Fem seeds and there impact on the future of the species known as cannabis.

  • Thread starter Thread starter hempy
  • Start date Start date
hi DarwinsBulldog

the potential was already there in the genetics , be it in the case of the horses or any other species..

The fact we have faster horses now is not only due to the fact we selected for and bred towards desired traits , ie more muscles but is also due to the fact that the care/nutrition/living conditions etc are much better nowadays and we have all the new technology and advanced science that helps too. But the genetic potential was there!

As for the rest you posted , I don't see your point I m afraid..what hempy meant if I understand things right, is that the potential was already there we just had to find ways to take advantage of that potential , and be it through simple selection or advanced breeding practices. But it was there to begin with..it wasn't humans that made cannabis psychoative or gave the plant the potential to produce high THC content.

my point is that anything has the potential to evolve anything. that's the whole point of evolution, everything alive today evolved from the same thing originally, a single celled organism which wouldn't have "already" had the ability to do all the things it's descendants can... but because of DNA in it, it was able to do or change into anything. DNA has the potential to do anything, change into anything, create any chemical etc. so the potential to create any chemical, ie. THC is in the potential of any living organism. it's chance and selection (genetic drift/natural or artificial selection) that decides when/if it pops up and then fixes in the population. cannabis once existed without the ability to form THC. 1 individual plant would have by chance evolved the ability to form THC (from a previously similar chemical it produced) one day 1000s or 1000000s of years ago, it was beneficial, it eventually spread through the population and became fixed because animals preferred plants with less THC, so they ate any that didn't produce it. anyway...
 
my point is that anything has the potential to evolve anything. that's the whole point of evolution, everything alive today evolved from the same thing originally, a single celled organism which wouldn't have "already" had the ability to do all the things it's descendants can... but because of DNA in it, it was able to do or change into anything. DNA has the potential to do anything, change into anything, create any chemical etc. so the potential to create any chemical, ie. THC is in the potential of any living organism. it's chance and selection (genetic drift/natural or artificial selection) that decides when/if it pops up and then fixes in the population. cannabis once existed without the ability to form THC. 1 individual plant would have by chance evolved the ability to form THC (from a previously similar chemical it produced) one day 1000s or 1000000s of years ago, it was beneficial, it eventually spread through the population and became fixed because animals preferred plants with less THC, so they ate any that didn't produce it. anyway...

You def have the right name to comment on evolution haha... we could of easily become Bananas and some I think have gone that way.
 
Think they did that with hops didn't they?

i'm not sure if they've done it yet, but it would be possible sure, especially because they're already very closely related plant species. all you would need to do is isolate in cannabis the allele/s or genes that regulate (code for) the chemical Δ1-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) (forgive me, above i refer to the chemical in cannabis as THC, i mean THCA, THC is formed after you've harvested the plant and THCA breaks down while drying i believe into THC. combusting it is also part of the process too i think) and genetically engineer it into the DNA of Humulus (hops). i'm no genetic engineer but i'd say you'd just have to insert it into the same region/area of DNA in Hops from which it came from in Cannabis. it wouldn't be simple, but you could do it. biology and evolution are amazing things, the possibilities are limitless.
 
anything is in the potential of the DNA of any organism in the first place l33t, cannabis still evolved from the same ancestor as us so anything can change to form anything else at the end of the day, with enough time. everything is made from exactly the same building blocks, they've just gone off in different directions over time to survive in whatever environment that exist in. you could genetically modify effectively anything to do anything, that's proof in and of itself that whether or not something has the ability to do something today (naturally), doesn't define whether it will be able to do it or not tomorrow.
I 'm not sure where you want to steer the discussion to DarwinsBulldog but I was talking about the potential that is already found in the genetics not possible future potential (!) like in the case of using genes from different species or from future gene mutations

I was referring to cannabis and the horses examples you posted , man did not do any genetic engineering to get to the results (strains) we have nowadays. So although it was man that made so many lines through selection and breeding the potential was already there in the genetics. We did not change the genes manually and made faster horses and we did not change genes to make cannabis have the potential to produce high THC. There are the potential and limitations that exist due to how things are written in the genetic code!

For example you can cross all the strains you want and do as much selection as you like but you cannot cross some 'barrier lines' , ie you won't make a strain produce 50%THC by dry bud weight , its impossible , due to genetic limitations.
But we can and already have managed to create strains with say 15% THC or more because the genetics allow us to do so. The ability to produce buds with such a THC content was in the genetic potential of this species if it wasnt we wouldnt be able to make such strains..at least not without Genetic Engineering.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
 
Last edited:
You def have the right name to comment on evolution haha... we could of easily become Bananas and some I think have gone that way.

haha well effectively yeah... had that original vertebrate not evolved a hardened tube in its back, we'd have never evolved back bones, or bones at all. had that fish never needed to move out of water on its front fins, hands in any animals would never have evolved, nor lungs, nor ears, nor legs for that matter... everything only happened the way it did (in each and every organism) because the step in evolution before hand allowed it to. BUT anything could have, and can still happen, it just has to be worked towards step by step each new step being beneficial and improving the fitness of the animal in the environment it lives in at that time. you can't just leap from the bottom to the top of the stairs at once, it's a slow steady climb (nothing just evolves an eye or shell or bones over night).

lol here are wild bananas from which we artificially selected todays seedless bananas with more fruit, no seeds, with better taste etc.

wild-banana.jpg


look up the evolution of raptors into birds... it's amazing how basic each evolutionary step was, it took millions of years, but it happened. not all dinosaurs died out, the velociraptors you see in jurassic park (which should have feathers all over them i might add) evolved into all the birds of today.
 
I 'm not sure where you want to steer the discussion to DarwinsBulldog but I was talking about the potential that is already found in the genetics not possible future potential (!) like in the case of using genes from different species or from future gene mutations

I was referring to cannabis and the horses examples you posted , man did not do any genetic engineering to get to the results (strains) we have nowadays. So although it was man that made so many lines through selection and breeding the potential was already there in the genetics. We did not change the genes manually and made faster horses and we did not change genes to make cannabis have the potential to produce high THC. There are the potential and limitations that exist due to how things are written in the genetic code!

For example you can cross all the strains you want and do as much selection as you like but you cannot cross some 'barrier lines' , ie you won't make a strain produce 50%THC by dry bud weight , its impossible , due to genetic limitations.
But we can and already have managed to create strains with say 15% THC or more because the genetics allow us to do so. The ability to produce buds with such a THC content was in the genetic potential of this species if it wasnt we wouldnt be able to make such strains..at least not without Genetic Engineering.

genetic limitations in the plants that you see today. polyploidy (doubling up of chromosomes and thus genes) could create plants with a possible 50% THC content it's suggested. something could change tomorrow in one plant allowing it to produce 50% THC in dry bud form, a mutation arising whereby the genes that allow the plant to produce THCA doubled up, it's happened all the time in nature, hox genes (code for the amount of body segments in invertebrates) in arthropods/insects etc define the number of legs, insects have 6, centipedes have many 10s, this is because the centipede's ancestor's hox genes multiplied through mutations producing many more legs than already occurred in other related animals.

maybe instead of producing trichomes cannabis could evolve a way of secreting much more resin in a sticky liquid that could coat the leaves than in stiff crystalized resin glands in the future. the point is anything can change, boundaries aren't set forever. but i know what you mean my friend, currently we have only what the plant can physically/genetically do right this moment to work with, but things are able to change completely and in very short time. maybe once cannabis is studied by geneticists in the future and we know a lot more about the genetics of the plant, THCA content could be boosted a heap more by genetic engineering. but yes currently the plant has reached its current physical limits when it comes to THCA production, or so it's believed.
 
For example you can cross all the strains you want and do as much selection as you like but you cannot cross some 'barrier lines' , ie you won't make a strain produce 50%THC by dry bud weight , its impossible , due to genetic limitations.
But we can and already have managed to create strains with say 15% THC or more because the genetics allow us to do so. The ability to produce buds with such a THC content was in the genetic potential of this species if it wasnt we wouldnt be able to make such strains..at least not without Genetic Engineering.

GW Pharmaceuticals is already using strains developed by Hortapharm of 98% THC & 97% CBD of the total cannabinoids without GMO-technics for Sativex.
Sea-Crop has been proven in research that it has the ability to increase certain constituents.
Nothing is impossible.

http://www.terragenics.com/

Namaste :)
 
Btw even scientists dissagree on the dino/bird connection issue , here is some interesting info:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

it was more the example than whether or not it is proven wrong in the future. one organism can change into a completely different one with enough time. i could've used evolution of whales as a better example if you wanted. they evolved from wolf like carnivorous creatures on land, that eventually became semi aquatic spending some time in the water, then started hunting in the water, until it survived completely in the water and its legs slowly reduced in size until they were no longer outside the body, it's lungs got bigger, blow hole moved to the top of its head, etc etc etc... all mammals today evolved from a rat like creature from 70-65 million years ago. look at all the different kinds of mammals that inhabit the earth today, all coming from that same single species once upon a time. shit can change fast. 65 million years isn't a great deal of time considering crocodiles looked almost identical to what they do today only 65 million years ago though they've been evolving the entire time, how messed up is that?

edit: sorry for getting off topic hempy.
 
Last edited:
hi Namaskar

GW strains like the ones you mention which are bred with traditional selection/breeding methods show that the potential to get plants with such cannabinoid ratios was already there in the genetics.
 
GW Pharmaceuticals is already using strains developed by Hortapharm of 98% THC & 97% CBD of the total cannabinoids without GMO-technics for Sativex.

one thing for sure they like selfing as a tool.

A model involving one locus, B, with two alleles, B D and B T, is proposed, with the two alleles being codominant. The mixed chemotypes are interpreted as due to the genotype B D / B T at the B locus, while the pure-chemotype plants are due to homozygosity at the B locus (either B D / B D or B T / B T ). It is suggested that such codominance is due to the codification by the two alleles for different isoforms of the same synthase, having different specificity for the conversion of the common precursor cannabigerol into CBD or THC, respectively. The F 2 segregating groups were used in a bulk segregant analysis of the pooled DNAs for screening RAPD primers; three chemotype-associated markers are described, one of which has been transformed in a sequence-characterized amplified region (SCAR) marker and shows tight linkage to the chemotype and codominance

Aim of the work

This study aims to clarify the inheritance of cannabinoid chemotype, by isolating pure CBD and pure THC inbred lines. A simple inheritance model was proposed after making crosses between the chemotypically contrasting lines and examining a number of F 1 and F 2 progenies. An RAPD analysis of the parental lines and their offspring was performed and a number of chemotype-associated markers were described

Constitution of inbred lines:

All parentals used in this study were doubly inbred plants (S 2 's) obtained through the self-fertilization of selected female clones from the Cannabis collection of HortaPharm B.V., The Netherlands. The original plants had either CBD or THC as the predominant cannabinoid. The 00.45.1 clone was an exception, having both CBD and THC in similar amounts. The clones were obtained through in vivo propagation of lateral branches. An individual from each clone was partially sex reversed according to the procedure described by M OHAN R AM and S ETT 1982 and allowed to self-pollinate in isolation. In many cases it was possible to collect sufficient viable seed to constitute a first-generation inbred line (S 1 ), which was completely female and showing the same chemotype as the parental clone. The 00.45.1 S 1, however, segregated into pure CBD, mixed CBD-THC, and pure THC individuals. Here, further inbreeding was restricted to the pure CBD plants. An S 2 generation was produced from some of the S 1 plants, using the same procedure described above. The work focused on six S 2 lines, briefly described in Table 1. A leaf sample was collected for DNA analysis from 10 to 20 plants per S 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of the parental inbred lines

Production of F 1 's and F 2 's:

Seven individual plants belonging to the six S 2 lines with contrasting chemotypes were chosen to produce hybrid F 1 's. The individual female plants used as pollen parents were partially sex reversed and placed in isolation cabinets with the seed parent plants. The crosses performed are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Pedigrees and codes of the studied progenies

The next season, a variable number of individual plants of the four different F 1 's were grown and their chemotype was determined. Again, leaf samples from 5-20 plants belonging to the four F 1 's were taken for molecular analysis. Ten F 1 plants (3 plants from cross 99.3, 3 from 99.4, 1 from 99.5, and 3 from 99.6; Table 2 ) were again treated to obtain partial sex reversion, isolated, and allowed to set F 2 seed. The seeds were sown and a variable number of F 2 mature plants, ranging from 35 to 118, were evaluated for chemotype; leaf samples were again collected for DNA analysis. During three seasons (1998-2000), the complete cycle from the parental S 2 inbred lines to the different F 2 progenies was accomplished under similar greenhouse conditions and strict isolation. Confirmation of the genetic femaleness of all the plants was based on the absence of any male-specific marker.

RESULTS

Variation in cannabinoid composition:

Examples of Cannabis gas-chromatographic profiles are shown in Fig 1A. The variation found within accessions is usually at both levels of cannabinoid type (different retention times) and amount (different peak areas), confirming other authors' observations ( S MALL and B ECKSTEAD 1973; DE M EIJER et al. 1992 ). Plants with only a single dominant cannabinoid (THC or CBD in this study) are present as 95-98% of the total cannabinoid content ( Fig 1A, top and middle chromatograms). Such plants are here termed as pure chemotypes and can be found naturally occurring within accessions or can be produced by crossing or self-fertilizing plants showing a mixed chemotype ( Fig 1A, bottom chromatogram; see below).

S 2 inbred lines:

If the clone originally used to produce the S 2 was of a pure CBD or THC chemotype, this chemotype is preserved throughout all the subsequent inbred generations, although the absolute amount of the dominant cannabinoid still shows considerable variation, as demonstrated by the standard deviations found ( Table 1 ).

The molecular analysis performed on the S 2 lines suggested a narrowing of the genetic variation within these materials, especially if compared with noninbred populations as examined previously ( F ORAPANI et al. 2001 ). The percentage of polymorphisms detectable by RAPD analysis (three primers) ranged from 17.3 to 46.4% ( Table 1 ), while it was previously reported to be from 65 to 80% within the most common Italian and French fiber cultivars ( F ORAPANI et al. 2001 ).

F 1 hybrids:

When the S 2 plants were mutually crossed as indicated in Table 2, all F 1 plants examined contained both CBD and THC in considerable amounts, and no pure chemotypes were found. An example of the distribution of the F 1 plants (F 1 99.3) in a CBD vs. THC plot is presented in Fig 2, where the values for the parental plants are also indicated. Fig 2 shows a heterotic effect for the total cannabinoid content (CBD + THC) and in particular a strong increase of the CBD content of the F 1 's as compared with the parental CBD content. Similar patterns were found in two of the other F 1 's. However, there was no such effect on the total cannabinoid content in the 99.4 F 1.

Figure 2. CBD vs. THC content for the 99.3 F 1 progeny. The positions of the F 1 plants are indicated by open triangles; their parents (belonging to the CBD line 94.4.12.63 and to the THC line 55.22.7.10, respectively) are indicated by open squares. The cannabinoid content is expressed as weight percentage of the dry, mature inflorescence.

Surprisingly, the CBD/THC ratio appeared to vary in a clear progeny-specific way. The average ratio varied significantly ( P < 0.001) from 0.50 (F 1 99.4) up to 1.57 (F 1 99.5), where only four plants could be analyzed ( Table 3 ).

Table 3. CBD/THC ratios of heterozygous plants

The molecular analysis of the F 1 plants was again carried out by using three RAPD primers and comparing the loci identified in the parental plants with those present in the F 1 progenies. In the four progenies, from 5.6% (99.3) to 37.5% (99.4) of the RAPD loci scored in the parental plants segregated in the F 1 (data not shown). This indicates that a still significant number of loci were in the heterozygous state in the S 2 parentals.

F 2 inbreds:

The CBD vs. THC contents of one of the F 2 's examined are plotted in Fig 3. Within each F 2, the individuals could unmistakably be assigned to three different segregant groups on the basis of large discontinuities in the calculated CBD/THC ratios. Data on the segregation of chemotypes in the different F 2 's are shown in Table 4. For all F 2 's, the results of the 2 test accepted the model of a single locus with two codominant alleles. In those F 2 's where the segregation ratios deviated most from 1:2:1 (largest 2 values), this was consistently due to an underrepresentation of pure CBD chemotypes.

Figure 3. CBD vs. THC content plot of the 99.6.14 F 2 progeny (circles). The positions of the single F 1 plant (open triangle), self-fertilized to obtain this F 2, and of the initial pure-CBD and pure-THC parents (open squares) are indicated. Cannabinoid content is expressed as weight percentage of the dry, mature inflorescences.

Table 4. Chemotype segregation data

As in the F 1 's, the CBD/THC ratio for heterozygous plants in the F 2 's again appeared to be strongly progeny dependent. ANOVA and a multiple-comparison least-squared difference (LSD) test performed on heterozygous CBD/THC ratios of all evaluated F 1 and F 2 progenies showed highly significant differences among progenies ( P < 0.001; Table 3 ). Especially, the 99.4 progenies form a very distinct cluster as they are composed of heterozygotes having a much higher proportion of THC than of CBD. In all other progenies the proportion of CBD in heterozygotes exceeds, to a varying extent, the THC proportion. Small, though significant, differences in mean CBD/THC ratio do occur among progenies sharing the same pedigree. However, the F 1 CBD/THC ratios (assessed in a different year from the F 2 ratios) are transmitted with very little change to the heterozygotes of the corresponding inbred F 2 's.
 
hi Namaskar

GW strains like the ones you mention which are bred with traditional selection/breeding methods show that the potential to get plants with such cannabinoid ratios was already there in the genetics.

YOU have to select for them is the point. it won't happen by itself.
 
No just the only way it can be measured is as such, don't be so condescending..

r = (ln(x2) - ln(x1)) / Dt

I know how it works, which was the point you clearly missed (hopefully Nev hasn't((was just a little jab)) though you have helped rely the point... .

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2459757

and which was something DM eluded to ie we create high THC plants not nature... WE select, WE play god as you put it... but since Hempy is using humans as an example I could use this and say the rate of evolution slows with Y

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007276

yes we did how meany wild strains have we killed already by making what we have playing with thc% ect? evolution should be done slowly that way mistakes can be seen before its to late. in nature things evolve slowly why? maybe stability maybe because thing evolve wrong and need eliminating early on before its to late? how knows not me or you. somethings cant be seen with the human eye chemicals can react and change without anyone noticing. now how do you stop your fems from affecting other plant and wild life ect do you grow indoor do you stop pollen leaving your room? or do you just blow it out side? see your playing god with thinks you dont understand and putting it in fancy text doesn't make it any better at all. its the scientists of this world that are most dangerous to it. by all means grow fems breed fems i am not saying dont. i am saying do it responsible we have a responsibility to not just be smart arses and make thing how we wont them. but also preserve what we have first and foremost and not make the mistakes of the past thinking we know best. take a look at how Meany old strain people are looking for that dont exist? why cross pollination? because something else was better at the time so we didn't need it? now they wont it were is it? extinct because we new better at the time because we wonted more. so did we know better really did we or did we just wont something else at the time? to put it in simple terms have you got a 100% female line breed for say 30+ generations? do you know what one looks like? do you know what happens if you cross one to a regular strain and how it affects it? do you know the effects of spraying generations of plants with chemicals to make female seeds no? have you really respected what was here before your seeds or what nature gave you to use properly? or just been selfish by not researching there effects in a controlled environment before letting them out to do there unseen damage? that's the point most people dont know what effects they can have on other plants or simply spraying a plant with chemicals generation after generation and the reaction that happen in the plant as it obviously dose. if it didn't make a reaction the plant wouldn't change sex in the first place. allot of people dont think its bad to have fem only crops they think its bad to make them without first researching the effects they have. these are all things that should of been looked into before a single seed was sold or made public and didn't. now that's the problem selfishness greed ignorance nothing more nothing less. people against fem seeds only wont what would of afto been done on any other plant before it could be consumed by people. nothing more nothing less. i dont see how anyone can have a problem with that. unless they stand to lose money or get a bad reputation for jumping the gun and making something public that shouldn't of been. its kind of sad people get all defensive over it when they say they love the plant so much. if it was any other plant that was to be consumed it would of been tested long ago by a independent source. so i dont see why cannabis should be any different. do you or anyone think it honestly should be different just because its cannabis?
 
yes we did how meany wild strains have we killed already by making what we have playing with thc% ect? evolution should be done slowly that way mistakes can be seen before its to late. in nature things evolve slowly why? maybe stability maybe because thing evolve wrong and need eliminating early on before its to late? how knows not me or you. somethings cant be seen with the human eye chemicals can react and change without anyone noticing. now how do you stop your fems from affecting other plant and wild life ect do you grow indoor do you stop pollen leaving your room? or do you just blow it out side? see your playing god with thinks you dont understand and putting it in fancy text doesn't make it any better at all. its the scientists of this world that are most dangerous to it. by all means grow fems breed fems i am not saying dont. i am saying do it responsible we have a responsibility to not just be smart arses and make thing how we wont them. but also preserve what we have first and foremost and not make the mistakes of the past thinking we know best. take a look at how Meany old strain people are looking for that dont exist? why cross pollination? because something else was better at the time so we didn't need it? now they wont it were is it? extinct because we new better at the time because we wonted more. so did we know better really did we or did we just wont something else at the time? to put it in simple terms have you got a 100% female line breed for say 30+ generations? do you know what one looks like? do you know what happens if you cross one to a regular strain and how it affects it? do you know the effects of spraying generations of plants with chemicals to make female seeds no? have you really respected what was here before your seeds or what nature gave you to use properly? or just been selfish by not researching there effects in a controlled environment before letting them out to do there unseen damage? that's the point most people dont know what effects they can have on other plants or simply spraying a plant with chemicals generation after generation and the reaction that happen in the plant as it obviously dose. if it didn't make a reaction the plant wouldn't change sex in the first place. allot of people dont think its bad to have fem only crops they think its bad to make them without first researching the effects they have. these are all things that should of been looked into before a single seed was sold or made public and didn't. now that's the problem selfishness greed ignorance nothing more nothing less. people against fem seeds only wont what would of afto been done on any other plant before it could be consumed by people. nothing more nothing less. i dont see how anyone can have a problem with that. unless they stand to lose money or get a bad reputation for jumping the gun and making something public that shouldn't of been. its kind of sad people get all defensive over it when they say they love the plant so much. if it was any other plant that was to be consumed it would of been tested long ago by a independent source. so i dont see why cannabis should be any different. do you or anyone think it honestly should be different just because its cannabis?

Go and look at how Crops are bred, you like many others are missing all that has been proven.
 
LOL we could have an argument about that.. ;)

I don't wanna say that it is his invention, but i think he introduced it at Hortapharm where he started to work just after getting his degree.I still have his book about Cannabis diversity.Great book btw.

Namaste :)
 
I don't wanna say that it is his invention, but i think he introduced it at Hortapharm where he started to work just after getting his degree.I still have his book about Cannabis diversity.Great book btw.

Namaste :)

that book is it only available in paper form ?

Kopite
 
YOU have to select for them is the point. it won't happen by itself.

animals also like eating thc use plants for bedding ect. as cannabis seeds dont fly around in the wind chances are shit from animals that like thc ect eating cannabis help more in the wild. not just to spread seed but also help seeds germinate with there seed shits. best plant get eating then shit out with a fresh supply of feed natural selection. selection for smell taste and affect isn't just a human thing. selection in the wild may take longer because animals dont use tools like us naturally but they get there. only they make things evolve to benefit more than i species because more than one species help the plant evolve. helping more than themselves is something we should do more of and not just leave the uncivilized species to do.
 
Back
Top