What's new
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

... sig ...

acespicoli

Well-known member

‘Thai Stick’ or ‘Lao Stick’?​

*
Bolikhamsai is one of the main production centres for export ganja right across the Mekong from northern Isan (Northeast Thailand) – both sides of the river being ethnic Lao and speaking Lao anywhere outside the towns.
*
In the ‘Thai Stick’ era, nominally ‘Thai’ ganja came from north Isan and Central Laos, one of the most famous batches being Central Lao ‘Golden Voice’ – as branded by Western smugglers…
*
Cultivation across north Isan was part of a very Lao tradition of growing and smoking ganja that expanded and commercialized with the major urban centre of the region, Vientiane.
*
In Vientiane’s decadent 60s Cold War heyday, the villagers of northern Isan supplied most of the young women who were trafficked or migrated to brothels, opium palaces, and go-go bars as the Lao economy boomed during America’s anti-Communist crusade in Indochina.
*
Western money also poured into provincial Isan towns such as Udon, now once again eclipsed by Vientiane, but then profiting from a commodity that could literally fetch more than its weight in gold in the USA.
*
The close careless planting in the photo is a sign of bulk production. But now that Thailand and Laos are eyeing full legalization, the crop is set to once again realize its potential and no doubt ultimately exceed the days when it was branded by Westerners as ‘Thai Stick’.

BBC JOURNALIST NEVER TRIED THAI GANJA, FEEDS ‘SKUNK’ HYSTERIA​

February 21, 2015 · by The Real Seed Company · in cannabis, CBD, drug policy, history, landraces, skunk. ·
David Shukman of the BBC claims that “The weed so familiar to many of my generation was characterised by a relatively balanced amount of THC and CBD” when compared to today’s hybrid strains. This is true only of traditional hashish from regions such as Afghanistan, Morocco, Lebanon and Nepal.
Because old-fashioned cannabis resin (‘hash’) is made from landraces which have been selected for resin production and had little selection for potency, it does indeed often exhibit something approximating a balanced 1:1 THC:CBD ratio. But even back in the ’60s and ’70s, an era in which we are told cannabis was a more innocent and far gentler plant, there was plenty of imported pot in which CBD was often more or less absent and THC levels could be very high. Typically, this took the form either of refined cannabis oil or—more usually—of high quality ganja, meaning cured unseeded or lightly seeded flowering tops from the tropics and subtropics – ‘Thai Stick’ and the like.
522
A traditional ganja strain flowering in Manipur, in the Indian tropics.
In Thailand, Malawi, or regions such as South India, the strains of cannabis that have been grown for centuries to produce ganja most often produce only minimal quantities of CBD and can even exhibit levels of THC comparable to those of so-called ‘skunk’. Back in the hippie heyday, such pot was given informal underground brands like ‘Swazi Red’ or ‘Colombian Gold’.
557
Traditional Indian ganja (‘herbal cannabis’) from Manipur, Northeast India.
In 1975 and 1976 the Laboratory of the Government Chemist reported Thai with as much as 17% THC—and that was after the bud had spent months on boats reaching England. THC levels such as this are far from unusual in Southeast Asia. In the ganja growing heartlands along the Mekong River generations of farmers have provided a continuous selective pressure for potency. Traditionally, a key part of the cannabis economy in Thailand and Laos is said to have been formed by specialists who produced high-quality seed, which was then supplied to farmers. The best of any season’s harvest would come from such fields. Similarly, in the Imphal Valley of Manipur, farmers and home growers know to keep seeds from good (i.e., potent) batches of ganja for sowing the following season. On an early collecting trip to Manipur, for example, I found a householder who only relucantly parted with seed from a standout plant. Growers who know this batch can attest to how potent the best individuals were.
566
A garden of ganja plants midway through harvest in Manipur, India.
Clearly the selective pressure in traditional ganja growing is less intensive than that of the modern so-called ‘clone’ method for breeding skunk, in which selected ‘mother plants’ can be kept indefinitely under 24-hour light regimes. However, the cumulative effect over generations of traditional ganja farming can result in very strong cannabis that’s often in any meaninful sense devoid of CBD. Analysis of samples from tropical India indicates that CBD is typically absent—even in some of the milder Bengali strains. This was the case in the ’60s and remains so today. Regarding THC levels, further evidence that the potency of modern hybrids is far from unprecedented comes, once again, from British seizures. In the words of the Home Office, as recorded in Hansard:
The latest data from the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS) show that the average tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of mature flowering tops from plants, otherwise known as sinsemilla, seized and submitted to the FSS from the 1 January 2008 to the present day was 14.0%. By comparison, during the same period, the average THC content of traditional imported cannabis and cannabis resin was 12.5% and 5.5% respectively.
On average, skunk (the FSS called it ‘sinsemilla’) showed only 1.5% more THC than ganja. So much for many times more potent. And, importantly, only in hashish would THC have been offset by a similar quantity of CBD.
In fairness, the BBC’s reporting on cannabis does seem to be improving. But—even if unwittingly—Aunty is still feeding the skunk hysteria.
Postscript:
Looking again at the LGC data I see that in ’78 a sample of Indian cannabis resin showed 26% THC. Customs bagged a 16% THC batch of Moroccan resin in ’75, and a shipment of Pakistani resin with the same strength in ’78. And then there are the concentrated extracts—‘hash oils’—with Indian, Kenyan and Pakistani samples all hitting around 40% THC. Simple extracts of this potency need to be made from starter material with a high cannabinoid content. The most potent was 48% THC oil from India seized in 1975. This is likely to have been prepared from tropical ganja plants rather than northern, Himalayan charas landraces.
The LGC does make the important point that “Cannabis resins normally had higher THC contents than most herbal material…”. Typically, the ‘herbal cannabis’ reaching UK shores during this era was of fairly low potency—mid to low single figures THC—either because it was from poor stock, or had degraded en route. This does, to be fair, support the kind of line Shukman is taking, though not the current media focus on CBD. Historically, ganja is most unlikely to have contained CBD in any relevant quantity. Some of the best bud to reach Britain in the ’70s appears to have been coming from southern Africa, such as Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—with a sample hitting 12%. Nigerian and South Indian ganja seizures were milder, at 7.4% and 7.8%—less potent, but still typically without any meaningful quantity of CBD.
Manipuri (2)

Manipuri ganja landrace in full flower, Imphal Valley, Northeast India
Should Thai ganja be seen as exceptional? Perhaps for this era in the UK it should, though both the proportion of samples available from seizures and ample anecdotal evidence suggest there was plenty of it about in the country, in addition to the stronger resins and concentrated oils. The LGC points out the unique appearance of the “Thai Stick” brand: “Green or brown sticks of several seedless tops tied around bamboo with a number of sticks compressed into a slab.” I’m sure there are readers who recognise this, either from having seen the real thing back in the day or on their travels.
40960929_2235918826450616_195626865455529984_n

Thai sticks, as shared on Facebook by Peter Maguire, author of Thai Stick: Surfers, Scammers, and the Untold Story of the Marijuana Trade
The LGC figures suggest that the potency of Thai seizures peaked in the early to mid ’70s, and then began to decline after the Vietnam War and the Fall of Saigon. It’s not clear whether this sample is indicative of changes at the source in Isan, Northeast Thailand. But as the authors state, in ’75 and ’76 “by far the highest quality cannabis originated in South East Asia (exclusively in the form of “Thai sticks”) and this was reflected in its street price, at least in the United Kingdom, over the same period. However, the 1978 seizures which originated in Thailand, while still prepared in the form of sticks, showed a dramatic decrease in THC level compared with previous years. A careful study of the physical appearance of seizures of Thai origin for the three years revealed an increasing seed content in the cannabis.”
To take a contrarian line, perhaps the changes that have occurred in the UK over the last two decades are about catching up to highs the market, and its consumers, had already reached in 1975.
The featured image on the homepage is via the authors of a superb new book, Thai Stick: Surfers, Scammers, and the Untold Story of the International Marijuana Trade.
Mango Thai crop2

‘Mango Thai’, a Lao ganja landrace from Vientiane Province, grown indoors, Roms


Article by our friend from, RSC
 
Last edited:

acespicoli

Well-known member
Logo The Seed Bank


Northern Lights #2 is a mostly indica variety from The Seed Bank and can be cultivated indoors. The Seed Banks Northern Lights #2 is a THC dominant variety and is/was never available as feminized seeds.
sturdy, pine tree shaped plant
odor: musty and piney


»»» Purest Indica x Afghani by Don the Indian

The Seed Banks Hash Plant / Northern Lights #1 F-1 Hybrid Description​


Logo The Seed Bank Hash Plant is named for its hashy-tasting, highly resinous buds. One of the most famous indoor cuttings from the Northwest USA, Hash Plant / Northern Lights #1 F-1 Hybrid has produced some of the highest quality F-1 Hybrids that we have seen, High potency, abundant resin, and an extremely fast finish, with very strong Indica high, sophisticated taste and aroma. Excellent indoor plant for personal stash or select commercial trade. Here in Holland, even experienced smokers have had trouble finishing a Joint of Hash Plant / Northern Lights # 1. It has certainly produced the strongest specimens that I have ever smoked, with a very pleasant, narcotic-type high. We are now selecting for the best NL #1 males to use in this tremendous hybrid.

Indoor height at 100 days: 36-50 inches.
Indoor yield at 100 days: up to 85 grams.
Indoor flowering period at 12 hrs. darkness: 40-45 days.
Hash Plant / Northern Lights #1 F-1 Hybrid

The Seed Banks G-13 x Hash Plant F-1 Hybrid Description​


Logo The Seed Bank One of the fastest-flowering indoor hybrids that we have yet produced. It has the marvellous potency and quick finish of Hash Plant, plus vigor and yield. In our lest test, all seedlings finished in less than 50 days of flowering, producing beautifully solid, heavy buds. Clones from the seedlings rooted very easily and should flower even more quickly. Powerful all-Indica high, but not brutal. This hybrid has perhaps the best balance of speed, yield and quality, destined for commercial success!

Indoor height at 100 days: 36-50 inches.
Indoor yield at 100 days: up to 100 grams.
Indoor flowering period at 12 hrs. darkness: 45-50 days.


Neville (The Seed Bank) write in his 1987er-catalouge:

G-13 is an outstanding indica cutting reputedly 'liberated' from the government research program in Mississippi, and now we have it. Widely grown as commercial indoor plant in the US, G-13 has proven to be one of the best breeding plants in our collection. G-13 hybrids have fast indoor flowering, high resin production, excellent potency, and extreme hybrid vigor.

DPH Orig Drop 88G13HP.png

screenshot-www_icmag_com-2024_10_09-08_35_04.png
 

Attachments

  • SeedBank88_3_no3.jpg
    SeedBank88_3_no3.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 3
  • SeedBank88_no2.jpg
    SeedBank88_no2.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 3
  • SeedBank88_1.jpg
    SeedBank88_1.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 3
  • screenshot-mrnice_nl-2024_10_09-08_32_22.png
    screenshot-mrnice_nl-2024_10_09-08_32_22.png
    176.5 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:

acespicoli

Well-known member
Icon image Field Book
Field Book
4.5star

Icon image Prospector
Prospector

Icon image Intercross
Intercross

Icon image Verify
Verify
3.1star

Icon image OneKK
OneKK

Icon image Coordinate
Coordinate

Role in evolution

By introducing novel genetic qualities to a population of organisms, de novo mutations play a critical role in the combined forces of evolutionary change. However, the weight of genetic diversity generated by mutational change is often considered a generally "weak" evolutionary force.[102] Although the random emergence of mutations alone provides the basis for genetic variation across all organic life, this force must be taken in consideration alongside all evolutionary forces at play. Spontaneous de novo mutations as cataclysmic events of speciation depend on factors introduced by natural selection, genetic flow, and genetic drift. For example, smaller populations with heavy mutational input (high rates of mutation) are prone to increases of genetic variation which lead to speciation in future generations. In contrast, larger populations tend to see lesser effects of newly introduced mutated traits. In these conditions, selective forces diminish the frequency of mutated alleles, which are most often deleterious, over time.[119]

Monohybrid cross​

Main article: Monohybrid cross
"Mono-" means "one"; this cross indicates that the examination of a single trait. This could mean (for example) eye color. Each genetic locus is always represented by two letters. So in the case of eye color, say "B = Brown eyes" and "b = green eyes". In this example, both parents have the genotype Bb. For the example of eye color, this would mean they both have brown eyes. They can produce gametes that contain either the B or the b allele. (It is conventional in genetics to use capital letters to indicate dominant alleles and lower-case letters to indicate recessive alleles.) The probability of an individual offspring's having the genotype BB is 25%, Bb is 50%, and bb is 25%. The ratio of the phenotypes is 3:1, typical for a monohybrid cross. When assessing phenotype from this, "3" of the offspring have "Brown" eyes and only one offspring has "green" eyes. (3 are "B?" and 1 is "bb")

Paternal

Maternal
Bb
BBBBb
bBbbb
The way in which the B and b alleles interact with each other to affect the appearance of the offspring depends on how the gene products (proteins) interact (see Mendelian inheritance). This can include lethal effects and epistasis (where one allele masks another, regardless of dominant or recessive status).

Dihybrid cross​

Main article: Dihybrid cross
More complicated crosses can be made by looking at two or more genes. The Punnett square works, however, only if the genes are independent of each other, which means that having a particular allele of gene "A" does not alter the probability of possessing an allele of gene "B". This is equivalent to stating that the genes are not linked, so that the two genes do not tend to sort together during meiosis.

The following example illustrates a dihybrid cross between two double-heterozygote pea plants. R represents the dominant allele for shape (round), while r represents the recessive allele (wrinkled). A represents the dominant allele for color (yellow), while a represents the recessive allele (green). If each plant has the genotype RrAa, and since the alleles for shape and color genes are independent, then they can produce four types of gametes with all possible combinations: RA, Ra, rA, and ra.

RARarAra
RARRAARRAaRrAARrAa
RaRRAaRRaaRrAaRraa
rARrAARrAarrAArrAa
raRrAaRraarrAarraa
Since dominant traits mask recessive traits (assuming no epistasis), there are nine combinations that have the phenotype round yellow, three that are round green, three that are wrinkled yellow, and one that is wrinkled green. The ratio 9:3:3:1 is the expected outcome when crossing two double-heterozygous parents with unlinked genes. Any other ratio indicates that something else has occurred (such as lethal alleles, epistasis, linked genes, etc.).

Forked-line method​

The forked-line method (also known as the tree method and the branching system) can also solve dihybrid and multi-hybrid crosses. A problem is converted to a series of monohybrid crosses, and the results are combined in a tree. However, a tree produces the same result as a Punnett square in less time and with more clarity. The example below assesses another double-heterozygote cross using RrYy x RrYy. As stated above, the phenotypic ratio is expected to be 9:3:3:1 if crossing unlinked genes from two double-heterozygotes. The genotypic ratio was obtained in the diagram below, this diagram will have more branches than if only analyzing for phenotypic ratio.







Importance to evolutionary biology​

According to Lewontin,[5] the theoretical task for population genetics is a process in two spaces: a "genotypic space" and a "phenotypic space". The challenge of a complete theory of population genetics is to provide a set of laws that predictably map a population of genotypes (G1) to a phenotype space (P1), where selection takes place, and another set of laws that map the resulting population (P2) back to genotype space (G2) where Mendelian genetics can predict the next generation of genotypes, thus completing the cycle. Even if non-Mendelian aspects of molecular genetics are ignored, this is a gargantuan task. Visualizing the transformation schematically:

{\displaystyle G_{1}\;{\stackrel {T_{1}}{\rightarrow }}\;P_{1}\;{\stackrel {T_{2}}{\rightarrow }}\;P_{2}\;{\stackrel {T_{3}}{\rightarrow }}\;G_{2}\;{\stackrel {T_{4}}{\rightarrow }}\;G_{1}'\;\rightarrow \cdots }

(adapted from Lewontin 1974, p. 12). T1 represents the genetic and epigenetic laws, the aspects of functional biology, or development, that transform a genotype into phenotype. This is the "genotype–phenotype map". T2 is the transformation due to natural selection, T3 are epigenetic relations that predict genotypes based on the selected phenotypes and finally T4 the rules of Mendelian genetics.

In practice, there are two bodies of evolutionary theory that exist in parallel, traditional population genetics operating in the genotype space and the biometric theory used in plant and animal breeding, operating in phenotype space. The missing part is the mapping between the genotype and phenotype space. This leads to a "sleight of hand" (as Lewontin terms it) whereby variables in the equations of one domain, are considered parameters or constants, where, in a full-treatment, they would be transformed themselves by the evolutionary process and are functions of the state variables in the other domain. The "sleight of hand" is assuming that the mapping is known. Proceeding as if it is understood is enough to analyze many cases of interest. For example, if the phenotype is almost one-to-one with genotype (sickle-cell disease) or the time-scale is sufficiently short, the "constants" can be treated as such; however, there are also many situations where that assumption does not hold.


Genotype–phenotype map​




Genotype-Phenotype Map
A very simple genotype–phenotype map that only shows additive pleiotropy effects.
The genotype–phenotype map is a conceptual model in genetic architecture. Coined in a 1991 paper by Pere Alberch,[1] it models the interdependency of genotype (an organism's full hereditary information) with phenotype (an organism's actual observed properties).

The map visualises a relationship between genotype & phenotype which, crucially:[2]

  1. is of greater complexity than a straightforward one-to-one mapping of genotype to/from phenotype.
  2. accommodates a parameter space, along which at different points a given phenotype is said to be more or less stable.
  3. accommodates transformational boundaries in the parameter space, which divide phenotype states from one another.
  4. accounts for different polymorphism and/or polyphenism in populations, depending on their area of parameter space they occupy.
Evolvability is literally defined as the ability to evolve. In terms of genetics, evolvability is the ability of a genetic system to produce and maintain potentially adaptive genetic variants. There are several aspects of genetic architecture that contribute strongly to the evolvability of a system, including autonomy, mutability, coordination, epistasis, pleiotropy, polygeny, and robustness.[1][2]

  • Autonomy: the existence of quasi-independent characters with the potential for evolutionary autonomy.[5]
  • Mutability: the possibility that genetic mutation can occur.
  • Coordination: a phenomenon such as development, during which many different genetic processes and changes happen at once.
  • Epistasis: a phenomenon in which one gene is dependent on the presence of one or more "modifier" genes.
  • Polygeny: a phenomenon in which multiple genes contribute to a particular phenotypic character.
  • Pleiotropy: a phenomenon in which a single gene affects one or more phenotypic characteristics.
  • Robustness: the ability of a phenotype to remain constant in spite of genetic mutation.

Diploid organisms​

Epistasis in diploid organisms is further complicated by the presence of two copies of each gene. Epistasis can occur between loci, but additionally, interactions can occur between the two copies of each locus in heterozygotes. For a two locus, two allele system, there are eight independent types of gene interaction.

Additive A locusAdditive B locusDominance A locusDominance B locus
aaaAAAaaaAAAaaaAAAaaaAAA
bb10–1bb111bb–11–1bb–1–1–1
bB10–1bB000bB–11–1bB111
BB10–1BB–1–1–1BB–11–1BB–1–1–1
Additive by Additive EpistasisAdditive by Dominance EpistasisDominance by Additive EpistasisDominance by Dominance Epistasis
aaaAAAaaaAAAaaaAAAaaaAAA
bb10–1bb10–1bb1–11bb–11–1
bB000bB–101bB000bB1–11
BB–101BB10–1BB–11–1BB–11–1
1728528015236.png

The schematic, screenshots of representative resources and a user case of CannabisGDB. (a) The flow diagram showing design and construction of CannabisGDB. (b)The home page of CannabisGDB. (c)The ‘varieties module’ providing summary of cannabis genomes, detailed information of cannabis varieties and genome browser tool. (d) The ‘gene loci module’ showing detailed information of genes identified in this study. (e) The ‘metabolites module’ providing chemical phenotypes in various cannabis varieties. (f) The ‘proteins module’ presenting information of experimentally identified proteins. (g) A case study for the application of CannabisGDB. Dashed lines indicate linkages between different pages.
doi: 10.1111/pbi.13548


A​

B​

C​

D​

E​

F​

G​

H​

I​

K​

M​

N​

O​

P​

R​

S​

Categories:
Hidden category:

Post needs some cleaning 🛌
 
Last edited:

acespicoli

Well-known member
The history of scientific method considers changes in the methodology of scientific inquiry, as distinct from the history of science itself. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of one or another approach to establishing scientific knowledge.

This post deserves its own thread?

The philosopher Wesley C. Salmon described scientific inquiry:

The search for scientific knowledge ends far back into antiquity. At some point in the past, at least by the time of Aristotle, philosophers recognized that a fundamental distinction should be drawn between two kinds of scientific knowledge—roughly, knowledge that and knowledge why. It is one thing to know that each planet periodically reverses the direction of its motion with respect to the background of fixed stars; it is quite a different matter to know why. Knowledge of the former type is descriptive; knowledge of the latter type is explanatory. It is explanatory knowledge that provides scientific understanding of the world. (Salmon, 2006, pg. 3)[1]
One way of describing scientific method would then contain these steps as a minimum:

  1. Make a set of observations regarding the phenomenon being studied.
  2. Form a hypothesis that might explain the observations. (This may involve inductive and/or abductive reasoning.)
  3. Identify the implications and outcomes that must follow, if the hypothesis is to be true.
  4. Perform other experiments or observations to see if any of the predicted outcomes fail.
  5. If any predicted outcomes fail, the hypothesis is proven false since if A implies B, then not B implies not A (by deduction). It is then necessary to change the hypothesis and go back to step 3. If the predicted outcomes are confirmed, the hypothesis is not proved, but rather can be said to be consistent with known data.
When a hypothesis has survived a sufficient number of tests, it may be promoted to a scientific theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has survived many tests and seems to be consistent with other established scientific theories. Since a theory is a promoted hypothesis, it is of the same 'logical' species and shares the same logical limitations. Just as a hypothesis cannot be proven but can be disproved, that same is true for a theory. It is a difference of degree, not kind.
1728529032536.png
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top