Brilliant. Thank you so much, buddy
High-CBD Charlotte's Web strain more hype than help
- Thread starter Useful Idiot
- Start date
You should get your hands on non-commercial seeds or non-hybridised genetics/accessions 
. The ability of plants to synthesise large amounts of THCV (also CBDV) is only rarely occurring in nature and has likely been bred away in most varieties you can buy today. Maybe try some from The Real Seed Company or Seeds of Africa? But you will have to perfom at least a qualitative analysis (TLC) of each plant in order to find what you're looking for (at least, you may do that already with juvenile plants). Smoke-testing won't do the trick...
It's all genetics and with the 'varins' it's like with THC or CBD; either you have it or you don't. The funny thing which remains to be elucidated is why certain plants still synthesise minor amounts even though they seemingly have the Ape allele (you may find THIS publication helpful).
. The ability of plants to synthesise large amounts of THCV (also CBDV) is only rarely occurring in nature and has likely been bred away in most varieties you can buy today. Maybe try some from The Real Seed Company or Seeds of Africa? But you will have to perfom at least a qualitative analysis (TLC) of each plant in order to find what you're looking for (at least, you may do that already with juvenile plants). Smoke-testing won't do the trick...It's all genetics and with the 'varins' it's like with THC or CBD; either you have it or you don't. The funny thing which remains to be elucidated is why certain plants still synthesise minor amounts even though they seemingly have the Ape allele (you may find THIS publication helpful).
The Ape/ Apr model is wrong.
Have you grown or found any -varin individuals or lines OO, or is this simply speculation based on others writiings?
Africans are not typically high in -varins, although previously reported when the 'up' effect was thought to be the result of a cannabinoid.
Have you grown or found any -varin individuals or lines OO, or is this simply speculation based on others writiings?
Africans are not typically high in -varins, although previously reported when the 'up' effect was thought to be the result of a cannabinoid.
I left the rep but appreciate all the info dropped here. This is why ikeep coming back to icm. We're basically all that regulates this seed business. It's a highly lucrative business and sadly many players are only involved for the quick money and recognition. Many of us are more interested in knowing exactly what were growing where others are only concerned with the end product. I personally wont breed with unknown stock and have a hard time growing something of unknown lineage.
Also appreciate the CBD info.
Also appreciate the CBD info.
i think mel franks tests from the 70s has similar results. very high thc comparatively to the other strains and landraces at the time but seemed to be the only noticeable cannabinoid. the durban seems to have .5-1% or so you notice it more in concentrates.
Do you mean the “up” effect in regards to THCV? Or the “up” effect in general?
Why do you think so or based on which findings? Any link to a publication? GW still has the old (the second latest) model up.
I'm not suggesting what I do because of my own experiences or findings but, regarding the theory, it's no speculation but hard science
. My speculation is that he might try with some varieties which could, due to cultivation conditions, hypothetically contain individuals with a different genetic makeup than what's commonly sold via seed banks and hence carry the Apr allele.Correct, the publications I base my statement on are also not centred on African varieties...
EDIT: Sorry for my terrible spelling tonight
I don't think so based on others work, my conclusions are based on crosses of propyl and pentyl lines, subsequent testing of the F1/F2 progeny.... it doesn't fit a single locus mode of inheritance.
GW isn't the end all be all of Cannabis research in what they decree is fact. The model on their website is old and flawed and takes into account none of the recent molecular work by Page, Stout, Gagne et al. Even their model clearly states "Locus A under investigation".
Even the B locus has been shown incorrect by recent pubs, although in Etienne's original paper he did speculate as to a different possibility which proved correct (2 tightly linked loci for CBDAS and THCAS, rather than CBDAS and THCAS being allelic). Even when he was wrong though, he provided he other possibility (which he decided was unlikely, but turned out correct).
I'm surprised GW hasn't updated their website. I guess having a pretty picture that seems to show them as authority is good enough to pull the wool over the eyes of 99.999% of the people looking at it, which serves the purpose of marketing. It still doesnt mean it's right, just because it's there.
I'm not suggesting what I do because of my own experiences or findings but, regarding the theory, it's no speculation but hard science
Science is never static or "hard", it only represents the conclusions of others based on the evidence they know at that point in time. Without making your own analyses, you are subject to the flawed conclusions of others thought.
Cultivation conditions don't influence propyl-cannab production, their production is genetically controlled. If you are referencing Hillig, he found propyls in "..C. indica accessions from countries in Asia (Afghanistan, China, India, Nepal, Thailand) or Africa (Gambia, Lesotho, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland). The mean peak area of (CBDV + THCV)/i.s. was significantly higher for the feral biotype of C. indica than for all other taxa." These were only ever found though as minor components.
It's also important to note here ..."CBDV, THCV, and CBGM were not quantified because calibration standards were not available."
You say:
....yet you fail to define what you consider "large amounts". When you look at wild lines producing 2-3% Cannabinoids total, 0.5%- 1% seems like a lot -1/2-1/3 of total fraction. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't seen 15+% propyl lines yet on a validated assay.
If you start doing your own analysis of lines you grew and bred in your own lab, you'll see that propyls and pentyls don't segregate in a single locus pattern of inheritance. This is why I say that the Ape/Apr model is wrong, call it a pers com pending future publication.
Well this is the problem when you base your conclusions on someone else's view, you are looking out their window, and they frame the picture and context for you. It's not absolute though, nor would I call it hard science.
How many propyl lines have you grown, bred or screened O.O? How many samples have you tested in your lab, or are you simply offering opinion based on others work and analyses?
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Don't know where I read it but a rather recent publication implied that what's referred to as the A locus does involve at least two loci. This would be well in line with your observations. Unfortunately, there's not much publicly available on breeding with varins...
True, GW isn't the all and everything. Maybe their work (should there be some) with varins does not support earlier findings or is to preliminary to use it for a model. People love models, especially when they can be printed as simple colourful figures or cartoons.
Yes, I know that science is not hard; my irony is sometimes not too evident . You're absolutely right, science is just as good as the research done and may and will change sooner or later. Unfortunately, one can not do everything and at one point has to rely on others work (and that's usually the point where your work fails... Murphy's Law at its finest). There's so much I would want to do but I'm just one single human without superpowers...
With cultivation conditions I meant selection or absence thereof by farmers and not fertilisation or stuff like that . Bad choice of my wording.
Whether loci A and B are now due a single locus, coupled loci or several independent ones doesn't really matter. I suppose (and hope that you contribute with your experience!) that we can safely assume that varins are the result of certain alleles and not due QTL, cultivation conditions such as climate or fertilisation, or the product of somehow differently regulated but common genes. Either your plant has the ability or it doesn't. Do you agree?
Correct, one publication I refer to is that one. Even if he didn't have a standard and given he didn't misinterpret things the AUC of THC compared to THCV will most likely (surely, everything depends on the detection method) be very similar and hence close enough for a good estimate.
Again, judging by publications (cause I don't have a lab and I don't have access to all those accessions), there are plants expressing varins at relatively high amounts; meaning, they make up the majority of the cannabinoid content may that one now be 0.5, 5, or 50% DW. Depending on the genetic possibilities it might be more reasonable to talk of high amounts of varins when they make up more than 1/4 or something the like???
I also agree with you that using others works (even more so if it's a publication which does not contain raw data) isn't perfect and puts the reader in a biased position. But one has to start somewhere and when it comes to helping others understand, a somewhat distorted but useful and comprehensible approach is better than none.
Thcvhunter seeks THCV or a breeding strategy to individuals rich in THCV. Neither did he ever consume THCV in pure form nor in a mixture (plant) and his expectations of THCV and its influence on a trip might be completely off. If he now understands that he needs a certain genetic makeup and that, at least in my personal biased opinion, chances in finding an individual might be higher with "land race" seeds than highly bred hybrids (like Durban Poison x Dutch X Cali) and that he needs some sort of test other than smoke testing possible breeding stock (I presume you do agree with me on the latter point)...
Again, I have no problem admitting that, although working for years in phytochemistry labs, I never tested cannabis and I don't breed (not on a serious level; too illegal, you know). So, yes, my comments are just educated guesses (I never said otherwise) based on rational conclusions drawn from generally accepted scientific principles and where possible based on more or less recent publications regarding the subject at hand.
I'm just one side of the coin and people with personal experience are the other. Unfortunately, there aren't too many here on board which have both AND post regularly and helpfully... (no personal attack, just a general observation).
What is so wrong about not being one of the few who breeds a lot and works with exquisite genetics, anyway? I can be as helpful as you (and more so as Sam who seldom cares to explain or elaborate even a fraction of all the great things he has done (I'm not allowed to say 'supposedly' here)). There's more to a picture than personal observations of which we have a lot but rarely together with a scientific understanding. I can contribute with the latter no matter if I have my own lab or not .
Maybe I misunderstand your point but I honestly feel pissed right now...
Don't know where I read it but a rather recent publication implied that what's referred to as the A locus does involve at least two loci. This would be well in line with your observations. Unfortunately, there's not much publicly available on breeding with varins...
True, GW isn't the all and everything. Maybe their work (should there be some) with varins does not support earlier findings or is to preliminary to use it for a model. People love models, especially when they can be printed as simple colourful figures or cartoons.
Yes, I know that science is not hard; my irony is sometimes not too evident
. You're absolutely right, science is just as good as the research done and may and will change sooner or later. Unfortunately, one can not do everything and at one point has to rely on others work (and that's usually the point where your work fails... Murphy's Law at its finest). There's so much I would want to do but I'm just one single human without superpowers... With cultivation conditions I meant selection or absence thereof by farmers and not fertilisation or stuff like that
. Bad choice of my wording.Whether loci A and B are now due a single locus, coupled loci or several independent ones doesn't really matter. I suppose (and hope that you contribute with your experience!) that we can safely assume that varins are the result of certain alleles and not due QTL, cultivation conditions such as climate or fertilisation, or the product of somehow differently regulated but common genes. Either your plant has the ability or it doesn't. Do you agree?
Correct, one publication I refer to is that one. Even if he didn't have a standard and given he didn't misinterpret things the AUC of THC compared to THCV will most likely (surely, everything depends on the detection method) be very similar and hence close enough for a good estimate.
Again, judging by publications (cause I don't have a lab and I don't have access to all those accessions), there are plants expressing varins at relatively high amounts; meaning, they make up the majority of the cannabinoid content may that one now be 0.5, 5, or 50% DW. Depending on the genetic possibilities it might be more reasonable to talk of high amounts of varins when they make up more than 1/4 or something the like???
I also agree with you that using others works (even more so if it's a publication which does not contain raw data) isn't perfect and puts the reader in a biased position. But one has to start somewhere and when it comes to helping others understand, a somewhat distorted but useful and comprehensible approach is better than none.
Thcvhunter seeks THCV or a breeding strategy to individuals rich in THCV. Neither did he ever consume THCV in pure form nor in a mixture (plant) and his expectations of THCV and its influence on a trip might be completely off. If he now understands that he needs a certain genetic makeup and that, at least in my personal biased opinion, chances in finding an individual might be higher with "land race" seeds than highly bred hybrids (like Durban Poison x Dutch X Cali) and that he needs some sort of test other than smoke testing possible breeding stock (I presume you do agree with me on the latter point)...
Again, I have no problem admitting that, although working for years in phytochemistry labs, I never tested cannabis and I don't breed (not on a serious level; too illegal, you know). So, yes, my comments are just educated guesses (I never said otherwise) based on rational conclusions drawn from generally accepted scientific principles and where possible based on more or less recent publications regarding the subject at hand.
I'm just one side of the coin and people with personal experience are the other. Unfortunately, there aren't too many here on board which have both AND post regularly and helpfully... (no personal attack, just a general observation).
What is so wrong about not being one of the few who breeds a lot and works with exquisite genetics, anyway? I can be as helpful as you (and more so as Sam who seldom cares to explain or elaborate even a fraction of all the great things he has done (I'm not allowed to say 'supposedly' here)). There's more to a picture than personal observations of which we have a lot but rarely together with a scientific understanding. I can contribute with the latter no matter if I have my own lab or not
.Maybe I misunderstand your point but I honestly feel pissed right now...
@KiefSweat: Are you referring to THIS article? Do you really believe them? Because THCV is not more psychoactive than THC but now known as CB1 neutral antagonist; in other words, it doesn't do anything except blocking endocannabinoids and THC from activating the CB1 receptor (well, scientific findings suggest that it has a few other CB1-independent effects, some of which are CBD-like). Folks here who were in the lucky position to try it, ask Sam, support the in vitro findings.
The statement by Steep Hill regarding panic attacks may be due to THCV's activity on 5-HT1A receptors (@Chimera: I did work with this receptor ).
The effect on bone growth is purely speculative and depends on the employed in vitro test. Unfortunately, this is, at least for now, the case with 'all' cannabinoids -> the in vitro tests are quite tricky and not fully controllable/understood because osteoclasts and osteoblasts express functional CB receptors (yes, Chimera, I've been watching a colleague doing such 'bone growth tests' on isolated human cells treated with cannabinoids).
The part with anorexia would be true if THCV were a CB1 agonist... strange enough that THCV is now investigated for the opposite and shows similar but not identical activities in mice than rimonabant (an inverse CB1 agonist used against obesity).
With this in mind, I have difficulties believing the rest of their article...
The statement by Steep Hill regarding panic attacks may be due to THCV's activity on 5-HT1A receptors (@Chimera: I did work with this receptor
).The effect on bone growth is purely speculative and depends on the employed in vitro test. Unfortunately, this is, at least for now, the case with 'all' cannabinoids -> the in vitro tests are quite tricky and not fully controllable/understood because osteoclasts and osteoblasts express functional CB receptors (yes, Chimera, I've been watching a colleague doing such 'bone growth tests' on isolated human cells treated with cannabinoids).
The part with anorexia would be true if THCV were a CB1 agonist... strange enough that THCV is now investigated for the opposite and shows similar but not identical activities in mice than rimonabant (an inverse CB1 agonist used against obesity).
With this in mind, I have difficulties believing the rest of their article...
no not that article. Some people i have spoken to may think thc-v may be more psychedelic, but i don't really know. I would think the one effect i've noticed from strains with some thc-v is hunger suppression, on the opposite cbd gives me the munchies.
http://www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CBD-2013.pdf
http://www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CBD-2013.pdf
Chimera,
Much love
I don't want to take up room in your inbox as Im sure you're very busy but would you mind PM'ing me so we can talk about that experimentation with PentylxPropyl?
Much love
I don't want to take up room in your inbox as Im sure you're very busy but would you mind PM'ing me so we can talk about that experimentation with PentylxPropyl?
Sorry, OO, I live the science you report on IC but you are wrong here.
Firstly,
Ive smoked flowers that were tested at 22%thc and 4.7% thcv. Guess what, it was a dutch hybrid that was selfed by subcool and renamed Jack The Ripper. Aint no landrace. The highest verified flower was a JTR cross using Spanish stock to get 6% thcv. Inbred dutch genetics seem to be getting the most THCV.
Yes, on paper I too assumed i would find higher concentrations of THCV in landraces. .5-2% doesnt seem impressive (but i will eventually breed them to b impressive. Be e impressive).
There's a secret about finding cannabivarins in the above statement ;-)
Any breeders/preservationists wanna team up?
Firstly,
Ive smoked flowers that were tested at 22%thc and 4.7% thcv. Guess what, it was a dutch hybrid that was selfed by subcool and renamed Jack The Ripper. Aint no landrace. The highest verified flower was a JTR cross using Spanish stock to get 6% thcv. Inbred dutch genetics seem to be getting the most THCV.
Yes, on paper I too assumed i would find higher concentrations of THCV in landraces. .5-2% doesnt seem impressive (but i will eventually breed them to b impressive. Be e impressive).
There's a secret about finding cannabivarins in the above statement ;-)
Any breeders/preservationists wanna team up?
Oh yea to get back to thcv,
Skunkman works for a company working on THCV so he wants everyone to think THCV is bad so he can corner the market so he takes a phrase out of context saying that ThCV is a canabinoid receptor antagonist. Well, read the whol paragraph and it says in very small doses its an antogonist and in higher doses (.4% +) its an AGONIST. So yea, we do want thcv. And i dont know if anyone remembers me mentioning CBDV 4-5 yrs ago but now its the big cannabinoid for children and epilepsy.
Thcv is the best for medicine but it is scary.
My decarbed bho (rso) of JTR (wicked potent but cant disclose that but trust me insane thcv %) let me live life but it also scared the shit out of me. Made my mother curl up in a ball and whimper in fear for 4 hrs. I took 1cc of the oil and it seems to have mostly degraded to CBN :-/ its 2 yrs old.
Skunkman works for a company working on THCV so he wants everyone to think THCV is bad so he can corner the market so he takes a phrase out of context saying that ThCV is a canabinoid receptor antagonist. Well, read the whol paragraph and it says in very small doses its an antogonist and in higher doses (.4% +) its an AGONIST. So yea, we do want thcv. And i dont know if anyone remembers me mentioning CBDV 4-5 yrs ago but now its the big cannabinoid for children and epilepsy.
Thcv is the best for medicine but it is scary.
My decarbed bho (rso) of JTR (wicked potent but cant disclose that but trust me insane thcv %) let me live life but it also scared the shit out of me. Made my mother curl up in a ball and whimper in fear for 4 hrs. I took 1cc of the oil and it seems to have mostly degraded to CBN :-/ its 2 yrs old.
Can labs even test for CBDV?
Ough, sorry, my bad. I thought you mentioned somewhere you didn't... maybe that was a while ago, before you actually got to try it LoL. Glad you found it!
Even better if it's in a hybrid and not a land race mostly because of total cannabinoid content and the chance to find a CBD(V) plant instead. Safes you quite some time in breeding and crossing... apropos, it would be cool to have that discussion with Chimera publicly and not via PM, there's a bunch of interested people out there as well.
Do you do some sort of testing? In your case, performing a simple TLC @ home might be worth the trouble.
Sure, there's a certain uncertainty if you lack the standards but the Rf values and the colours if you use established dyes are pretty reliable and good enough for a semi-quantitative determination. Nothing you could publish today but not so long ago it was one of the better tests.
Pleas keep us in the loop how your journey goes!
Hmmm... there's a few publications out there and I suppose not all are funded by him... I'd have to read them thoroughly, maybe there are indeed indications that it acts as an agonist at higher concentrations (which BTW is often the case with neutral antagonists, they are seldom 100% neutral but tend to go a tiny bit to either side).
most of the ones don't have the standards but anyone with a gc with half a brain could figure it out.
