Genetically Engineered Cannabis

[SOTF420]

Well my plant was not male and it made 1/3 more beans than the other plants of the same stock and same age, conditions, ect. It also passed the traits on to it's seeds in a large %. I don't need pics to prove it to you I have the seeds that grow out the whorled plants lmao. Chimera you really need to calm down and relax man you seem very angry probably why your other posts got removed just calm down have a smoke man. You should smoke some GF x BB.

 

[guest456mpy]

I want to also discuss the possibilities of the government running thousands of acre's of Hemp to produce Fuel! I read about this some where and really didnt know where to post it. But since its already escalated this far and my class tomorrow will be discussing I would love some insight. Do you think this would ever be possible? Or maybe by then they will have a way of making more bushier plants to produce hemp to fuel our cars? We are running out of fossil fuels and it will be sooner than we think.

Up to the late 40's my farm was a subsidized hemp grower for the Navy. I think that's the model that may play out for industrial hemp.

 

[ShroomDr]

I don't see the point in painting with such a large brush. If you want to call everything that has ever been bred by man a GMO

THATS BECAUSE ITS NOT GMO.

Genetically Engineered Organism ≠ GMO. (Ford = automobile, an automobile ≠ Ford.)

An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems.

Your horse is too fragile, and your donkey is too stubborn, apply scientific knowledge and ingenuity to these technical limitations and you get a MULE. Your not modifying the Mule's DNA, you're engineering a more useful pack animal.

Why is this so difficult? I think i give up.

 

[StoneElemental]

Just here to discuss not fight. What you're comparing seems rather ridiculous in my thoughts. Comparing selective breeding to all out genetic/dna manipulation thru a lab is downright maddening. I don't necessarily agree with selective breeding sometimes altho I do know that I don't agree at all with direct manipulation of another organisms genetic structure. IMO if anyone is in any support of the latter might aswell get that barcode tattoo on the back of you neck now so you'll at least have first pick on a number. Understanding genomes to better understand ones self and surroundings is ok. Any manipulation is pretty close to frankenstein being made of different people or aliens mating with ancient apes to form a human. It's simply disturbing and awfully wrong in my belief.

-S.E.

THATS BECAUSE ITS NOT GMO.

Genetically Engineered Organism ≠ GMO. (Ford = automobile, an automobile ≠ Ford.)



Your horse is too fragile, and your donkey is too stubborn, apply scientific knowledge and ingenuity to these technical limitations and you get a MULE. Your not modifying the Mule's DNA, you're engineering a more useful pack animal.

Why is this so difficult? I think i give up.

 

[ShroomDr]

Just here to discuss not fight. What you're comparing seems rather ridiculous in my thoughts. Comparing selective breeding to all out genetic/dna manipulation thru a lab is downright maddening. I don't necessarily agree with selective breeding sometimes altho I do know that I don't agree at all with direct manipulation of another organisms genetic structure.

There is no fight, i am POSITIVE the M in GMO doesn't stand for Engineering. Engineering is the word in the title of this thread.

Grass has been engineered into rice, wheat, corn, bamboo, etc. Seedless watermelon and mules are both examples of man made engineering without modifying the organisms genome. Neither would occur in nature without mans intervention. Creating cannabis plants that are sterile is not a difficult process, humans have been doing it to other organisms for centuries. (You dont need monstanto's GMO terminator gene.)



Genetically Modified Organism = Genetic Engineering BUT Genetic Engineering ≠ GMO (all fords are autos, not all autos are fords)

semantics.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

Genetically Engineered Organism ≠ GMO. (Ford = automobile, an automobile ≠ Ford.)

Why is this so difficult? I think i give up.

GEO and GMO are synonyms.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species.

Mules aren't GEOs. The term GEO does not apply to traditionally bred cultivars.

 

[ShroomDr]

GEO and GMO are synonyms.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species.

that is wiki definition. here is Dictionary.com

Cultural Dictionary

GMO definition

The abbreviation for genetically modified organism. A GMO is an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there.

Wiki often lacks the specificity that semantics are based on. GMO uses Genetic Engineering, but that doesnt make them synonyms. (Auto is not a synonym of Ford.) The Dictionary.com definition is a lot less encompassing and more explicit in its definition.

How do you define engineered?

 

[GreenintheThumb]

What's the definition of GEOs then?

And why would you want to look up the term 'genetic' and then look up the term 'engineer' and try to combine them in your mind instead of just looking up 'genetic engineering'?

 

[Chimera]

http://www.sciencedictionary.org/agriculture-term-details/Genetically-Modified-Organisms-GMO

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO):
A term, currently used most often in international trade discussions, that designates crops that carry new traits that have been inserted through advanced genetic engineering methods (e.g., Flavr Saver tomato, Roundup Ready soybeans, Bt cotton, Bt corn). GMO crops are meeting resistence from some trading partners, particularly the European Union, that are responding in turn to consumer concerns over public health and environmental safety aspects of GMOs. USDA also is being pressured to declare GMOs unacceptable in the proposed National Organic Program. The U.S. scientific community maintains that research shows GMOs to be safe and that the regulatory process for their commercial approval, which includes USDA, Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, is an adequate safeguard against any potential problems.

http://www.sciencedictionary.org/agriculture-term-details/Genetically-Modified-Organisms-GMO

Genetic engineering:
The use of recombinant DNA or other specific molecular gene transfer or exchange techniques to add desirable traits to plants, animals, or other organisms, or to enhance biological processes. Organisms modified by genetic engineering are sometimes referred to as transgenic, bioengineered, or genetically modified. The Agricultural Research Service does in-house research in this field, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the release of genetically engineered organisms for field experiments.

http://www.sciencedictionary.org/agriculture-term-details/Genetic-engineering


Scientists don't use the term "Genetically Engineered Organism", they use GMO or "Genetically Modified Organism".

One is the result of the process, the other is the process.... but again we're arguing semantics here....

Ankle bitingly,
-Chimera

 

[Chimera]

Funny how you can tell people what they had & did not have as far as experimental all hermaphroditic hemp goes with potential traits suggesting "terminator genes" when you were not there and did not see it for yourself.

I know because there is a very rigorous set of procedures that ALL genetically modified organisms have to go through in order to be field tested. this process leaves a very distinct and discoverable paper trail.

I don't expect you to know that... your level of comprehension doesn't even reach "what is a triploid organism", so how could you possibly understand the more intricate minutia involving the requirements for the release of GMO's in the US, Canada and the EU. If you did understand these requirements, concepts and processes you'd know where to look to find the approval requirements, schedules and time-lines.... which you obviously haven't done because you are here arguing that I possibly couldn't know... yet somehow I do. How weird is that?

But of course! You aren't here to contribute to the thread you are here to troll an otherwise positive discussion.... now please take your kool-aid and run along the nappy-nap area.

Respectfully,
-Chimera

 

[DocLeaf]

I was interested to learn about "gene guns" lately,, and how scientists take 'smuggled' viruses such as recombined E Coli DNA alongside soil viruses and ferry them into a plants nucleus using gold particles coated with the engineered DNA. And that the promoter gene used comes from the cabbage mosaic virus. That's heavy!

Gene Gun : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun

Never surprisingly DuPont was behind its design !!!

peace n flowers

 

[Throwgar]

Cannabis has been genetically engineered by humans since it was domesticated 10,000 years ago.

 

[DocLeaf]

Cannabis has been genetically engineered by humans since it was domesticated 10,000 years ago.

NO ^^ Cannabis has been bred and selected by humans based on genetics,, but never 'engineered' until recent years.

Engineering requires tools and machinery.

Please read Chimera's post above (#109)

 

[SOTF420]

Chimpera so very classy! I am choosing the HIGH road again despite your immature banter, kinda sad really but hey thats your style. Whats next, cryptic animal insults disguised as misspelled usernames? I think that pretty much sums it up.

Peace be with you, keep it locked.

 

[Chimera]

The "gene gun" was the first methodology used to deliver recombinant DNA into the nucleus of a given plant, where natural processes incorporate the DNA via recombination at regions of high homolgy to the gene of interest.

The real genetic dance, IMO, is the use of agrobacterium tumefasciens as a delivery system to introduce foreign genes into genomes- the agrobacterium does this naturally as it infects a plant. We've just altered the bacteria's genes to remove the virulence factors and replaced them with a section to insert "our gene of choice". The plant does it's natural thing, and delivers the "gene of interest" into our host's genome.

I believe that many people who are against GM technology and recombinant DNA don't understand that genes move about between species already- the proof is in species like Agrobacterium tumefasciens. We are just exploiting this natural process to our suit own purposes. How we do the work and with what ethical considerations is the real issue that needs attention.

Biotechnology firms purport that GMO's will benefit the farmer and the consumer. To this point however, most benefits have come to the biotech firms like Monsanto and their shareholders, and not the consumers in terms of improved nutrition, not the starving in Africa who have been told we can engineer drought resistant crop varieties. This isn't to say the technology is bad per se, only that corporate interests are using the technology for their own benefit, and not ours.

Agree with the technology or not, it's fascinating stuff IMO.

-Chimera

Here's a couple of pages that detail the process, and one video simulation that might catch people up in some of the terminology.... it's geek speak. Of course anyone can search Agrobacterium tumefasciens on google and get millions of results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium_tumefaciens
http://arabidopsis.info/students/agrobacterium/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmyZvOpAnuY&feature=related

 

[Chimera]

Another great contribution. Thanks for taking the time.
Does that post reflect the high road?

Again, your agenda from other threads is so thin... somehow you take an honest appraisal of the truth as an insult. You could rectify the problem by educating yourself, yet instead you post to show how you are taking the high road and I am an asshole, yes we get it... we got it in the 4 posts of yours that were already deleted by the moderator.

This quote from your sig seems so appropriate yet again: "...I make up all kinds of stories to entertain myself..."

Are you entertained? How about an on topic contribution?

Respectfully,
-Chimera

 

[GreenintheThumb]

The obvious troll is obvious.

edit: What do you save up your neg reps for me and me alone? Grow up, get a life, try to learn something, crack a book once in a while. And put me on ignore PLEASE.

 

[Honkytonk]

2 things people should consider.

1st - 'Big pharma' is not interested in your plants. They're interested in the genes that produce cannabinoids. The THCA producing gene has already been spliced into E.Coli bacteria and pure THC will be produced in bioreactors for less than $3.000,-/kg by 2016. The other medical relevant cannabinoids will follow soon.

2nd - 'Big Agri' is not interested in your plants. The market for hemp products is laughable at best.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AGES001e/

U.S. markets for hemp fiber (specialty textiles, paper, and composites) and seed (in food or crushed for oil) are, and will likely remain, small, thin markets. Uncertainty about longrun demand for hemp products and the potential for oversupply discounts the prospects for hemp as an economically viable alternative crop for American farmers.

This might change in the future once politics understands that peak oil was yesterday and securing oil will become very costly soon.

 

[GreenintheThumb]

That sounds pretty noisey

 

[headband 707]

The "gene gun" was the first methodology used to deliver recombinant DNA into the nucleus of a given plant, where natural processes incorporate the DNA via recombination at regions of high homolgy to the gene of interest.

The real genetic dance, IMO, is the use of agrobacterium tumefasciens as a delivery system to introduce foreign genes into genomes- the agrobacterium does this naturally as it infects a plant. We've just altered the bacteria's genes to remove the virulence factors and replaced them with a section to insert "our gene of choice". The plant does it's natural thing, and delivers the "gene of interest" into our host's genome.

I believe that many people who are against GM technology and recombinant DNA don't understand that genes move about between species already- the proof is in species like Agrobacterium tumefasciens. We are just exploiting this natural process to our suit own purposes. How we do the work and with what ethical considerations is the real issue that needs attention.

Biotechnology firms purport that GMO's will benefit the farmer and the consumer. To this point however, most benefits have come to the biotech firms like Monsanto and their shareholders, and not the consumers in terms of improved nutrition, not the starving in Africa who have been told we can engineer drought resistant crop varieties. This isn't to say the technology is bad per se, only that corporate interests are using the technology for their own benefit, and not ours.

Agree with the technology or not, it's fascinating stuff IMO.

-Chimera

Here's a couple of pages that detail the process, and one video simulation that might catch people up in some of the terminology.... it's geek speak. Of course anyone can search Agrobacterium tumefasciens on google and get millions of results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium_tumefaciens
http://arabidopsis.info/students/agrobacterium/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmyZvOpAnuY&feature=related

Agreed if they take this in the right direction yes this is and will always remain the most fasinating stuff . I see that they are not taking this in the right direction LOL .. as they are scum lol peace out Headband707