The facts don't often matter to some.the fact of the matter is...
Theory & practice often doesn't mix together.There was a thread on icmag about why landraces never have inbreed problems.
I read tourists brought seeds from other area's to the Himalaya's but if it is from dry area's they will never succeed.Himalaya area is a big place.
Namaste
sorry for jumping in here,,but;
population genetic theory.. states that; Landrace dont show signes of "inbreeding depreshion" because the meer act of inbreeding is not the problem in itself,,,,"accumulation of deleterious alleles" due selection and possibly inapropreate "effective population numbers" while inbreeding is the problem,,not inbreeding itself
Imperialist theology? That's funny.Nice imperialist theology shown in this thread. It is pitiful that some still think we can improve an indigenous people by giving them "improved" varieties. It has failed time and time again with genetically altered and commercially bred vegetable seed. Sure, they work great when the people are provided with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but once the people are left to fend for themselves, the crops fail and they have long since discarded or watered down the gene pool of the native plants.
Malawi Gold as an example does very well in poor soil, as do most sativas. Try growing skunk #1 in African red soil with little or no fertilizer. Native plants are perfectly adapted to their environment, something that can not be improved upon by man.
I'm sorry, but that is bollocks. What if your indigenous plant is a low yielding plant with very low resin content?something that can not be improved upon by man
Imperialist theology? That's funny.
Look, hemp is not vegetables.
And the improvement of vegetables has been successful time and time and time again.
And who is talking about putting a fertilizer regimen in place and then pulling out? I spoke only of maybe helping the locals with land management and technique.
Also, why do you people keep bringing up Skunk#1 to the discussion? Where did the SK1 come into play? Who said anything about SK1?
Besides, the lineage of sk1 is aGold x afffy x cGold 3/4ths long flowering sativa.
I'm sorry, but that is bollocks. What if your indigenous plant is a low yielding plant with very low resin content?
You know, there is hemp that grows in the US that is now indigenous to the area. It grows wild and is not easily eradicated. For years outdoor growers have allowed pollen to fly and some of the wild hemp that grows actually will get you high. Surely a result of the strain taking on other genes and evolving.
There was a time back say 30 years ago that you could just about count on NO wild hemp getting you high. -at all.
Not the same today with the same wild hemp.
Now imagine actually trying to increase the potency and other attributes of that strain...can't be done?
Imperialist theology?
And the improvement of vegetables has been successful time and time and time again.
What if your indigenous plant is a low yielding plant with very low resin content?
You know, there is hemp that grows in the US that is now indigenous to the area. It grows wild and is not easily eradicated. For years outdoor growers have allowed pollen to fly and some of the wild hemp that grows actually will get you high. Surely a result of the strain taking on other genes and evolving. There was a time back say 30 years ago that you could just about count on NO wild hemp getting you high. -at all.
Not the same today with the same wild hemp.
Now imagine actually trying to increase the potency and other attributes of that strain...can't be done?
I think the traditions of collecting and sharing the heirlooms should be practiced more.
An heirloom preservation collective.
But, can we truly keep what is by nature not to be kept? I say only if nature allows us.
Basically, I had a good post ready, but I think I will decline to debate anymore in this thread. Look, you folks bring vegetables and other crops to the table, crops that are nothing like cannabis, yet you call me dishonest in my argument.why resort to hemp as an example? why not chose an example from the drug cannabis world? this selection suggests that you are conducting your argument dishonestly
You only read mention of the study, you did not post it up. Have you read it?
Basically, I had a good post ready, but I think I will decline to debate anymore in this thread. Look, you folks bring vegetables and other crops to the table, crops that are nothing like cannabis, yet you call me dishonest in my argument.
I see no end to such an ignorant debate. It seems many think I can't get my brain around the thing, but I happen to think I have my brain around much more of it than you do. You are only considering your side of the debate. I have already stated that I do not think collecting and attempting to preserve a line is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I think what you are attempting to do is place me in the cult. I either start genuflecting and waxing eloquently about how sacred the old lines are, and other such cultish rhetoric, or I am simply missing the point it seems.
I suggest it is YOU that is missing my points.
But, I think it is time for me to bow out of this. I refuse to be called dishonest.
I think the traditions of collecting and sharing the heirlooms should be practiced more.
An heirloom preservation collective.
But, can we truly keep what is by nature not to be kept? I say only if nature allows us.
I have not said I was in favor of introducing hybrids to a landrace population, per-se. My stance is that I am not against the use of other than native genes if there is a clear working towards the betterment of that crop. The benefit of that crop should be in the eyes of the farmer, not heirloom genetic collectors.What do you mean cult?
Why complicate things, the way I see it you are in favour of introducing hybrids into landrace populations because you think they will perform better and benefit the farmer.
Again, it is the farmer who really needs to be consulted here. You are wanting to save the genes for reasons that have little to do with the farmer.I and others are against it because we dont want to lose unique genepools that have distinct qualities.
Of course they will. And the reason for this fact is the very nature of cannabis itself. What you have collected may well be an untainted landrace variety. But grow it once somewhere else, just about anywhere else for that matter, and what you now have are no longer what you did have.I also think the indiginous strain will grow best in its own environment.
It took a bit longer than expected, but here it is. The third episode is already being edited.
STRAIN HUNTERS INDIA EXPEDITION FULL MOVIE (HD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf36qk3xR9Q&p=93DB6675F960C041&index=2&playnext=1
I think you need to think deeper than what you already consider deep, look at the big picture. You say you don't want strains eradicated, but what you fail to understand about adding a new gene from somewhere else(especially if it is a dominant gene or invasive such as GMO) it has the potential to take over the area by cross pollination and if this happened to all of africa's herb and there was a trait that made the introduced gene weak to a certain bug that lives native there then you risk losing all of the Herb in africa because you failed to preserve the heirloom genes that were resistant to local bugs because it has evolved that way. It's happened before to many examples of life. Ever heard of the irish potato famine? that's what happens when you only have one type of potato and it's genetic traits make it not resistant to bugs/mold. the farmer you speak of who needs to get more yield is now starving and dieing and there is no herb/potato for him and his family.So, one must treat the plant in a specific way to not be stubborn?
Does that sort of thing not reinforce the cult aspect that I mentioned?
I don't want strains eradicated. Good grief. But to think that a farmer can't introduce genes to improve his crop, and only in the interest of preserving something that wasn't meant to be preserved anyway? Bollocks. The first and major concern should be the farmer and his needs, and not the whims of others from distant lands. If it were to bother someone so bad, all they need do is collect seeds and store them, right? Then let have at, no?
There are so many more variables that come into play besides the photo period when it comes to phenotype expression. And what I said about the plant not being the same when grown elsewhere is spot on for ALL indigenous cannabis.
I tend to have a problem with the preservation crowds, be it cannabis or snail darters. When the preserving of these things, with nothing more in mind than preservation, hinders the progress of man, it sort of gaulds my sack. Are we sharper than nature and know what needs to be, and what needs not to be?
I don't know. You?