I think I agree with this statement completly.
So it would not be proper to call them GMO cannabinoids?
-
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!
Phylos Galaxy - Landrace discussion
- Thread starter Thule
- Start date
I think I agree with this statement completly.
So it would not be proper to call them GMO cannabinoids?
troutman
Seed Whore
The Terp Tards care more about the Terps.
GMO generally involves tinkering with DNA combining it w/another organism in the plant or animal kingdom that does not combine nature Like genes from a spider into a cow
That yeast project is like a new novel process using enzymes etc... actually very interesting
However, they may very well be be considered GMO cannabinoids......
"Turning yeast into chemical factories involves co-opting their metabolism so that, instead of turning sugar into alcohol, for example, yeast convert sugar into other chemicals that are then modified by added enzymes to produce a new product, such as THC, that the yeast secrete into the liquid surrounding them. The researchers ended up inserting more than a dozen genes into yeast, many of them copies of genes used by the marijuana plant to synthesize cannabinoids."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190227131838.htm
Because the GMO insulin Sam_Skunkman takes is also made from yeast and it's synthetic. Normal insulin is taken from the pancreas of a pig
Gmo insulin is made by attaching the human gene for insulin production to the DNA of the bacteria E. coli
However, a significant number of diabetics have experienced bad reactions to GMO insulin, and that some of these have resulted in death.
If you can use it without issues... The insulin produced this way is also identical to insulin produced naturally by the human pancreas.
Its not really playing havoc with mankind these yeast based GMO...unless you have a bad reaction to them
https://www.livestrong.com/article/231364-the-pros-cons-of-the-use-of-gmo-insulin/
Anyway, GMO has a variety of applications and apparently not all have negative implications like in Agriculture
This is the GMO we generally think of involving monsanto...
Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OxbpLwEjQ
.
.
That yeast project is like a new novel process using enzymes etc... actually very interesting
However, they may very well be be considered GMO cannabinoids......
"Turning yeast into chemical factories involves co-opting their metabolism so that, instead of turning sugar into alcohol, for example, yeast convert sugar into other chemicals that are then modified by added enzymes to produce a new product, such as THC, that the yeast secrete into the liquid surrounding them. The researchers ended up inserting more than a dozen genes into yeast, many of them copies of genes used by the marijuana plant to synthesize cannabinoids."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190227131838.htm
Because the GMO insulin Sam_Skunkman takes is also made from yeast and it's synthetic. Normal insulin is taken from the pancreas of a pig
Gmo insulin is made by attaching the human gene for insulin production to the DNA of the bacteria E. coli
However, a significant number of diabetics have experienced bad reactions to GMO insulin, and that some of these have resulted in death.
If you can use it without issues... The insulin produced this way is also identical to insulin produced naturally by the human pancreas.
Its not really playing havoc with mankind these yeast based GMO...unless you have a bad reaction to them
https://www.livestrong.com/article/231364-the-pros-cons-of-the-use-of-gmo-insulin/
Anyway, GMO has a variety of applications and apparently not all have negative implications like in Agriculture
This is the GMO we generally think of involving monsanto...
Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OxbpLwEjQ
.
.
Last edited:
Yeast derived cannabinoids which may very well be able to call GMO cannabinoids
"Turning yeast into chemical factories involves co-opting their metabolism so that, instead of turning sugar into alcohol, for example, yeast convert sugar into other chemicals that are then modified by added enzymes to produce a new product, such as THC, that the yeast secrete into the liquid surrounding them. The researchers ended up inserting more than a dozen genes into yeast, many of them copies of genes used by the marijuana plant to synthesize cannabinoids."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190227131838.htm
Is not the same as GMO Cannabis
GMO Cannabis would be inserting genes into the cannabis plants DNA to make resistant to drought, pests, and herbicide
That's what Monsanto did with soybean and the use of round-up. They created a new organism they could patent With highly destructive consequences.
.
CannaZen
Well-known member
yeah i guess i didn't really read the article about the yeast but i dont know if those deaths are directly correlated with gmo source based insulin or what, not going to read into it though.. if its a cannabinoid its a cannabinoid but its true perhaps there may be chemical imperfection? I'm not a chemist haha. Far be it for those prohibitionists to know the difference, I definitely think its certainly possible to have. Much prefer plant-based resins.
just what i wanted to hear, cannabis is already hardy. That application is only practical in mass production huge monocrops outdoors. Cannabis doesn't really have pests so much like other crops. Actually monsanto sued farmers for saving seed of their gmo (non-fertile) grain plants that'd reproduced viable seed.
So honestly i dont know what new gene phylos may incorporate into their breeding program at best, at worse they will use their database as a key advantage to breed successful patented plants and i personally do not believe they own the genome to patent varietals of the species, honest to god i dont care what genes they put in there if its not synthetic it was not invented by them novel ergo they did not create the gene. Phylos can be sued and won if the court has any sense of balance.
As far as i can tell the breeder/gardener may own the seeds and plants but not the genome, not exclusively no. A person may own the novelty of a varietal not exclusively the genome as a species the framework architecture the plants "run" on top of, its like software They dont own the operating system, they own software of applications.
Phylos has not demonstrated adequate capability i do not have confidence in their ability to properly directly correlate descent lines together. They haven't demonstrated their capability very well in isolating unique genetic identifiers from gradual plant accumulation adaptations over time (genetic changes, markers).
I dont think they can breed anything that a serious breeder could not already do with experience but.... i do believe its possible to take it to the next generation with vigour and plant efficiencies and growth structures. So speaking of patenting, I think the MIT open use license is applicable to commercial use essentially meaning you can make money on the genetics but you do not own the source genetic material that were used to breed and create them as they were open use, for software that is.
Offtopic: ugh i feel stupid, so many unfinished thoughts and more.
Far be it for those prohibitionists to know the difference, I definitely think its certainly possible to have. Much prefer plant-based resins.just what i wanted to hear, cannabis is already hardy. That application is only practical in mass production huge monocrops outdoors. Cannabis doesn't really have pests so much like other crops. Actually monsanto sued farmers for saving seed of their gmo (non-fertile) grain plants that'd reproduced viable seed.
So honestly i dont know what new gene phylos may incorporate into their breeding program at best, at worse they will use their database as a key advantage to breed successful patented plants and i personally do not believe they own the genome to patent varietals of the species, honest to god i dont care what genes they put in there if its not synthetic it was not invented by them novel ergo they did not create the gene. Phylos can be sued and won if the court has any sense of balance.
As far as i can tell the breeder/gardener may own the seeds and plants but not the genome, not exclusively no. A person may own the novelty of a varietal not exclusively the genome as a species the framework architecture the plants "run" on top of, its like software They dont own the operating system, they own software of applications.
Phylos has not demonstrated adequate capability i do not have confidence in their ability to properly directly correlate descent lines together. They haven't demonstrated their capability very well in isolating unique genetic identifiers from gradual plant accumulation adaptations over time (genetic changes, markers).
I dont think they can breed anything that a serious breeder could not already do with experience but.... i do believe its possible to take it to the next generation with vigour and plant efficiencies and growth structures. So speaking of patenting, I think the MIT open use license is applicable to commercial use essentially meaning you can make money on the genetics but you do not own the source genetic material that were used to breed and create them as they were open use, for software that is.
Offtopic: ugh i feel stupid, so many unfinished thoughts and more.
Last edited:
GMO yeast cannabinoids are billed as "green" cannabis
That is no lights, no water, no fertilizer, reduced carbon footprint
Of course no one knows the side effects of GMO produced cannabinoids
Even if they can be used with no issues Cannabis is more than a handful of cannabinoids and some w/selected terpenes added in
But this is what the extract market has demaded
Get out your vape pens and suck it up!
It actually may turn out to be a real innovation for development of specialized medicine
However, whole plant extractions and whole plant cannabis is where its at for me
Keep it Simple
That is no lights, no water, no fertilizer, reduced carbon footprint
Of course no one knows the side effects of GMO produced cannabinoids
Even if they can be used with no issues Cannabis is more than a handful of cannabinoids and some w/selected terpenes added in
But this is what the extract market has demaded
Get out your vape pens and suck it up!
It actually may turn out to be a real innovation for development of specialized medicine
However, whole plant extractions and whole plant cannabis is where its at for me
Keep it Simple
PDX Dopesmoker
Active member
Reduced carbon footprint? Plants grow outdoors, they have a negative carbon footprint.
Basically just paraphrasing what was in the article
But right, plants consume CO2 hemp improves soil....ideally
Science News
Yeast produce low-cost, high-quality cannabinoids
"One of the pioneers of synthetic biology, Keasling has long sought to exploit yeast and bacteria as "green" drug factories, eliminating the expensive synthetic or extractive processes common in the chemical industry and the often toxic or environmentally- damaging chemical byproducts.
Cannabis cultivation is a prime example of an energy-intensive and environmentally-destructive industry. Farms in northwest California have polluted streams with pesticide and fertilizer runoff and helped drain watersheds because marijuana plants are water-hungry. Illegal grows have resulted in clear-cutting and erosion.
Indoor cultivation under grow lights with ventilation fans uses a lot of energy, accounting for a growing percentage of annual power consumption. One study estimated that California's cannabis industry accounted for 3 percent of the state's electricity usage. Indoor grows have caused blackouts in some cities, and energy consumption can add more than $1,000 to the price of a pound of weed.
Hence Keasling's interest in finding a "green" way to produce the active chemicals in marijuana."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190227131838.htm
.
CannaRed
Cannabinerd
I wonder how much of the carbon gets re-released back into the atmosphere when we smoke the plant.
man this shits something you gotta at least raise a eye brow too. The cannabis community has exploded over the last 15yrs and this is just another step I guess
PDX Dopesmoker
Active member
The overall fraction probably depends on how much fan leaf, stem and roots you're willing to puff on an how thoroughly you burn it. I guess if we all wanted to be perfect little angels and sequester max carbon we'd be eating the stuff and then shitting the waste back out into the soil to help improve next year's carbon haul.
Not sure if this has been posted already
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.co...employee-sheds-light-breeding-controversy.amp
A letter from an ex phylos employee who feels betrayed
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.co...employee-sheds-light-breeding-controversy.amp
A letter from an ex phylos employee who feels betrayed
does the the AG in there skunk relate to the OG or the others on galaxy ,
Theres 2 storys behind skunk make up
The AG x CG x Afghani from Rob Watson and David Clarke. =)
And Thai x CG x Afghani printed in Original SSSC seed catalog
Thats thing there baseline is incorrect so they have no idea if there submissions are the real one or something renamed ,
they have no dates or time lime for origins of strains there testing
you could send in random Mexican as CG they would put it up there says its real till something else showed up lol there not much provenance to there submissions
funny how Josh Og is original og and its now showing a link to Hindu? . LOL LOL to co inside with movies being made based on manipulated storys lol
When other DNA sites show completely different relashonsips from state strains
Theres 2 storys behind skunk make up
The AG x CG x Afghani from Rob Watson and David Clarke. =)
And Thai x CG x Afghani printed in Original SSSC seed catalog
Thats thing there baseline is incorrect so they have no idea if there submissions are the real one or something renamed ,
they have no dates or time lime for origins of strains there testing
you could send in random Mexican as CG they would put it up there says its real till something else showed up lol there not much provenance to there submissions
funny how Josh Og is original og and its now showing a link to Hindu? . LOL LOL to co inside with movies being made based on manipulated storys lol
When other DNA sites show completely different relashonsips from state strains
"My name is Ricky, and I’m here today from Phylos Bioscience.”
I think this sums it up
"I reassured you time and again, hundreds of times daily: “We are not out to steal your work. We are here to help you protect it, to prove prior art. We’re a different type of cannabis company."
"It was suddenly, starkly clear that the brass at the top of the company didn’t give a shit about the community they had built themselves up on the hopes and aspirations of. Actually, truly the case that they looked down on that community and the breeder’s art they’ve carried, for decades, risking everything as “a quaint, rural hobby that maybe farmers get into.”
"Worst of all: they set back the trust of the cannabis community in science, possibly by years, until a stable and reliable alternative can present itself. We need to advance and evolve if we’re to survive the coming onslaught of Corporate Weed. It is not guaranteed that we’ll retain control of our culture or our plant, and with this development things just got darker for us all."
"the language you’re using indicates a complete lack of understanding and empathy for a group of humans who have endured generations of legal persecution, social stigmata and violent crime. I personally have had friends lose their freedom, their possessions, their families, been lined up against a wall and executed – all for the love of this plant.
You clearly have no idea who you’re talking to, nor what they’ve endured to get here: we’re in this because we ARE this, past present and future"
I think this sums it up
"I reassured you time and again, hundreds of times daily: “We are not out to steal your work. We are here to help you protect it, to prove prior art. We’re a different type of cannabis company."
"It was suddenly, starkly clear that the brass at the top of the company didn’t give a shit about the community they had built themselves up on the hopes and aspirations of. Actually, truly the case that they looked down on that community and the breeder’s art they’ve carried, for decades, risking everything as “a quaint, rural hobby that maybe farmers get into.”
"Worst of all: they set back the trust of the cannabis community in science, possibly by years, until a stable and reliable alternative can present itself. We need to advance and evolve if we’re to survive the coming onslaught of Corporate Weed. It is not guaranteed that we’ll retain control of our culture or our plant, and with this development things just got darker for us all."
"the language you’re using indicates a complete lack of understanding and empathy for a group of humans who have endured generations of legal persecution, social stigmata and violent crime. I personally have had friends lose their freedom, their possessions, their families, been lined up against a wall and executed – all for the love of this plant.
You clearly have no idea who you’re talking to, nor what they’ve endured to get here: we’re in this because we ARE this, past present and future"
All of the carbon a plant absorbs throughout its life cycle is re-released back into the atmosphere when it's burned or when it rots / degrades.
CannaRed
Cannabinerd
Thanks. Was wondering. I figured some carbon would be left if composted instead of burned.
Interesting to see a test of "well cooked compost" to see how the green to brown or nitrogen to carbon rate changes.
I know plants pull carbon from atmosphere, I thought they also pulled some carbon from soil. Am I incorrect?
No comments on what this guys said???
JimmyToucan
Member
Nope. He quit when he realized the truth.
