the genetic chemotype. I understand and definitely believe there is a way to separate the gene to produce a high thc/cbd ratio and still allow it to grow feral at higher latitudes especially among indica. But among wild pure sativa populations it would be an extremely difficult thing to breed that morphology out of it so if it did go feral the chemotype wouldn't be affected be latitude. Again a lot of my reference was written before 96 and all of it before 2000 so I could be wrong. We could just agree to disagree. :)
 
Last edited:

organic1

Active member
if you take feral hemp and allowed it to go feral in malawi it would almost always develop into a drug strain having a high thc/cbd content

From a growers perspective.....
OK, I'm not a scientist, so let me ask this....Is there some scientific documentation that you know of that you can draw this conclusion from? Plants will adapt, or simply not and become extinct I suppose,but I was always under the assumption that maximum potency was derived by allowing the plant to reach its maximum genetic capability, ie, a sativa is not going to be able to be flowered long enough at high latitudes to be able to reach its maximum potency due to inclement environmental conditions. I have grown out full on indicas in Hawaii that reached their full potential tho. Isn't feral genetics going to be crap no matter where its grown? I don't think hemp is going to get any better no matter how many seasons you grow it in the tropics?

Maybe I'm off, or missing the point....
 

organic1

Active member
OK, I think I know what you were saying about the sativas grown at higher latitudes.....I can understand that theory......Are you saying then that over generations indicas will adapt to more sativa like characteristics at lower latitudes? Interesting theory, too bad it may take a long while to see that happen.....Several generations, many, many years perhaps...
 

Reign of Terror

Active member
therory no, that is the truth

columbian is supposedly from indian indica thats where the wide leaf trait is from

same thing for burmese except i dont know of its origins
 

Reign of Terror

Active member
organic1 said:
if you take feral hemp and allowed it to go feral in malawi it would almost always develop into a drug strain having a high thc/cbd content

From a growers perspective.....
OK, I'm not a scientist, so let me ask this....Is there some scientific documentation that you know of that you can draw this conclusion from? Plants will adapt, or simply not and become extinct I suppose,but I was always under the assumption that maximum potency was derived by allowing the plant to reach its maximum genetic capability, ie, a sativa is not going to be able to be flowered long enough at high latitudes to be able to reach its maximum potency due to inclement environmental conditions. I have grown out full on indicas in Hawaii that reached their full potential tho. Isn't feral genetics going to be crap no matter where its grown? I don't think hemp is going to get any better no matter how many seasons you grow it in the tropics?

Maybe I'm off, or missing the point....


you are, its called breeding/evolution...look at the little bitch lizards millions of years before the dinosaurs that turned out to be the dinosaurs...even though thats a far stretch, you get the idea

Reign
 
Last edited:

Reign of Terror

Active member
cannable said:
i'm sure its not an f6... if taskenti was an ibl, then there's no 'f's' involved


wow, def not my friend, def not...common sense, its a way to track the generation. past f4/f5 is considered ibl, but thats from a one on one cross...im pretty sure its different when the breeding is done open pollenation

Reign
 

zamalito

Guest
Veteran
The work done by E. Small in 1978 (all the good cannabis research was done before reagan the rest is done on behalf of gmo seed companies and big pharm) says that indicas don't change as much genetically when they become adapted to a new environment. The generally accepted source of genetics for most the equatorial sativas in america and the carribean is hemp. And I don't mean to make light of the work done by early breeders but environment played a HUGE role. I don't think any of you would argue that if you grew 100 skunk 1 plants and did complete open pollination it would lose ptency very quick over 3 or 4 generations at most. Now my wild malawi though hard to grow is more potent than 90% of the skunk 1 I've smoked and that's after centuries of open pollination. Look at all of the many equatorial sativas from mexico thailand columbia grown and bred with many many years of open pollination and its still amazing. Many of the varieties we know to do came from seeded buds. At the same time none of you growers in the usa (not hawaii) and europe can maintain your strains w/out careful selection of male and female. There's a reason for this. If you were to take a durban that had been maintained with open pollination in s. Africa and grows easy in new england after several generations of open pollination in new england it will be much weaker than it ever was in S. Africa.
 

organic1

Active member
Thanks for the info, I will say that there is a lot to be learned by it.....I guess when you look at things from a growing standpoint, you don't always reflect on how things came to be .....

Thanks for setting the record a little clearer in my mind ....
 
Top