. .
The quote I remember reading was that early males tend to be lower potency thus cannabis will progress towards lower potency without selective breeding. It is also thought that later females showing flowers under 12/12 are more likly to be more potent.
And why do have these people to grouch on the public visitor message page instead of sending personal messages like normal people do?
And worst of all, non-trolling folk using fora usually do so because they care what other people think, especially in a thread which has so far been about rather weird opinions instead of facts (apart from Pepe's answer, that is).Blue Berry said:
) in nature because it couldn't survive due the excessive effort. There are only a very few species on earth containing more than 10% of a single substance and not that many more who do contain mixtures of closely related compounds in selected organs (e.g. clove) at up to 20% dry weight. Think of it that way: You have a house, that stands for the plant, and you have bear traps, which symbolise THC. If you fill now your house with 10 weight-% bear traps, your house gets already very cramped, you'll start to run low on money, and doing daily business in your rooms becomes increasingly complicated. At one point, you won't be more or less safe from bears no matter how many new bear traps you get. Now fill your house with 20 or even 30% bear traps and the lives of Tom & Jerry all of a sudden looks very peaceful. Maybe to a bear hunter, your house may seem perfect at that time... but he doesn't have to live in there. .
That one time each probably every 400 posts I state something that sounds like a personal, subjective phrase, I get a foul comment...
And why do have these people to grouch on the public visitor message page instead of sending personal messages like normal people do?
And worst of all, non-trolling folk using fora usually do so because they care what other people think, especially in a thread which has so far been about rather weird opinions instead of facts (apart from Pepe's answer, that is).
Anyway, this got me thinking... hence, here's the sort of reply I usually post without getting pissed at:
The OP's question sounds like a legit one, but the moment you take the person behind into account, you realise that stupid questions really exist.
No offence, Sam, but you of all people should have at least guessed the answer roughly 50 years ago. After all, you're amongst the ones who bred the most hemp and drug type cannabis varieties.
And then again, the proposed answers are, if I may put it bluntly, plain stupid.
The reason why:
The original question is about a 'recessive trait' and hence implies we're talking about genetics and inheritance. The proposed votes though are of philosophical nature. Even then, you as an advocator of the entourage effect, should have taken more than mere THC concentration into consideration.
True, from a pharmacological point of view, it's the amount of THC which basically dictates cannabis potency. In terms of 'perfect' with regard to cannabis as a medicine or a recreational drug, THC is not the only active constituent and therefore potency can not be linked to a value like 'perfect'. Others use more or less potent cannabis even for it's fibres and seeds and to them, this plant may be perfect due it's multi-functionality. And even then, from a shamanistic point of view, high contents of psychedelic substances within a plant were not always the aim, the proposed reply 'perfect a long time ago' is therefore invalid. As is the other proposed reply 'cannabis never was perfect'; for one, who are we to judge what's perfect or not? Our understanding of nature tells us that, given an organism is not in an early stage of an 'evolutionary jump' or 'got stuck', nature is as perfect as it gets (can't decide where to put humanity...).
A cannabis plant with over 20% THC (maybe even less) has no benefit (except of being cultivated indoors as cutting, which may be regarded as some sort of modern co-evolution
This brings me to the real answer of the original question (only an addition of Pepe's reply and meant for those who didn't read or didn't understand the publication I proposed earlier).
Current scientific data point more toward only one species within the genus of Cannabis. At least, C. sativa and C. indica are so closely related that crossing hemp with cannabis seems a legit practice to find the answer.
We know that there is no difference in the amount of canabinoids expressed due BD or BT genotypes. For the sake of simplicity, the following examples are hence about THC plus CBD and not pure THC.
A: Scientific investigations show that crossing hemp with drug type cannabis leads to approximately median THC/CBD levels in the F1 generation.
B: Subsequent generations show a high segregation from values below that of the less potent parent to such above those of the more potent one.
C: A clear pattern of inheritance was not observed.
D: Crossing female hemp to male drug type cannabis results in lower levels than the cross the other way round.
E: Cannabinoid concentration is not dictated by the genes encoding proteins involved in cannabinoid biosynthesis (neither different alleles nor the amount of gene copies).
That means several things (and bear in mind that THC concentration is at least highly proportional to potency in most cases):
A: THC concentration (and therefore potency) is inherited
B: Inheritance is of a multi-genetic nature
C: The sum of all parts looks like intermediate inheritance
D: Yet unknown non-nuclear factors contribute (do not follow Mendel's rules)
E: Concentration is regulated by the amount of expressed proteins and not the involved genes involved in biosynthesis themselves
I could go on wasting my time by picking other posts apart too to show that my above statement, that the thread until very recently has no value, is in fact true and based on published data and logical deduction. Maybe it could have a certain philosophical one were it re-located to the Toker's Den...
Should someone feel like answering to this post and wants me to see or even reply to it, please send me a personal message because I did unsubscribe this thread for a now very obvious reason
