[budchopper]

from the full text of biotechnology of cannabis sativa

Since hemp is already used as a sustainable crop in some countries, they may want to
consider growing hemp varieties with higher lignin production. These genetically
modified varieties could be useful for more durable goods than that made from traditional
hemp strains. The current hemp varieties are in fact better than trees for making paper
due in part because they have a lower lignin density. The lower lignin concentration
makes hemp an attractive plant because the higher lignin in trees requires more harsh
chemicals used in processing. In fact, it is because of the lignin that hemp is often
preferred over trees. Hemp also has a higher cellulose density than trees, making it great
for increasing product yields.

For these reasons one may argue against making a woody Cannabis plant. However, if
the countries where hemp is currently cultivated could be grown to increase lignin
production the country would surely benefit. A country with much of its land mass given
over to desert or dry area is often able to grow hemp. If these same areas could produce
lignin within their countries, they could rely less on the import of forest products. This in
turn would slow the destruction of forests in other countries. An advantage of higher
lignin content is also given to the plant. Many organisms cannot tolerate eating lignin and
therefore a transgenic hemp plant with higher lignin content may provide herbivore
resistance.

But other benefits abound for humans. A high lignin-producing hemp plant could provide
raw materials for building more durable goods than presently available from
contemporary hemp varieties. The current list of products made from hemp ranges in the
hundreds. Increasing lignin content could expand this list. Based on the current rate of
forest destruction, it may be absolutely necessary to make a transgenic hemp plant that
makes large amounts of lignin.

.to increase lignin
production the country would surely benefit. A country with much of its land mass given
over to desert or dry area is often able to grow hemp. If these same areas could produce
lignin within their countries, they could rely less on the import of forest products. This in
turn would slow the destruction of forests in other countries. An advantage of higher
lignin content is also given to the plant. Many organisms cannot tolerate eating lignin and
therefore a transgenic hemp plant with higher lignin content may provide herbivore
resistance.

.

[budchopper]

Since Cannabis already has the machinery to produce primary and secondary cell walls,
the only necessary genetic changes would be to up-regulate lignin production in the
secondary wall. The challenge is to find and isolate the gene in Cannabis, which is
entirely possible through bioinformatics and understanding gene homology.

Transforming Cannabis with a gene for increased lignin production would be a practical
application of biotechnology. Having a woody plant would allow an outdoor gardener to
have a perennial Cannabis plant. Buying and planting new seeds to sew each year could
be eliminated. Cuttings to propagate a favorite strain would also be easier to obtain and
share among friends.

With the correct genes for both wood production and size, an extreme case of an entire
forest of Cannabis trees is possible.

[Only Ornamental]

Seems rather utopian to me... at least the way you put it.
For example, a 'forest' of annual plants is ridiculous and making hemp perennial implies more than a little 'transgenic' work.
Growing hemp 'trees' in a desert without irrigation? I'd rather bet on the over and over proven eucalyptus and acacia trees.
Ask IKEA how they feel about hemp as a wood resource... Can't imagine how to put a solid wood cupboard together entirely made of mikado-sized 'timber' blocking .

IMHO this sounds more like a bad excuse to fool around with gene technology than a really useful strategy.

[Frosy]

Skip the GMO's and breed hemp conventionally, you will have a better result.

[WelderDan]

Sounds like GMO to me.

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by Frosy

Skip the GMO's and breed hemp conventionally, you will have a better result.

Conventionally? You mean biotechnology instead of gene technology? Random mutations with gamma rays, alkylating chemicals, UV etc. instead of targeted knock-in and knock-out stuff? LMAO
Better results? I doubt it... cause the GMO industry has goals impossible to achieve with traditional breeding techniques.
Glowing fish, pesticide resistant crop, Flavr Savr tomatoes... doesn't mean I'd want GMO on my dinner plate though .

Originally Posted by WelderDan

Sounds like GMO to me.

Sound like? Such hemp would certainly be a GMO (genetically modified organism).

[bf80255]

Gmo is just a technology not a brand or product and its a hell of a lot safer than blasting seeds with mutagens and all the other ass backwards methods some "organic" farmers use. Its all in how you use or abuse it like monsanto did when they gave it a bad name with all their evil farmer raping tactics
I agree with ornamental seems pretty fairytale landish to me

[Only Ornamental]

Originally Posted by bf80255

Gmo is just a technology not a brand or product and its a hell of a lot safer than blasting seeds with mutagens and all the other ass backwards methods some "organic" farmers use. Its all in how you use or abuse it like monsanto did when they gave it a bad name with all their evil farmer raping tactics
I agree with ornamental seems pretty fairytale landish to me

Case you haven't found out yet, I'm a bit nitpicking , therefore... GMO means 'genetically modified organism. It gives no clue which technique has been used for it.
It's not better or worse than radiation or other stuff often not considered a 'genetic modification'.
Organic farmers, at least in Europe, CAN NOT use any of these methods NOR plant seeds obtained with them.
BTW, removing genes from an organism will most certainly not cause issues although such organisms are considered GMO and can, at least phenotypically, also be obtained with standard biotechnology (e.g. radiation and other mutagens).

The real and only problem of GMO IME is not the introduction of mutations (which could be considered enhanced evolution) but the introduction of completely new proteins or small molecules usually not found in human diet like with DNA from deep sea organisms. Such molecules could lead to allergies or cause other health issues even if theoretically not present in the consumed part of the organism (after all, it's biology not theory we're talking about). And another problem certainly is that such mutations can and will be inherited also to plants on neighbouring fields.
The bad reputation caused by Monsanto and co. is so far not due to said health issues but rather because they sue GMO opposed farmers for (unwillingly) using their 'patented genes' after their [the good guy's] clean crop got unintentionally pollinated with GMO pollen. But Monsanto and GMO aren't the only ones playing this dirt game with 'patented' genes. IMHO gene sequences should never be patentable; alas, we can't choose the world we were born in... but we can choose what to make out of it.

[budchopper]

from the full text of biotechnology of cannabis sativa

please Google the above and read it..

in my 2nd post it refers to a perennial pot tree..

Knowing that cannabis is a target for moth larvae, one of Monsanto's first steps will be to make Bt varieties. This is the common tag put on gmo field crop varieties that have been transformed to express insecticidal proteins originally coded for by bacillus dna.

One thing we found when I was working with transgene corn is that the Bt varieties often had higher lignin content compared to their parental lines. Maybe they won't need to pinpoint lignin producing genes.

Originally Posted by Only Ornamental

Better results? I doubt it... cause the GMO industry has goals impossible to achieve with traditional breeding techniques.

Better results do come from conventional breeding. Companies that sell GMO seed to farmers promise better yields, insect resistance, herbicide resistance, etc. but its a scam. One to foster dependance on company products.