I want to grow & sell marijuana (legally)

[mudballs]

Polyploidy isnt gmo..imo,...just more chromosomes than should naturally occur...happens naturally more often than you'd think

 

[H e d g e]

@Nannymouse This is what the chromatography of landrace cannabis looks like vs modified, the diversity of cannabinoids has been lost.

 

[nepalnt21]

What very advanced people made a lab and injected maize with some other species to make it GMO?

my guess... monsanto?

idk, it had a pretty good run (most of 9k years?) before big agro got ahold of it.

 

[H e d g e]

What very advanced people made a lab and injected maize with some other species to make it GMO?

There are many ways to modify plants, radiation and colchicine induced mutations were the first.

 

[mudballs]

Hermann Joseph Muller in the 1920s and 1930s. Muller's research demonstrated that ionizing radiation could induce mutations in fruit flies, leading to changes

 

[mudballs]

...that's a gmo..

 

[Nannymouse]

Looked it up, and colchicine treatment is NOT considered GMO.

 

[H e d g e]

Looked it up, and colchicine treatment is NOT considered GMO.

I know.

Weird, I thought it was the other way around, genetically edited food is being sold as organic here as the regulators don’t consider it to be gmo. I’m just referring to anything modified as modified from now on to avoid confusion.

Any new ways that get discovered to modify plants will be given a new name, they’re still modified. Almost all cannabis varieties have been modified and it’s reduced a diversity of 250+ cannabinoids to 1 or 2.

 

[mudballs]

The proper terminology really helps eradicate confusion..but even that leaves room for interpretation..:fistbump

 

[nepalnt21]

how i understand it:

hacking up genes willy nilly with mutations is NOT considered genetic engineering... which is what a GMO has undergone (g.e.)

from what i understand, it's a deliberate, targeted changing of genetic code.

if it hasn't been genetically engineered (also has a specific definition), then it isn't a g.m.o.

 

[H e d g e]

how i understand it:

hacking up genes willy nilly with mutations is NOT considered genetic engineering... which is what a GMO has undergone (g.e.)

from what i understand, it's a deliberate, targeted changing of genetic code.

if it hasn't been genetically engineered (also has a specific definition), then it isn't a g.m.o.

GE plants are not considered gmo here and are therefore permitted for organic sale.
They are modified, just not specifically ‘gmo’.

 

[nepalnt21]

weird, i guess each jurisdiction has its own definitions... which i guess makes sense

 

[Nannymouse]

I'm familiar with Phylos. Genetic diversity within a species is always lost through time. If we have selected for or against traits in domestication, that is normal. We didn't 'introduce' CBD, it was there, naturally. We selected for it.

Can we agree on something like:
Natural selection = evolution
Breeding = selection by mankind (influences evolution)
modification = manipulation in all its forms
GMO = labwork changing genetic code from one form of plant to a form not found anywhere in that species.(ie glow in the dark tomato or even adding an 'identifying marker')

 

[H e d g e]

weird, i guess each jurisdiction has its own definitions... which i guess makes sense

That’s why I’m just calling everything modified from now on, every time they find a new way of doing it it gets a new name and needs banning again.

 

[H e d g e]

I'm familiar with Phylos. Genetic diversity within a species is always lost through time. If we have selected for or against traits in domestication, that is normal. We didn't 'introduce' CBD, it was there, naturally. We selected for it.

Can we agree on something like:
Natural selection = evolution
Breeding = selection by mankind (influences evolution)
modification = manipulation in all its forms
GMO = labwork changing genetic code from one form of plant to a form not found anywhere in that species.(ie glow in the dark tomato or even adding an 'identifying marker')

No plant that tested pure landrace, unrelated to skunk og or hemp contains any cbd at all. The chromatography for landrace all looks pretty similar regardless of origin, there isn’t a big diagonal through it where the diversity of cannabinoids that once existed have either been replaced by cbd or delta9.
Not sure how they modified it but it wasn’t selective breeding.

 

[H e d g e]

@Nannymouse Did you find this post from the other thread?

It’s simple what happened to weed. When you mix all the colors together you get a shit brown color. We used to have the whole crayola 64 box of a full range of colors and tones. Now like kids trying to make all the colors “better” we have a bland brownish tone.

The diversity of cannabinoids has been lost. In the end delta9 and cbd win.

Not trying to speak for anyone, but some of the hardcore landrace sativa people believe that as soon as indica, bld, afghanica, whatever they call it was introduced, it ruined everything it was bred with.

It was skunk and hemp that destroyed cannabinoid diversity. People think it was indica because there was less selection going on with hash plants so they were the first to be contaminated, carefully observed and measured by Raphael mechoulam while working for the Israelis.

Why do you think it was he was studying cbd to thc ratios in the Lebanese population?

Why were the results so diverse? Type 1 2 and 3? Because they were p1? Or f3?

Do you really believe with all the investment made in eradicating cannabis globally they didn’t think of trying genetic pollution?

Skunk was a Trojan horse.

 

[TanzanianMagic]

Probably you’ll make more money growing micro greens but I often wondered if there’d be a market for none gmo landrace type plants. Must be a reason no one’s doing it, just seems odd no one would buy Thai stick if it was available.

There are a few barriers to entry, such as:

- customer education

Since the 1990s people have been indoctrinated to think that good and potent weed looks like tight afghani nugs.

- most people literally have never smoked a landrace sativa

They don't know what they're missing. Today's discussion about indica vs sativa is exclusively about the dominance of effects in hybrid strains - sativa leaning vs indica leaning.

- long flowering times

Which works both ways - it keeps out the commercial growers, who want a fast turnover and high yield per plant.

- breeders should backcross with the strain they want to smoke

Few people do that because they don't know the significance. They think that if you cross 2 strains, you get a new combination of genes. What they don't know or neglect, is that you're also outcrossing the unique combination of mutations on the same genes, which affected the phenotypic expression to the point of making the strain great to smoke. And in the process making for a plant with fewer mutations and more like the original hemp.

Basically, if you want a strain with a great high, you have to cross it with the strain you want to grow, and then backcross it with the strain you want to smoke, at least once but twice is better.

For instance, if you want to put a Thai Stick high into an Afghani #1 body:

X,Y = male
X,X = female

Xt, Yt = Thai Stick female and male chromosomes
Xa = Afghan #1 female chromosome

1. Yt x Xa
- cross a male Thai Stick with the female Afghani #1
- cross and grow out the seeds
- incross with those seeds
- grow those out
- select the male plants with the afghani grow characteristics
- the male plants are now (Xa, Yt)
- 50% Thai Stick

2. Yt x Xt
- cross this generation's male with a female Thai Stick
- cross and grow out the seeds
- incross with those seeds
- grow those out
- select the male plants with the afghani grow characteristics
- the male plants are now (Xt, Yt).
- 75% Thai Stick

3. Yt x Xt
- cross this generation's male with a different female Thai Stick (to avoid inbreeding)
- cross and grow out the seeds
- incross with those seeds
- grow those out
- select the male and female plants with the afghani grow characteristics
- the male plants are now (Xt, Yt), while female plants are all (Xt, Xt)
- 87.5% Thai Stick

4. Cross these females and males with eachother.
- further selection at your leasure
- these plants are now true breeding.

After you've done this Herculean work of at least 7 grows, you will have a plant that is inbred, true breeding, but above all, has the Thai high in an easily growable frame. Statistically, the plant will be 87.5% Thai Stick.

For this, you'll have created what few modern strains have, a trippy, heart pounding high, that lasts for hours on end, and doesn't dissolve into a body stone. Also, you'll likely win a few awards.

Also, it isn't easily copied, because anyone else would have to do the same work to get the same high quality results.

I've used two strains as an example, however I'm sure there is better breeding stock out there than the Afghani #1. The new Afghan landrace strains may grow better or start out with a better high.

Anyway, just a tip to breeders - backcross with the strain you wanted to smoke. Good example of potent backcrosses are Buddha's Cheese, or Nirvana's Aurora Indica. If more companies took the time to backcross, we'd have a lot more potent weed. And likely wouldn't be competing for high THC percentage.

 

[xtsho]

@Nannymouse This is what the chromatography of landrace cannabis looks like vs modified, the diversity of cannabinoids has been lost.
View attachment 19121022 View attachment 19121023

Phylos is not a reliable source. I wouldn't put any credence to anything they do. The methodology they used to develop their genetic library was flawed from the beginning.

I won't get into the deceptive and self serving business practices they use.

A Betrayal By a Leader of Oregon’s Cannabis Industry Shows How the Weed Business Went From Down Home to Cutthroat

Beth Schechter’s world shattered with a text message. An Atlanta native, Schechter moved to Portland in 2015 to take a job as executive director of a nonprofit called the Open Cannabis Project. Her job: protecting small cannabis farmers by challenging patent claims on commonplace weed strains.

www.wweek.com

 

[nepalnt21]

The diversity of cannabinoids has been lost.

i'd really like to see your work, cause i question that anyone could know that.

i'd like to see DETAILED reports of the trace cannabinoids found in 60s and 70s weed vs now.... and i mean... there has been a recent surge in landrace/ heirloom excitement, i'd really and honestly like to see what trace cannabinoids are out there... the results i've seen on containers in the market hardly show numbers for anything outside of the THC(a) CBG(a) CBD(a) and maybe THCV(a) or delta 8, but rarely much else outside of that.

i wonder if there are ultra- potent trace cannabinoids that would hide from a modern test?

i mean we have already documented hundreds of cannabinoids, no?

 

[Guy Brush]

I thought this thread was about starting a legal cannabis business.
Now get back to the topic or shut up everybody...