Cannabis crosses are not F1s, so says science!

There really is no such thing as a true or false F1 cross. As long as the P1 stock is genetically divergent it's an F1 cross. We are just talking about different degrees of heterozygosity in the P1 stock. This will have a large effect on offspring down the line in regards to stabilization of desired traits. Most breeders(cannabis and others) are only concerned with F1 hybrids due to heterosis. If you start with an IBL for the P1 you tend to have an easier path to stabilization of traits down the line. The cannabis industry is unique in the heavy use of clones to pass genetics from place to place. It takes a significant amount of work to stabilize an elite cut in seed form. Most cannabis breeders today make and release only F1 hybirds because its a shorter path to good plants. IBLs are incredibly important tools for the breeder but may not hold as much value to the end consumer. No need for any "H1" label to add to the confusion, but I see you working!

since we are all idiots and dont know any better, i think its fine

stonerscience we call it

Fact: No two individuals are the same.

So wouldn't that make any mating between compatible individuals be somewhat of a hybrid situation?
More so I think is the two are Landraces from different parts of the Globe. As stable as vegetable seeds
are compared to Cannabis. If you plant a dozen or more tomatoes. You'll find one better than the rest I think.

Natural high said:

I'm struggling with whether you fully understand what the terms homozygous and heterozygous mean.

Homozygous - both alleles are the same for any gene loci, eg AA, or BB

Heterozygous - each allele is different for any gene loci, eg Aa or Bb

Thus homozygous AA x homozygous aa = heterozygous Aa

Cheers

Click to expand...

@naturalhigh Yes, I understand the difference. You were correct, my apologies for the earlier reply. I was distracted by a family issue concerning a step child, cops and cannabis. (The lawyer I hired has already fixed the issue in our favor!)


I noticed when going back over my chart that I hadn't gone far enough into the complexity of cannabis breeding and there were some discrepancies that needed fixed. The chart was meant as a jumping off point for where cannabis breeding starts, rather than a placement of where cannabis breeding is. According to genetic data most breeders aren't breeding hybrids or even polyhybrids as it would have led people to believe, but rather multi polyhybrids.

It is important to be absolutely accurate with scientific terminology and nomenclature. I'm just as guilty as others for purposefully self rationalizing the discrepancies between nomenclature and cannabis breeding.
Most people in the sciences, and elsewhere, will ignore us if we call something an F1 when they have to go searching through 8 different phenotypes to find the one we are advertising. However, if we are clearly labeling it as a cross of two multi polyhybrids, which they are, then they know to not expect any stability to the strain line. There is no nomenclature designation for polyhybrids or multi polyhybrids, because in all other plant breeding a multi polyhybrid plant line would be considered too unstable and would be culled or line bred for dozens of generations until it was stable. Because there is no adequate nomenclature it's important to remember that we're in the proposal and negotiations phase of settling new nomenclature, rather than in the settled nomenclature phase.



Just as before, alert me if any discrepancies are noticed in the above chart.


@troutman "You'll find one better than the rest I think." This characteristic has been explained with the variability of the environment in most cases.

For our hypothetical food crop to be as variable as our multi polyhybrid cannabis you'd need to plant seeds from a variety and get completely different tasting, growing and maturing tomatoes, e.g. very tart, very sweet, very sour, and completely bland, along with deterministic, non deterministic and something in between for growth profiles, and widely varied maturation rates.
This isn't what we get with vegetable seeds though, unless you find a rare mutation or have really bad luck which delivered you a seed with tons of double recessives hidden in the line.
**************************************************

The core of the problem being hashed out along side the nomenclature issue, is that cannabis in it's current form is tremendously unstable and variable. Breeders are saying "You'll get one of these 2 or 3 phenotypes, because it's an "F1 hybrid" except that according to genetic data, or close recorded phenotypic data, you're actually getting 8-12 phenotypes for the selected traits and it's a multi polyhybrid. When the breeders are asked why they are being deceitful they just reply that "It must be your technique," or "that's just the way cannabis is," which are both inaccurate and dishonest. Some of us have learned to know what to look for in finding more stable genetics in the swamp of strains, but no one should have to. A customer should be able to buy an "H1 hybrid" knowing it's a swamp of genetics, and they should be able to require breeders to produce more stable lines, with the facts on their side, if they want to be charged larger prices. Breeders that do produce stable lines with desired traits should be able to charge a premium, because their lines have been inbred to the point that there is only one major phenotype with very low variability. None of this can happen while we allow breeders to mislabel crosses with anything that sounds like good public relations. Not to be forgotten, there are also many breeders out there that would genuinely like to let buyers know that their genetics have only reached a certain degree of stability without saying "We have no idea what we've sold you", but the current nomenclature doesn't allow for that. If they're given the nomenclature of "H" to designate a multi polyhybrid they'll use it.

The state of cannabis, as it is, amounts to buying a children's book and having the story turn into an armpit hair fetish story 2 pages in. Scientists are starting to breed and genome test strains that are the equivalent of a children's book that matches the book's summary of a happy ending exactly. Are more buyers going to throng to the armpit hair fetish strain or the happy ending strain?

Sticking with our analogy, scientists are currently saying "You need to not put that porno book in the porno section, so we can all go smoke a joint together" and too many in cannabis culture are saying "I'll put my books wherever I damn well please," except we're missing the point that we don't own the bookstore, just a few books we're trying to trade or sell, and we can be easily out competed in emerging markets.

Hi,

Your BBPH schema is wrong as well...if p1 and p2 are heterozygotes you'll struggle to end with those % you wrote.

I always did find it funny when people do this % thingy, just like if breeding is only simple mathematics, or if people did breed for only one trait...and yet nobody have talked about co-dominance or other weird and complicated genetics exceptions.

Pepé The Grower said:

Your BBPH schema is wrong as well...if p1 and p2 are heterozygotes you'll struggle to end with those % you wrote.

Click to expand...

The backcross portion was meant to be overly simplistic. If we make it more in depth then it requires multiple charts with an exponential increase in volume for each variable set we add. That type of discussion is valuable, but was not the intent of the original discussion.

I see value in meandering though and the topic is fascinating, so let's take that path a bit!

(Hopping on a plane shortly, but I'll post an exploration of backcrossing with multi polyhybrids later today, hopefully with a concise graphic for later referencing. I implore anyone interested to expand on any parts of mph BXing you've found fascinating!)

Rather than explore the unfortunate depths of cannabis bro science via multiple BX 'strategies', why not spend that energy thinking about real approaches to developing the F1s we are lacking?

Specifically - plant breeders developed strategies like reciprocal recurrent selection so that they could make inbred lines that produced elite F1s. I haven't seen a serious thread on making real F1s for years....

PerfectDay said:

Another thing I'd like to point out, because I think it's being taken defensively, while I believe it is meant more out of respect and deference towards the wisdom and expertise of the cannabis grower/breeder.

View ImageView Image

The scientific community has in effect stated that cannabis is a special plant, both in it's use and in the practice of breeding it. Past and current cannabis breeding has caused cannabis to not fit the old nomenclature regime, probably because it's versatility and usefulness!

The scientific community is basically saying "You cannabis breeders have created this new thing that we want to assimilate into the old nomenclature system, but we need you to name it something that isn't already being used by the old nomenclature system". This is cause for celebration, not alarm. Scientists want to work with us as peers, that's a genuine honor being given to a community of people that have traditionally been outcasts of our greater society.

View Image

Click to expand...

I think it's more likely that traditional plant breeders will get involved with Cannabis, take the existing gene pool & stabilise IBL's out of them & continue traditional breeding rather then cannabis breeders defining a new breeding term.

Most breeders/pollen chuckers are restricted by laws, as those laws disappear & breeders can grow fields to make selections from they will. I expect certain "families" (for lack of a better term to convey being related but highly variable) will become the early IBL's; like blueberry, haze, afghan or white widow that have distinct characteristics.

I can appreciate some of the questions brought up in this thread but I think people need to take a step back and really see what is happing/will happen in the cannabis industry. Cannabis is now being exposed to traditional and modern plant breeding techniques in an open and legal environment on a large scale. This has changed the game for better or worse in a big way. No more bro science and stoner myths and flat out lies. Just hard data and facts. Cannabis is a very unique plant but not so much that it requires a whole new classification or nomenclature system. The op said there is not an established nomenclature for cannabis breeding and that is false. The example crosses in the chart can fit into traditional schemes already being by plant breeders. I don't have time to break it down but research some terms like- Monohybrid, Dihybrid crosses, Double hybrid cross, Double Top cross. You will see that cannabis can fit into any multiple of existing breeding schemes. Your proposed H1 system does not make any sense. Putting an H in front of an F1 cross does not give me any information as to the percent of homozoygosity for the P stock so what's the point? It is completely the responsibility of the breeder to know what he/she is breeding with. If you start a breeding program without doing proper selection of the parental stock you are in for a wild ride to say the least. This is why the cannabis industry (and others) are so focused on F1 hybrids. That's the shortest path to elite plants.

zif said:

Rather than explore the unfortunate depths of cannabis bro science via multiple BX 'strategies', why not spend that energy thinking about real approaches to developing the F1s we are lacking?

Specifically - plant breeders developed strategies like reciprocal recurrent selection so that they could make inbred lines that produced elite F1s. I haven't seen a serious thread on making real F1s for years....

Click to expand...

I think you're right, and I'm going to make a point to post a couple threads across different forums for approaches and methods to plant breeding strategies that result in stable inbred lines.

I also agree with Somatek on the point

Somatek said:

that traditional plant breeders will get involved with Cannabis, take the existing gene pool & stabilise IBL's out of them & continue traditional breeding rather then cannabis breeders defining a new breeding term.

Click to expand...

However, as the illegality of cannabis is being lifted what has actually been happening is the installing of even more stringent laws preventing breeders from growing fields of cannabis in order to make better selections. It has also created a regime in which anyone able to legally breed fields of genetic stock are financially incentivized to not release that genetic stock as seeds/clones. This is only going to escalate with marker assistance breeding, at which point corporations are going to turn cannabis into tobacco. Can anyone here even name a cultivar of tobacco or name a person actually growing tobacco? I'll transition from here with the fact that most of the posts you get by searching for "tobacco growers forum" fall in the line of "Is anyone even doing this?" type posts.

We're very much on the cusp of a paradigm shift in which we either decide to be amiable partners with scientific breeders, casting off the "let it burn cause I've got mine" attitudes, or we take our toys and storm off in a huff, to be quickly and effectively silenced forever.

TimeKeeper said:

Cannabis is a very unique plant but not so much that it requires a whole new classification or nomenclature system. The op said there is not an established nomenclature for cannabis breeding and that is false. The example crosses in the chart can fit into traditional schemes already being by plant breeders. I don't have time to break it down but research some terms like- Monohybrid, Dihybrid crosses, Double hybrid cross, Double Top cross. You will see that cannabis can fit into any multiple of existing breeding schemes. Your proposed H1 system does not make any sense. Putting an H in front of an F1 cross does not give me any information as to the percent of homozoygosity for the P stock so what's the point? It is completely the responsibility of the breeder to know what he/she is breeding with. If you start a breeding program without doing proper selection of the parental stock you are in for a wild ride to say the least. This is why the cannabis industry (and others) are so focused on F1 hybrids. That's the shortest path to elite plants.

Click to expand...

The reason we were even dealing with the backcrossing issue here is because other growers on this forum recognized that these overly simplistic X-hybrid cross schema are totally inadequate.

We are further being forced to deal with the F1 issue, because most current breeders are taking no responsibility at all for selecting or inbreeding parent stock. So, it's being left 100% up to the consumer that knows even less than the charlatan breeders. So, how do you propose breeders be held accountable for the responsibility you say they have? Or is this one of those, "f*ck them all, let it burn" ideological arguments?

Further more, and again, putting an F1 in front of a multi polyhybrid cross tells us absolutely nothing about the heterozygosity or the homozygosity of the plants, but it sure as hell gives the scam artist breeder the opportunity to offload some garbage beans under the false sense that people will believe having an F1 in front of it means it's somewhat heterozygous, stable, and uniform, which it sure as hell is not.

So, do you want pure predatory capitalism or do you want to enforce some kind of social policing under which you know something labeled an F1 is consistent and heterozygous, just like it is in every other agricultural plant?

I mean I'll gladly walk the predatory capitalism route while we watch cannabis genetics go even more to hell, but I'll also stop sharing genetics, stop buying genetics and make sure I sabotage anyone that I think might even have the ability to negatively effect me getting what I want, which sounds like an amazing way to have the whole community tear itself apart while we only worry about ourselves.

I'd prefer to chart another path for our community, but I'm not going to stop every person dead set on lighting everything on fire just because they don't want to recognize that all our fates are linked.

PerfectDay said:

I think you're right, and I'm going to make a point to post a couple threads across different forums for approaches and methods to plant breeding strategies that result in stable inbred lines.

I also agree with Somatek on the point

However, as the illegality of cannabis is being lifted what has actually been happening is the installing of even more stringent laws preventing breeders from growing fields of cannabis in order to make better selections. It has also created a regime in which anyone able to legally breed fields of genetic stock are financially incentivized to not release that genetic stock as seeds/clones. This is only going to escalate with marker assistance breeding, at which point corporations are going to turn cannabis into tobacco. Can anyone here even name a cultivar of tobacco or name a person actually growing tobacco? I'll transition from here with the fact that most of the posts you get by searching for "tobacco growers forum" fall in the line of "Is anyone even doing this?" type posts.

We're very much on the cusp of a paradigm shift in which we either decide to be amiable partners with scientific breeders, casting off the "let it burn cause I've got mine" attitudes, or we take our toys and storm off in a huff, to be quickly and effectively silenced forever.




The reason we were even dealing with the backcrossing issue here is because other growers on this forum recognized that these overly simplistic X-hybrid cross schema are totally inadequate.

We are further being forced to deal with the F1 issue, because most current breeders are taking no responsibility at all for selecting or inbreeding parent stock. So, it's being left 100% up to the consumer that knows even less than the charlatan breeders. So, how do you propose breeders be held accountable for the responsibility you say they have? Or is this one of those, "f*ck them all, let it burn" ideological arguments?

Further more, and again, putting an F1 in front of a multi polyhybrid cross tells us absolutely nothing about the heterozygosity or the homozygosity of the plants, but it sure as hell gives the scam artist breeder the opportunity to offload some garbage beans under the false sense that people will believe having an F1 in front of it means it's somewhat heterozygous, stable, and uniform, which it sure as hell is not.

So, do you want pure predatory capitalism or do you want to enforce some kind of social policing under which you know something labeled an F1 is consistent and heterozygous, just like it is in every other agricultural plant?

I mean I'll gladly walk the predatory capitalism route while we watch cannabis genetics go even more to hell, but I'll also stop sharing genetics, stop buying genetics and make sure I sabotage anyone that I think might even have the ability to negatively effect me getting what I want, which sounds like an amazing way to have the whole community tear itself apart while we only worry about ourselves.

I'd prefer to chart another path for our community, but I'm not going to stop every person dead set on lighting everything on fire just because they don't want to recognize that all our fates are linked.

Click to expand...

I think tomato growing is a more accurate analogy over tobacco. I have grown my own, including hydroponically as a demonstration garden. Growing it is easy but controlling the curing to get a good finished smoke is very hard.

Tomatoes on the other hand have the same passionate growers, who search through hundreds to thousands of listings looking for the perfect fruit & often brag about the size of their collection & tales of all the plants they've grown. Tomato & pepper growers are the only ones I've seen that regularly have dedicated forums to growing them indoors & out, which they spend hours arguing minutia. Sound familiar?

Tomato breeding has big companies churning out hybrids for commercial production & others for home growers. Typically selling F1's so people buy new seed each year, although they are starting sell heritage varieties more now. Then there's of speciality companies just selling heritage, open pollinated organic seed at a premium. Finally there's home breeders doing there thing. Green Zebra is a good example of backyard breeding.

I imagine pot will go down the same route, LP's are already starting to breed there own stuff. Micro grows will create nurseries to supply clones/seeds which will drive breeding. Pollen chuckers aren't going to stop.

@Somatek, you make some really good points. I believe you're probably right.

As promised, it's time to drop some trait stabilization knowledge.


For those looking to really dig into genetics breeding you should start out with the understanding that almost all of what we're growing and breeding with are not F1's & not polyhybrids, but are actually multi-polyhybrids. This definitely complicates things, but not so much that we can't still figure them out and stabilize them.

Sometimes we cross 2 strains and in their offspring generation we find out that the desired trait is recessive, but we only get dominant phenotypes and then in F2, we discover that we’re still stuck with those same dominant phenotypes.

Most people assume that F2 brings about 75% Dominant and 25% recessive. This is often believed to work in all F2's because of Mendel genetics "face value" teaching. However they forget that Mendel used a 100% stable Purple flower (P1) crossed to a 100% stable white flower (P2) which is then cultivated in very large numbers through each filial generation.


----------

Focusing only on the F2 generation we would get these results:

Pp x Pp (Big P is Dominant and p is recessive desired phenotype).
We get PP, Pp, Pp, pp with this combination, everywhere there is a big P the cross will have Dominant phenotype, in this case green buds. 75% green and 25% purple.
> Mendel genetics states:
* P1+P2=F1 (filial cross)
* F1=mostly Dominant traits
* F1+F1=F2 is where recessive genes show.
* So you can think F1= 100% Green, F2= 75% Green and 25% Purple

However with a collection of F2 plants showing only the Dominant phenotype of Green the issue can become more complex. The most time conserving way to deal with this issue is to grow more F2 generation seeds until you find a purple one. However, sometimes that isn't possible, because of a shortage of F2 seeds or lack of the needed space for larger plant sifting, and so further generations of plants will need to be bred in order to find the purple phenotype. There are 3 potential beginning genotype combinations we could be starting with in the F2 generation:
PP x PP, Pp x Pp, or PP x Pp

----------



----------


----------

P = Green buds, p= Purple buds

Combinations of this will be PP, Pp, pp
100% Dominant traits P= Green in 11 of 12 plants with purple only appearing in one plant.

So, P1+P2=F1, then F1+F1=F2 would be unlikely to create the desired purple in a low number of plants in this situation, contrary to the way it did in Mendel's project.

-------------------------


Here is the solution to this problem:

> P1 (Green) +P2 (Purple)=F1
> F1+P2 (Purple)=Bc1
> Bc1+F1=F2
> F2+F2=F3

> PP (P1) +pp (P2) = Pp,Pp,Pp,Pp (F1)
> Pp (F1) + pp (P2) = Pp,Pp,pp,pp (Bc1) 50% purple phenotypes
> pp (Bc1) + pp (Bc1) = pp, pp, pp, pp (F2) 100% purple phenotypes

This combination works with the advantage of higher recessive phenotype presence throughout the process while just seeking out Purple plants on a singular basis.


point out any mistakes you see

PerfectDay said:

We are further being forced to deal with the F1 issue, because most current breeders are taking no responsibility at all for selecting or inbreeding parent stock. So, it's being left 100% up to the consumer that knows even less than the charlatan breeders. So, how do you propose breeders be held accountable for the responsibility you say they have? Or is this one of those, "f*ck them all, let it burn" ideological arguments?

Further more, and again, putting an F1 in front of a multi polyhybrid cross tells us absolutely nothing about the heterozygosity or the homozygosity of the plants, but it sure as hell gives the scam artist breeder the opportunity to offload some garbage beans under the false sense that people will believe having an F1 in front of it means it's somewhat heterozygous, stable, and uniform, which it sure as hell is not.

So, do you want pure predatory capitalism or do you want to enforce some kind of social policing under which you know something labeled an F1 is consistent and heterozygous, just like it is in every other agricultural plant?

I mean I'll gladly walk the predatory capitalism route while we watch cannabis genetics go even more to hell, but I'll also stop sharing genetics, stop buying genetics and make sure I sabotage anyone that I think might even have the ability to negatively effect me getting what I want, which sounds like an amazing way to have the whole community tear itself apart while we only worry about ourselves.

I'd prefer to chart another path for our community, but I'm not going to stop every person dead set on lighting everything on fire just because they don't want to recognize that all our fates are linked.

Click to expand...

No ideological arguments here. What I'm saying is it's the responsibility of the breeder to know what they are breeding with and to do proper selection at every step of a breeding program. It's the end consumers responsibility to educate themselves as much as possible so they can make informed decisions on where to spend their money. That's why forums like this are so important in helping people educate themselves and provide feedback for the community. Predatory capitalism is happing whether you like it or not. You can chose to participate or not, it's up to you. Don't know where you are getting all this "f**k them all, let it burn" nonsense from.


It does not matter if the parent stock has been selected or not in a hybrid cross. The initial cross between to genetically distinct plants will always result in F1 generation. You can say F1 cross based on multiple-hybrid parental stock or based on inbred parental stock, it's up to you. But again it's still an F1 cross.


For the cannabis seed industry it would be awesome if breeders gave more information on what they are offering. Some do and if more people demand this info it will be more common.

In your own work it will always be the F generation with the first mating of P1's. Weather they mean the same as what it really means to be an F1 is not important here but I agree that the term should be refined to the proper meaning & the other homologous crosses are called 'Crosses'. Sativa actually means cultivated variety, go so figure..

A true breeding Equatorial NLD x a true breeding Afghan WLD would exploit heterosis. Be a true F1 & carry genetics of both parents. Better 1-1 crosses of these parental lines will garner better results as to the uniformity of the f2's.

This is the very basics guys.. Tom Hill couldn't master this tho..

This is an AWESOME thread.

Firstly, and to those defending calling their own non homogeneous crosses "F1", you can call it what you like but it's still not a true F1.

Isn't it time the plant we all know and love got some actual CRED?

Now that legitimate science is involved in actual breeding... it's time to let go of the quaint mis-labeling and use the proper terms.

F1 does not mean "I crossed this with that and the offspring are F1." -regardless of where they were bred; a backyard greenhouse or a lab.
The trouble is that most breeders don't have access to this kind of analysis of their genetic stock, but when a pharmaceutical company's ass is on the line and shareholders want a good return on their investments, simply labeling something won't fly.

It has to be repeatable and reliable. For production purposes and quality/content control, it is vital that a strain be stabilized and made homogeneous so that there is NO variation from seed to seed.

Burpee wouldn't sell a lot of tomato seeds if their plants all expresses differing phenotypes and the color, shape, taste and yield were off from one plant to the next. Nobody would want to buy them.

Let's say that Hunt's wanted to change tomato producers for their products for whatever reason. They buy seeds for their farms, grow out a big crop of tomatoes and are after certain qualities: resistance to disease, yield, vigor and (sometimes lol,)flavor. They're not going to buy "Tomato ABC seeds" when they don't reliably produce the same kind of plant, time and again.

This needs to happen with cannabis. When you get seeds, they need to perform as described and breed true, at least for a couple of generations.

I realize that cannabis and tomatoes are completely different plants,
but the point remains: the strains must be reliably productive in a commercial environment.
Otherwise, what's the point?

Let's say that Glaxo-Smith Kline wants to use a strain of cannabis to produce an anti-inflammatory drug so they buy "Bruce Banner" from some seed house.
They grow out a generation of seeds and find variations... Uh oh... Now they have to put time and energy into stabilizing that strain so that other phenotypes aren't present, and only the ones with the cannabinoid profiles are being produced.
They'd much rather just pop a thousand seeds and see 999 plants that grow into exactly what they want.
They won't waste time with non-certified homogeneous stock for their tests or production.

It's finally time that cannabis gets up to speed with the 21st century, and that's a goodly thing.

We can't keep using disingenuous terms we've learned and used for years because they are NOT accurate. We need to be on the same page.
This is why people standardize things -so that it's not as open to subjective interpretation.

There are SO many misnomers and so much misinformation out there when it comes to cannabis, seeds and breeding that it just makes most seed producers look like amateurs to the real genetic scientists and botanists. We've got a thousand years of terminology and method to get up to speed on, so let's stop making excuses and get with the program.

Nice thread! I can definitely see the value in defending the colloquial use of the term F1 but in the end if we are not using true-breeding P1 stock to arrive at that point we don't have a true f1. Decades of black market breeding and "breeding" have left us with a glut of polyhybrid lines that the consumer has to "pheno hunt" (lmao) in order to find what they want. Only a few seed companies produce stable lines anymore.

It's time for a revival of legitimate breeding programs for the good of the consumer but also for the good of the cannabis gene pool as a whole.

Without genetic testing using electrophoresis to check for polymorphism of several individuals in a population there
no way to tell if you have homozygous plants. Here you can tell that the F1's have markers from both parent lines.
Ignore the disease mention. It's the bars that matter and only the F1's have both alleles from each parent.


Molecular Markers

The actual goal about making F1 hybrids is to set unstable offspring so the growers need to buy seeds every time they want to grow, or keep clones. But in fact most seedbanks actually sells multipolyhybrids.

You don't need a breeding program because most of the work was done since many centuries ago and destroyed recently in the pass decades, and even in this moment. But mixing all strains together as in modern breeding you will get the same everywhere. You will not get the same psychedelic effects once you get a tropical NLD crossed with those fat bud Hindu Kush strains, even if you get higher % THC. There is something there such as other cannabinoids or terpenes which turn the real high into a sluggish, couchlocking stone.

I feel today most modern strains are boring weed with nothing special. You want to fly but all you get is a punch in your face that knocks you.