Landraces . Will we ever smoke what we once had? If no is there a Way back?

[Donald Mallard]

Seeds can blow or be washed by spring floods into streams and rivers, and then to sea, to float to who knows where? Seeds are consumed by birds and some are emitted undigested from the birds onto lands. Pollen is much more mobile, as pollen could blow from a valley in Afghanistan, catch an updraft, and end up anywhere. A single bit of pollen is so light that if it got blown up into higher wind elevations, it could travel around the world.

trouble is when birds etc ingest cannabis seed ,
its for one reason ,, to eat the embryo inside the shell ,


not likely any go through their digestion system and are still viable, if there was in fact the odd one to still be intact ,
i very much doubt any animals or birds spread cannabis seeds ,

its more likely done by an animal that used them for another purpose ,
like humans for instance .....



if birds were spreading cannabis seed , it would be on islands all over the world ,, that are not inhabited by man ,
and yet ...

 

[romanoweed]

Ok it Looks like there is quiet a bit of Evidence that Cannabis has been brought over the world trough Humans. It seems the scientific Research has evolved since my last surf long time ago. And i have no Problem with this Thougts. Peace!

 

[White Beard]

What a wonderful thread - thanks for the discussion!

These topics have been much on my mind. Nearly every comment points up the fact that we have bloody little agricultural research on cannabis to draw on, entirely no thanks to Uncle Sam for going along with cannabis prohibition and doubling down worldwide.

What we don’t have is long-term observation and testing of wild/feral populations; long-term or in-depth observation and examination of cultivated populations or the methods used to cultivate them; an understanding of how “traditional cannabis cultures” made use of the plant (seafaring people made heavy use of cannabis fiber for rope, and were known at least in colonial times to be routinely seeding at every landfall, some cultures may have made heavier use for fabric, or cared only about the flowers); experimental data about how a feral cannabis patch starts and develops over time; we don’t have a genome, or even varietal fingerprints.

I’m actually working on proposals for just such research...

I’ll be going back thru to comment and discuss in detail, but one thing is clear: we do not have common agreement on basic taxonomy, nor on the quasi-botanical terms we throw about, nor on the meanings of these terms.

That’s a good place to start.

 

[Mengsk]

No disrespect White Beard but only certain people have access to those grants to write stories. Or in other words publish studies. Publishing studies is the scientist's way of telling a story. That is their proof. Now today I am starting to change my opinion, I think scientists are politicians. A lot of them. I used to think it was not the case but all these people want to keep their career job and they bow to money which is only assuming that they were not bred from the money loving breed in the first place. Money either can or does corrupt and I wonder if people were always that way, which any science is left behind long ago. I have a specific distrust for science. You have heard of the term "brush with the law." My education and early career included some "brush with science." As an educated citizen who attempted all kinds of higher education I now group them into the same category. For someone representative of a group who has systematically institutionally had difficulty with police, and by that I mean specifically stemming from slavery and the subsequent imprisonment of large populations of people under various legal rulings, it only deepens my distrust in what is now a combination of all published science including biology and medicine. The technical aspect, in other words spending so much time getting people to try and understand that 2 + 2 = 4, is a distraction from the social or human or everyday life meaning what is happening presently in the world outside of the edited published story.

It would seem like an uphill task attempting more explanation of the subject on this board. An extremely dry story filled with facts and numbers and devoid of personal human recognition is more or less what has become the scientific standard. This fits in nicely with discrediting people, especially people who have been colonized or enslaved. The untold tale, or the other side of the story, may only be the equivalent of a folk song or art work. It is a difficult subject to bring up but capturing or invading or anything of the sort involves all kinds of lies and manipulation. This would be the end product of that institution. So by definition it will be a completely biased story in favor of the very few writing the story. I only have a few paragraphs on this message board to stay on topic but it is much more than 50/50 or medium sure for me. I know enough about science and medicine and the corporate world and money and finance and real estate and politics which does include greed and bias and views or fears or aggression of or toward people based on either their income or state or country of origin or social class or religion or any of a number of other things. Some people are so driven to find one thing at any cost. My 2c is that it is and we are all connected, you cannot separate your genetic cache or diagram or analysis from everyday life and current events. I don't want to sound ignorant, I can always reconsider or be proven wrong or admit a mistake. Although you and I both know it is true that even after an expensive genetic story which you have yet to work on someone else can always say they don't believe it for one reason or another. Especially if you do not ask 1000+ people but instead feel entitled to the story and rights and credit for everyone.

The world is too messed up right now to pay attention to this, to give it any credit. Prioritizing a cannabis genome and then 50 years later not mention the displacement of people and race and human culture. This is an attempt at history repeating itself. Individuals driven mostly by money and profit are nearly by definition the least concerned with human welfare. Not much room for kindness equality and acceptance when only thinking about money. Some people may have remembered history class in school. Now it just seems like every class is money and people do not discuss any of the other subjects. Science is not a dry medium. It is in fact driven by the government which is a political machine. So the end product is not to be trusted. Only a slanted argument, not factual or objective as some might claim. Not to sound like a broken record but all the science in the world isn't going to change that. I don't know if this sounds extremely blunt but you may not be able to have a book on landraces written by one author a white man or 4-5 professors in Kansas. You may need to have 50+ authors one from each country, for example, as a start. Too much separation (tiers or poor and rich or no middle class same thing) just makes another bogus text which I now know are full of lies and stories.

 

[JustSumTomatoes]

I wonder how many unique varieties have been lost as a result of eradication --intended or not. It's interesting to think of cross breeding as a cause for cannabis extinction when it has been a driving force for survival since people have been having a relationship with the plant.

There is much frustration spoken when a farmer introduces hybrids to his field in place of the 16 week Sativas he used to grow. Both the farmer and the plant's survival may depend on finishing in a shorter time frame. Weather, thieves and police are all threats to this symbiotic relationship between man and plant.

 

[Elmer Bud]

According to Phylos Galaxy, most African sativas seem to be related to SE Asian cannabis, so that map is not correct.

I think sativas arrived to Africa via trade companies like British and Dutch East Indian Companies

G `day GC

It was there long before that .
Arabs were visiting East Africa and Asia long before Euros arrived .

Bongs were in Africa before white man came ...

Thanks for sharin

EB .

 

[White Beard]

No disrespect White Beard but only certain people have access to those grants to write stories. Or in other words publish studies. Publishing studies is the scientist's way of telling a story. That is their proof. Now today I am starting to change my opinion, I think scientists are politicians. A lot of them. I used to think it was not the case but all these people want to keep their career job and they bow to money which is only assuming that they were not bred from the money loving breed in the first place. Money either can or does corrupt and I wonder if people were always that way, which any science is left behind long ago. I have a specific distrust for science. You have heard of the term "brush with the law." My education and early career included some "brush with science." As an educated citizen who attempted all kinds of higher education I now group them into the same category. For someone representative of a group who has systematically institutionally had difficulty with police, and by that I mean specifically stemming from slavery and the subsequent imprisonment of large populations of people under various legal rulings, it only deepens my distrust in what is now a combination of all published science including biology and medicine. The technical aspect, in other words spending so much time getting people to try and understand that 2 + 2 = 4, is a distraction from the social or human or everyday life meaning what is happening presently in the world outside of the edited published story.

It would seem like an uphill task attempting more explanation of the subject on this board. An extremely dry story filled with facts and numbers and devoid of personal human recognition is more or less what has become the scientific standard. This fits in nicely with discrediting people, especially people who have been colonized or enslaved. The untold tale, or the other side of the story, may only be the equivalent of a folk song or art work. It is a difficult subject to bring up but capturing or invading or anything of the sort involves all kinds of lies and manipulation. This would be the end product of that institution. So by definition it will be a completely biased story in favor of the very few writing the story. I only have a few paragraphs on this message board to stay on topic but it is much more than 50/50 or medium sure for me. I know enough about science and medicine and the corporate world and money and finance and real estate and politics which does include greed and bias and views or fears or aggression of or toward people based on either their income or state or country of origin or social class or religion or any of a number of other things. Some people are so driven to find one thing at any cost. My 2c is that it is and we are all connected, you cannot separate your genetic cache or diagram or analysis from everyday life and current events. I do want to sound ignorant, I can always reconsider or be proven wrong or admit a mistake. Although you and I both know it is true that even after an expensive genetic story which you have yet to work on someone else can always say they don't believe it for one reason or another. Especially if you do not ask 1000+ people but instead feel entitled to the story and rights and credit for everyone.

The world is too messed up right now to pay attention to this, to give it any credit. Prioritizing a cannabis genome and then 50 years later not mention the displacement of people and race and human culture. This is an attempt at history repeating itself. Individuals driven mostly by money and profit are nearly by definition the least concerned with human welfare. Not much room for kindness equality and acceptance when only thinking about money. Some people may have remembered history class in school. Now it just seems like every class is money and people do not discuss any of the other subjects. Science is not a dry medium. It is in fact driven by the government which is a political machine. So the end product is not to be trusted. Only a slanted argument, not factual or objective as some might claim. Not to sound like a broken record but all the science in the world isn't going to change that. I don't know if this sounds extremely blunt but you may not be able to have a book on landraces written by one author a white man or 4-5 professors in Kansas. You may need to have 50+ authors one from each country, for example, as a start. Too much separation (tiers or poor and rich or no middle class same thing) just makes another bogus text which I now know are full of lies and stories.

Rest easy: I don’t feel disrespected. However, I’m not entirely sure how to parse those very thick paragraphs in light of my comment; I think we can agree that there are true believers in science, who are liable to be dragged off course by their belief, just as many others in every field can be.

Hopefully this will not be a barrier to meaningful study of our favorite plant going forward!

 

[White Beard]

So, Cannabis var. sativa, indica, ruderalis

Why varietals and not species? Because interbreeding. They can pollinate each other and be pollinated in turn so same species.

Are the three varieties true-breeding? Left to themselves, do indica-presenting populations produce only indica offspring within the population? Vice versa for sativa? These are questions requiring more study, and most of the money is going to Big Weed and the race to own the marketplace with bigger buds, wilder aromas and heavier Cannabinoid burden.

But postulating that they breed true brings us to the reality that “landraces” only signify a locally-cultivated strain in bucolic isolation, which may or may not vary significantly from less-local feral populations. And let’s also postulate that these cultivated plants are made good use of, and therefore the locals take what they need from it without our modern methods and calculations and husbandry, therefore, the field would rise and fall as a group WITHOUT genetic input from those individuals that had been taken for use before they could reproduce.

In variant circumstances, a local group of humans might selectively prize one ‘form’ of cannabis preferable, and thereby over time bias the field’s genome away from expressing that most desired trait; seafarers could be solely interested in fiber for cordage, and perhaps the flower resin for glues and waterproofing and sealing, thereby culling those traits from the gene pool over time; our current Big Weed explosion is only interested in the flowers and their products, and cares nothing for the rest of the plant, which is wasted. Oddly, instead of removing individuals from a local gene pool we *have* no local gene pool, we now have only the isolated individuals, and we have massive monocrop “farms” to produce flowers only, and only of effete, genetically thinning lines. Everything else is jettisoned.

The scope of research here would be to learn how a persistent population grows and reproduces over time, but more importantly how the dominant characteristics spread through the field. With enough generations, the plants would gain broadly similar characteristics, becoming its own “breed” - a “kind” of cannabis analogous to a kind of tomato or pepper.

I suspect that this winnowing of the above-mentioned gene pool would be sufficient pressure to cause drift in successive generations, but again, TMK this has never been tracked. Doing this work could well tell us HOW to rebuild a native population, how to guide its development, how to optimize fiber yield and hurd (paper) yield, as well as flower yield and resin potency, how to augment that population through careful selection and introduction of new genetics to the field pool.

An alternative is to run this as Operation Bagseed: based on the assumption that hippies and dope smokers have been hanging on to seeds from particularly good bags they had in the past, I estimate there could be a million seeds out there straight out of Mexico, Colombia, Panama, all of them from before the days of the Hippie Mad Science Apocalypse that resulted in so many back-shed pollen catches in Cali during the 80s and onward...and in the knee-jerk slaughter of male plants for decades. The genetic loss is incalculable, and may be irretrievable, but using those seeds to start new wild populations of old lines, we stand an excellent chance of doing better going forward than we have so far, and we at the very least can set the species on the road to a solid return to the plant world.

Well this has wandered a bit, but I hope it brings more light than smoke.

Done for tonight, sleep well y’all!

 

[GoatCheese]

G `day GC

It was there long before that .
Arabs were visiting East Africa and Asia long before Euros arrived .

Bongs were in Africa before white man came ...

Thanks for sharin

EB .

Hi EB.

According to Phylos African sativas seem to be closely related to SE Asian sativas, also Keralan and S American sativas. Go take a look. Trade Company-theory explains why this is so, imo. The map in earlier post is incorrect, or atleast it's missing part of the info.

Morocco is also in Africa. It's a big continent. Moroccan kif isn't closely related to (most) African sativas, it seems.


I didn't claim all African genetics came from SE Asia, i said African sativas are seemingly closely related to SE Asian sativas (Thai etc.). There's apprently also Indian/paki genetics in South Africa. Was it, Afro Pip's Durban?? that looks quite abit like Chitrali-paki hybrids = like sativa leaning version of ACE/Cannabiogen's PCK, deep purple colors.

 

[Elmer Bud]

G `day GC

I think we are describing different migrations or trade that both brought cannabis to Africa .
In different eras .

Arabs apparently brought seed . To Nth east Africa and that eventually made the journey east to west with native peoples . Along the inland trade routes .

eg Congo and Central Africa

Lots and lots of Indian Coolies[ Burma , Bangladesh , India , Pakistan all 1 nation of India under British Rule in those days ] went to work in Eastern Africa .

eg Kenya , Rhodesia , Sth Africa .

I studied up on this through anthropology papers . Dunno if I can find the stuff I read again ,if I do I will pass it on to you .

Thanks for sharin

EB .

 

[funkyhorse]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_of_Psychoactive_Plant_Use_in_the_Old_World


Cannabis starts on page 311

 

[GoatCheese]

G `day GC

I think we are describing different migrations or trade that both brought cannabis to Africa .
In different eras .

Absolutely, mate.
Different routes + who knows how many different cannabis populations arrived.

There's atleast:

- Traditional Moroccan seem to be closely related to "mediterranean" hemp, and prolly also to old hash cultivars from near east/central asia.

- Then there's the "Indian migration" connection

- and then the SE Asian equatorial sativa connection via Trade Ships, imo.
Why the Trade Companies brought hemp/sativas with them to their (southern) African and an S American colonies, was prolly for hemp rope production for their ships. ..can't sail without rope.


But i'm no sativa-expert myself, this is mostly based on stuff i have picked up from Phylos. Because of my health condition sativas don't suit me too well in many cases, so i'm more of a an Afghani/kush/hybrid/CBD-guy.


***
***

They say cannabis is related to Humulus and that fully developed Humulus is 6 + million years old, apparently. Cannabis is possibly millions of years old too, but in weed forums the talk is about human use of cannabis that can be traced to some ten thousand of years back max.
...and weed forums are also about arguing if some people use the NLD/BLD-terminology right and the sativa/indica terminology-debate and all this other so important stuff. It's seems that to some the terminology is more important than the plant itself, LOL.
..i don't mean you Elmer,just to make it clear. I'm just ranting.You know good bits of info/points to make. I'm sure you're more well read than i am. I'm more of a thinker than reader

(..yea, i make things up in my mind, prove me wrong, bitches.)

 

[Elmer Bud]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_of_Psychoactive_Plant_Use_in_the_Old_World


Cannabis starts on page 311

G `day FH

Nice work .

@ GC
Moors were Arabs ? Well anyone who speaks Arabic is called Arab these days . White , black or brown .

I`m thinkin if the folks from the middle east had seeds they were moving to East Africa . Why not bring them to Nth West Africa and later Sthn Europe too if they are occupying that territory ?

Remembering Muslims don`t drink alcohol . The troops gotta have some way of chillin out when they are not conquering . lol .

Like the Thracian Merc vape rig ; page 313 of that link .

Another angle was it CBD weed for pain rather than THC weed for recreation ??



Around it goes .

Thanks for sharin



EB .

 

[DoctorCBD]

To CBD or not to CBD....

To CBD or not to CBD....

Hello everyone!

I have come across a lot of people who still confuse CBD and THC. Even though both are derived from the same plant, CBD is the non-toxic and non-addictive substance that has a ton of health benefits.

While THC is the toxic and addictive part which people recreationally indulge in.

The ban on CBD is beyond doubt a result of this confusion. Governments believe if they legalize marijuana, people are going to be smoking it up - day in and day out.

But that's not the case!!

We can use the CBD oil extract to treat many chronic, painful, and life-threatening conditions...

When will the governments understand this??

 

[JustSumTomatoes]

When will the governments understand this??

Probably around the same time they realize that THC is not toxic or addictive.

 

[White Beard]

Ram your toxic bullshit up your ass on the way out

 

[PDX Dopesmoker]

Probably around the same time they realize that THC is not toxic or addictive.

Watch out if they ever figure out that marijuana cures baldness

 

[mr.brunch]

Hello everyone!

I have come across a lot of people who still confuse CBD and THC. Even though both are derived from the same plant, CBD is the non-toxic and non-addictive substance that has a ton of health benefits.

While THC is the toxic and addictive part which people recreationally indulge in.

The ban on CBD is beyond doubt a result of this confusion. Governments believe if they legalize marijuana, people are going to be smoking it up - day in and day out.

But that's not the case!!

We can use the CBD oil extract to treat many chronic, painful, and life-threatening conditions...

When will the governments understand this??

So.... what brand of cbd oil are you selling, exactly?

Btw, thc is non toxic to humans- so it’s probably best not to suggest it is, because when you make a statement and support it with such a lie it brings the rest of what you said into question.
Good day

 

[ahortator]

HAHAHAHAHAHA The CBD lobby is here!

All this about CBD is really laughable.

In most countries, hemp growing is legal. Hemp produces mainly CBD, that is the reason why nobody wanted to smoke industrial hemp. CBD makes you feel dumb. It is not funny.

Anyway if you still want CBD for any reason, don't waste your money and don't buy expensive CBD oil from all these snake oil scammers. You can get CBD from ditchweed. That is the reason why it is called ditchweed and no fine 1st grade marijuana, hahahahaha

Also they grow hemp in Canada, and they must produce CBD oil from it at a decent price. Unless they have become snake oil scammers entrepreneurs too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPYUNpbS1JM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUs--6DAlaA

 

[therevverend]

Before Europeans showed up the Arabian Sea was full of Arab and Indian traders. Many of them Muslims. They ranged from Southern India to the Persian Gulf, to the east coast of Africa.

Cannabis arrived in Africa much later then everywhere else. Cannabis has been in India, China, and Europe for thousands of years. Paleobotanists have found several cannabis pollen grains in association with the mummy of Ramses the Great, from 1250 BC.

Cannabis wasn't very common in ancient Egypt. It was never used for cloth. Papyrus texts mention medicinal use of cannabis by ancient Egyptians. The oldest name it as shemshemet and list it as a source of cordage, dated to 2350 BC. A papyrus dated to 1550 BC list it as an aid for childbirth. Other sources mention it's use medicinally. They'd grind it into honey and then administer it orally, vaginally, rectally, and on the skin.

The Sahara desert was a huge obstacle for cannabis dispersal. The cannabis in Northern Africa, Egypt and Morocco, primarily came from the Middle East. Syrian mystics spread hashish use to Egypt around 1200 AD. That's when Egyptians really started getting baked.

In sub-Saharan Africa the Arab traders introduced cannabis from India. The earliest record of cannabis in East Africa is in Madagascar from around 2000 years ago. This was when the first SE Asian colonizers arrived sailing across the Indian Ocean. They were probably using cannabis to caulk their boats and to make rigging for their masts.

From it's introduction by Indian and Arab traders in the east, Cannabis use slowly spread across the continent. The famous ancient bongs of Ethiopia and Zambia date to 1200 AD or so. The only pipes found in the old world before tobacco was introduced.

Cannabis reached West Africa much later then everywhere else. There's no record in a lot of places until after WW2 when returning soldiers spread it around. I'm thinking Ivory Coast, Senegal, Ghana. It may have been used there before but there weren't records of it.