Quest for mold-resistant strains, Hawaii outdoor greenhouse grow

[cbdhemp808]

PS I hesitate to say anything, because I'm just a newbie, and you're a master grower in comparison. But those SIP buckets really helped my plant health. I think they aerate the roots like nobody's business. And stuff grows way faster also. Did you say you had a novel idea for an SIP bucket? (There's also SWICK, but I'm not sure if that's the same.)

It's a good question, the SIP vs. supersoil question. The way I look at it, a SIP is a 5 gal pot. I think that means whatever's in the supersoil is going to be used up twice as fast as a 10 gal pot with the same supersoil. Which then means that the SIP is going to need fertigation. Now, if you've got a supersoil grow in 10 gal vs. a SIP in 5 gal, can they both produce a big, healthy plant with nice big colas and buds, and high resin production? I think the answer is, yes. So what's the advantage of the SIP? Well, when you fertigate, there's no runoff. That's nice... saves on fertilizer costs. Also, a 5 gal pot takes up less space, but that's not a problem for me with my outdoor greenhouse grow.

Would a SIP result in increased bud rot and leaf mold resistance? Possibly, in some cases. But I've proved with my grow that, if you find the right strain/pheno, you can completely avoid bud rot. The leaf mold thing I'm still trying to figure out, but I suspect there are strains/phenos to address that as well. And what I'm seeing in my research points to terpene profiles.

So at this point, in my particular situation, I don't see a compelling reason to use SIPs. BUT... I would like to try someday just for fun and comparison. Yes, I do have an idea for a novel SIP.

My focus now is on the strains/phenos... acquiring some new seed. HI-BISCUS is my current winner for bud rot resistance, but as I was taking clone cuttings of the mom today, I realized the pheno I have just isn't the greatest—she's kind of delicate, with small, somewhat papery leaves. And grandma got sick with a root/stem fungus that went systemic. Now, if I compare this to my Blueberry, Humboldt Dream, and White Widow... those moms are just way more robust. As for Humboldt Dream, my clone is amazing, but care still needs to be taken at harvest. She can't be allowed to ripen too much, and timing is essential... veg to flower. The pheno has great effects, too.

My seed pics for THC are (all have high terpinolene):

• Chernobyl, Slymer pheno, S1 (sativa dominant)
• Agent Orange (50/50, sativa leaning)
• Grand Daddy Purple (indica dominant)
• Atomic Northern Lights (indica dominant)

For type 2 (one-to-one):

• Harle-Tsu (sativa). CBD range for the phenos will likely be 13-20%.

For type 3 CBDs (all have high terpinolene):

• Sour Hawaiian Haze (sativa) ~15% CBD, 2.9% total terps
• Sour Brulee (50/50) ~13% CBD, 2% total terps
• Pineapple Kush (indica leaning) ~14% CBD, 2.8% total terps
• Lifter (sativa) up to 20% CBD, 2% total terps

(ACE's Lebanese is also very interesting, but I'll probably wait on that one)

 

[cbdhemp808]

Veg house update...

Today I took clone cuttings of the moms in 10 gal... Blueberry, Humboldt Dream, HI-BISCUS, and White Widow. I also took a cutting of my #18 CBD mom, and a couple cuttings from my Sweet Critical CBD mom.

When these take, I'll be moving the 10 gal ladies to flower. I'm going to try to stagger them by 2 weeks, in order to stagger the harvests, in order to accommodate drying in my new bud dryer. Hopefully it will only take 10 days to dry.

 

[cbdhemp808]

"He's got a strain that'll punch your lights out..."

 

[CBDMed]

It's a good question, the SIP vs. supersoil question.

Well, my SIPs are packed with supersoil, except for about a solo-cup's-worth of regular soil (for starting).

The way I look at it, a SIP is a 5 gal pot.

The commercial one is about 3.75G usable soil.

I think that means whatever's in the supersoil is going to be used up twice as fast as a 10 gal pot with the same supersoil.

Yes, if you grow them big and mature as you are doing, as you said that is best for big resinous buds.

Which then means that the SIP is going to need fertigation.

If you let them big like you are letting them get, yes.

Now, if you've got a supersoil grow in 10 gal vs. a SIP in 5 gal, can they both produce a big, healthy plant with nice big colas and buds, and high resin production? I think the answer is, yes. So what's the advantage of the SIP? Well, when you fertigate, there's no runoff. That's nice... saves on fertilizer costs. Also, a 5 gal pot takes up less space, but that's not a problem for me with my outdoor greenhouse grow.

Also things grow MUCH faster in SIP.
And for me, my plants have never looked healthier. ) But that is probably not an issue for you, as you are a master grower.)

Would a SIP result in increased bud rot and leaf mold resistance? Possibly, in some cases. But I've proved with my grow that, if you find the right strain/pheno, you can completely avoid bud rot. The leaf mold thing I'm still trying to figure out, but I suspect there are strains/phenos to address that as well. And what I'm seeing in my research points to terpene profiles.

I am enjoying reading your research.

So at this point, in my particular situation, I don't see a compelling reason to use SIPs. BUT... I would like to try someday just for fun and comparison.

Yes, I do have an idea for a novel SIP.

My focus now is on the strains/phenos... acquiring some new seed. HI-BISCUS is my current winner for bud rot resistance, but as I was taking clone cuttings of the mom today, I realized the pheno I have just isn't the greatest—she's kind of delicate, with small, somewhat papery leaves. And grandma got sick with a root/stem fungus that went systemic. Now, if I compare this to my Blueberry, Humboldt Dream, and White Widow... those moms are just way more robust. As for Humboldt Dream, my clone is amazing, but care still needs to be taken at harvest. She can't be allowed to ripen too much, and timing is essential... veg to flower. The pheno has great effects, too.

Good to know.

My seed pics for THC are (all have high terpinolene):

• Chernobyl, Slymer pheno, S1 (sativa dominant)
• Agent Orange (50/50, sativa leaning)
• Grand Daddy Purple (indica dominant)
• Atomic Northern Lights (indica dominant)

For type 2 (one-to-one):

• Harle-Tsu (sativa). CBD range for the phenos will likely be 13-20%.

For type 3 CBDs (all have high terpinolene):

• Sour Hawaiian Haze (sativa) ~15% CBD, 2.9% total terps
• Sour Brulee (50/50) ~13% CBD, 2% total terps
• Pineapple Kush (indica leaning) ~14% CBD, 2.8% total terps
• Lifter (sativa) up to 20% CBD, 2% total terps

(ACE's Lebanese is also very interesting, but I'll probably wait on that one)

That seems good to know.

 

[cbdhemp808]

Also things grow MUCH faster in SIP.

I can imagine... kind of like hydro. Plants grow crazy fast here in Hawaii. That's probably the #1 issue with my land... there's always too much growth!

PS> I don't see myself as a master grower, but thanks for the compliment! I'm more of a relentless green-thumb hacker/nerd coupled with crazed researcher/analyst. Maybe in a year's time things will crystalize a bit more for me, with a bit of luck.

 

[CBDMed]

Sending good thoughts and prayers your way for successful research and a successful grow

 

[cbdhemp808]

Molly Tuttle & Golden Highway - Down Home Dispensary

 

[cbdhemp808]

JULIAN ASSANGE IS FREE!

 

[cbdhemp808]

I'm really curious about the broad subject of sativa vs. indica, genomes, landrace, and what it actually means to be 100% sativa or 100% indica. Here's a helpful start to the discussion, from Kevin McKernan's Kannapedia: (underlines added)

Cannabis Sativa vs. Indica​

The most accepted way of distinguishing indica versus sativa is by appearance, or what scientists refer to as morphology. Sativa plants are tall, loosely branched and have long, narrow leaves. They are usually grown outdoors and can reach heights of up to 20 feet. Indica plants are short, densely branched and have wider leaves. They are better suited for growing indoors. However, no scientific study has confirmed these differences, and there is some doubt about their accuracy. In fact, history suggests a much simpler difference between indica and sativa. The original classification of Cannabis indica was made by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in 1785. Lamarck observed that certain marijuana plants from India were intoxicating and could be made into hashish. But traditional hemp crops, which were more common in Europe, had no mind-altering effect. He came up with the name Cannabis indica to distinguish Indian cannabis from European hemp, which was known at the time as Cannabis sativa. Likewise, Cannabis indica was specifically recognized as a therapeutic in Western medicine during the 1800s. Scientists that have studied the differences between indica and sativa have come up with a number of theories based on genetics. The prevailing theory focuses on the genetic production of THC and CBD, which is why indica plants have high THC:CBD ratios and sativa plants have high CBD:THC ratios. Many strains produce varying amounts of both enzymes due to hybridization, or cross breeding, of the gene pools; this explains why some sativas are rich in THC and some indicas are not.​

This is saying that the commonly accepted difference in the morphology—i.e. the plant size, shape, and leaf structure—is not a reliable determinant of sativa vs. indica. Instead, chemotypic differences are important, meaning the ratios of the cannabinoids, chiefly THC and CBD.

I think what they are referring to as the "prevailing theory" is from a scientific article titled, A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae), by Hillig and Mahlberg, 2004.

From the Hillig/Mahlberg article (underlines added):

"This study confirms that the THC/CBD ratio of individual Cannabis plants can be assigned to one of three discrete chemotypes. The limits between chemotypes coincide with those reported by Vollner et al. (1986). As expected, plants with high levels of THC were common within the two drug biotypes of C. indica. However, plants with relatively high levels of THC were also common within the hemp and feral biotypes of this species. In contrast, most plants assigned to C. sativa had relatively low levels of THC. Because chemotype I, II, and III plants were found in both species, the chemotype of an individual plant is of limited use for chemotaxonomic determination of species membership."​

This is drawing a distinction, saying that it's common to find high THC in plants classified as indica, whereas most plants classified as sativa have relatively low levels of THC. So, this is making reference to "original" sativas, i.e. pure landraces and feral (wild) sativas, as opposed to modern-day sativas that contain genetics from indicas.

But, they are also saying that this distinction isn't sufficient to determine "species membership"—i.e. sativa vs. indica. To resolve this, the authors look specifically at chemotype I (type one). Before we consider chemotype I, here are the cannabis "biotypes" from the Hillig/Mahlberg article...

Table 1. Taxonomic circumscription of the Cannabis germplasm collection based on a previous analysis of allozyme allele frequencies. The assignment of accessions to putative taxa was previously published (Hillig, 2004)​

* Narrow-leaflet drug (NLD) strains from the Indian subcontinent and other drug producing regions.​

Now, looking specifically at chemotype I, which is high THC and very low CBD... (underlines added)...

"It was estimated that chemotype I individuals comprised <25% of each population for all but two of the 89 accessions assigned to C. sativa and >25% of each population for all but four of the 62 accessions assigned to C. indica. This appears to be a reasonable guideline for differentiation of the two species, in conjunction with other taxonomic traits. The advantage of this approach over the method of Small and Cronquist (1976) for differentiating sativa from indica (regardless of taxonomic rank) is that the frequency of chemotype I plants in a given population is stable from one generation to the next (assuming Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium) and not influenced by biotic and abiotic factors that affect the quantitative production of cannabinoids. For populations that have been purposely selected for a fixed chemotype, geographic origin and morphological traits are better indicators of species membership (Hillig, 2004, in press)."​

​

* Accession refers to the plant materials collected from a particular area. I think this means, you could have an accession containing many individuals of a particular variety or strain, representing various phenotypes.​

This is making an estimation that, 98% of the accessions assigned to the sativa species indicate less than 25% of populations are chemotype I individuals (high THC, very low CBD). And, 91% of the accessions assigned to indica indicate more than 25% of the populations are chemotype I individuals. This supports the idea that "original" sativas—i.e. hemp landraces and wild sativas from eastern Europe—are low in THC. Similarly, "original" indicas—i.e. those listed in Table 1 above as indica (either indica hemp landraces, wild indicas, narrow-leaf "drug" strains, or wide-leaf "drug" strains) are high/higher in THC.

***​

Some CONCLUSIONS**:

• Original sativas were tall, narrow leaf plants with low THC and varying amounts of CBD, originating from Europe, Asia Minor (Turkey), and Central Asia—not south, east (China), or southeast Asia.
• Original indicas were short, wide leaf plants with high THC, originating from south Asia and east Asia (China), including India, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
• It makes sense that the high-THC sativas that were developed in southeast Asia (e.g. Thailand) were tall-growing, narrow-leaf strains, hybridized with high-THC indica strains.
• What we consider as a modern-day sativa isn't the same as the original sativas. Modern-day, high-THC sativas are the result of hybridization.
• Type II and Type III strains, containing high amounts of CBD, are likely the result of breeding with original (or close to original) sativa genetics, or breeding with hybrids that contain original sativa genetics.
• Sativas are actually the original CBD plants! This explains why many or most of the high-grade, type III CBD strains are classified as sativas. (High-grade meaning in the 15-20% CBD range.)

** I have omitted any discussion of ruderalis.​

Next I'll attempt to relate all this to landraces, and comment on sativa/indica in terms of effects rather than either morphology or chemotypes. And, I'll try to bring it all together and answer the question, what does it really mean to be 100% sativa or 100% indica?

 

[CBDMed]

This is saying that the commonly accepted difference in the morphology—i.e. the plant size, shape, and leaf structure—is not a reliable determinant of sativa vs. indica. Instead, chemotypic differences are important, meaning the ratios of the cannabinoids, chiefly THC and CBD.

A question from ignorance: is the difference the phenos?

Some CONCLUSIONS**:

• Original sativas were tall, narrow leaf plants with low THC and varying amounts of CBD, originating from Europe and northern Asia (not southern or southeast Asia).
• Original indicas were short, wide leaf plants with high THC, originating from south Asia and east Asia (China), including India, Nepal, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
• It makes sense that the high-THC sativas that were developed in southeast Asia (e.g. Thailand) were tall-growing, narrow-leaf strains, hybridized with high-THC indica strains.
• What we consider as a modern-day sativa isn't the same as the original sativas. Modern-day, high-THC sativas are the result of hybridization.
• Type II and Type III strains, containing high amounts of CBD, are likely the result of breeding with original (or close to original) sativa genetics, or breeding with hybrids that contain original sativa genetics.
• Sativas are actually the original CBD plants! This explains why many or most of the high-grade, type III CBD strains are classified as sativas. (High-grade meaning in the 15-20% CBD range.)

** I have omitted any discussion of ruderalis.​

Wow. Great post. Very informative.

To make a long story short, do we know where high CBD sativa's originally come from?
(... Long story but I'm having a discussion with a professor of Chinese medicine, and she saying that there's no use for anything other than cannabis seed in the Chinese medical pharmacopeia, which to me cannot be right. And I'm wondering if they even had high CBD cannabis in China three or 4000 years ago when these texts were being developed...)

I know that they isolated CBD before they isolated THC, but I do not know much more than that. But it would be great to know if they even had high CBD cannabis back in ancient China.
(if it existed elsewhere, they might have known about it, but I do not know if they had CBD back then.)
Thanks.

 

[cbdhemp808]

I said:

This is saying that the commonly accepted difference in the morphology—i.e. the plant size, shape, and leaf structure—is not a reliable determinant of sativa vs. indica. Instead, chemotypic differences are important, meaning the ratios of the cannabinoids, chiefly THC and CBD.

...is the difference the phenos?

There are two types of differences going on, one being phenotypic differences, and the other being the general morphology of the plant—i.e. its size, shape, and leaf structure. Yes, you can have a phenotype that looks like a sativa, and a phenotype that looks like an indica, from the same seed line. But looks can be deceiving. For example, a plant that may look like a sativa may produce cannabinoids and terpenes associated with an indica (i.e. it will have indica effects). This is why the authors of the paper pointed to the importance of the cannabinoid ratios in determining sativa vs. indica.

Wow. Great post. Very informative.

To make a long story short, do we know where high CBD sativa's originally come from?

Apparently, the wild sativas contained CBD in significant amounts, not the wild indicas. And then humans got involved and bred the sativas for more CBD potency (and THC potency). Apparently the wild sativas were found in Europe and western Asia, not south, east (China), or southeast Asia.

... I'm having a discussion with a professor of Chinese medicine, and she saying that there's no use for anything other than cannabis seed in the Chinese medical pharmacopeia, which to me cannot be right. And I'm wondering if they even had high CBD cannabis in China three or 4000 years ago when these texts were being developed...

I don't know about the historical time period, but I think cannabis cultivation and breeding goes back at least 2,000 years in China. I'm guessing they originally cultivated the indigenous indicas (high THC, low CBD) and then eventually mixed those with the sativa genetics from Central Asia to the west.

Both THC and CBD have medicinal value, so I would agree with you—they must have been using it as medicine going way back in China. As for the CBD though, that would have been introduced later by cross-breeding with sativas.

I think the government (+pharma) suppression of cannabis is still working voodoo on prominent members of society, including doctors of all types and those in high positions in academia, in most places in the world. I think this is a follow-the-money phenomenon, meaning govt funding.

I know that they isolated CBD before they isolated THC, but I do not know much more than that. But it would be great to know if they even had high CBD cannabis back in ancient China.

Yes, Mechoulam in 1963 and 1964. That's a good question about CBD in ancient China. I'll take a wild guess that, given the sophistication of their culture, they were very good at breeding cannabis, and they would have gotten their hands on seeds of sativa landraces from the west, and also seeds of sativa/indica hybrid landraces from the south and west. Somewhere in there, high CBD may have been available.

 

[CBDMed]

Apparently, the wild sativas contained CBD in significant amounts, not the wild indicas. And then humans got involved and bred the sativas for more CBD potency (and THC potency). Apparently the wild sativas were found in Europe and western Asia, not south, east (China), or southeast Asia.

Very nice breakdown, thank you.

I don't know about the historical time period, but I think cannabis cultivation and breeding goes back at least 2,000 years in China. I'm guessing they originally cultivated the indigenous indicas (high THC, low CBD) and then eventually mixed those with the sativa genetics from Central Asia to the west.

Both THC and CBD have medicinal value, so I would agree with you—they must have been using it as medicine going way back in China. As for the CBD though, that would have been introduced later by cross-breeding with sativas.

Yeah, I guess that is what I do not get. CBD obviously has medicinal value, yet Chinese medicine discounts it.
Me not get.
The only thing that makes sense to me is if they did NOT have CBD cannabis back then, but I have not the depth of education on the subject to make a cohesive argument one way or the other.

I think the government (+pharma) suppression of cannabis is still working voodoo on prominent members of society, including doctors of all types and those in high positions in academia, in most places in the world. I think this is a follow-the-money phenomenon, meaning govt funding.

Well I certainly agree that the chemical-medicine-only types need to wake up and realize that it is a wellness herb.
(Contrary to popular medical opinion, wellness is medicinal!)
This particular doctor is not mainstream in that regard (or I would not be consulting her) but I hear you.

Yes, Mechoulam in 1963 and 1964. That's a good question about CBD in ancient China. I'll take a wild guess that, given the sophistication of their culture, they were very good at breeding cannabis, and they would have gotten their hands on seeds of sativa landraces from the west, and also seeds of sativa/indica hybrid landraces from the south and west. Somewhere in there, high CBD may have been available.

Right.
So how come they do not recognize the value of CBD, if they had access to it?
Me not get.

 

[cbdhemp808]

So how come they do not recognize the value of CBD, if they had access to it?

I'm sure the ancient Chinese practitioners knew of the value of the flowers as medicine. As to whether or not their flowers contained CBD, I think it's just a matter of historical timing. Surely the closer you get to modern-day, the more obvious it is that their flowers contained CBD, and in terms of the ancient Chinese, I think it's very possible... as soon as they got their hands on sativa and sativa/indica hybrid genetics. Of course, they very well probably didn't know that they were working with two distinct molecules (THC and CBD)—they just knew that the effects were different. So, they originally were working with type I indicas. Then they may have been working with type II indicas and sativas. As to whether they had access to type III (high CBD, very low THC), that's a tough call. BUT... the landraces developed to the west of China may have included type III phenotypes. Eventually growers and breeders in China probably also had these phenotypes.

In recent modern times, we rely on breeders who create stable seed lines by inbreeding. And so, we now have amazing type III strains with CBD in the range of 15-20%. I covered this... talking about the modern origins of high CBD cannabis HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

 

[cbdhemp808]

As to whether they had access to type III (high CBD, very low THC), that's a tough call. BUT... the landraces developed to the west of China may have included type III phenotypes. Eventually growers and breeders in China probably also had these phenotypes.

Correction... The landrace and wild sativas to the west of China, I think, would definitely have included type III, meaning significant amounts of CBD and very little THC. This is quite common in tall sativa varieties that were developed for fiber and seed (aka "industrial hemp"). With those varieties, it's not uncommon for CBD to be in the 2-4% range, with near zero THC. Some varieties may get above 4%. The question is, did it take selective breeding to reach the 8-10% range, and did that happen in ancient times, and if so, when? In modern times, it started to happen around 2009/2010 in Spain and the U.S., first with type II, and then type III.

 

[CBDMed]

Correction... The landrace and wild sativas to the west of China, I think, would definitely have included type III, meaning significant amounts of CBD and very little THC. This is quite common in tall sativa varieties that were developed for fiber and seed (aka "industrial hemp"). With those varieties, it's not uncommon for CBD to be in the 2-4% range, with near zero THC. Some varieties may get above 4%. The question is, did it take selective breeding to reach the 8-10% range, and did that happen in ancient times, and if so, when? In modern times, it started to happen around 2009/2010 in Spain and the U.S., first with type II, and then type III.

Indeed.

This is Hong Kong.

From Time Magazine,
BY CHAD DE GUZMAN / HONG KONG
JANUARY 31, 2023 7:00 PM EST
Hong Kong on Wednesday made possession, consumption, and distribution of cannabidiol, or CBD, illegal.
While some governments across the world have legalized or moved toward decriminalizing cannabis, including Thailand last year, cannabis itself remains illegal in most countries, with related offenses often punishable by long prison sentences.

Still, products containing the cannabis-derived compound CBD have become increasingly popular in recent years, touted to have therapeutic benefits. And it’s long existed in a legal gray area for regulators. As of last February, the global market for CBD was estimated to reach $48 billion by 2028.
In Hong Kong, a growing market had emerged for products containing CBD, ranging from skincare to food and beverage items. Months before the ban, one could, for example, walk into a specialty cafe and buy CBD-infused chocolate chip cookies or get a few drops of the compound in their smoothie or coffee.
But local authorities have argued that the science behind CBD’s supposed therapeutic qualities is not absolute and that its use may actually have harmful side effects. As of Feb. 1, CBD has been categorized as a “dangerous drug,” along with the likes of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

 

[CBDMed]

I do not want to hijack your thread, but from this study, it sounds like the MAINSTREAM of Chinese Medicine did NOT know how to differentiate CBD from THC. Therefore, it seems like they looked at it very skeptically, kind of like a "loose canon" or a "wild card" that they could not prescribe dependably, so the only part they could use was the seeds (mainly as a laxative), even though they knew about sexing plants, etc.

In the sixth century AD, the agricultural text Essential Techniques for the Welfare of the People (Qi Min Yao Shu) described techniques for the cultivation of hemp in great detail, and its monograph on cannabis cultivation features one of the first textually documented applications of fertilizer in the history of Chinese agriculture (Shi, 1957). This text also demonstrates the knowledge that removal of male plants at the initiation of flowering will result in a lack of seeds; however, the text focuses exclusively on cultivation and harvesting practices to maximize the production of seeds and the quality of fiber and does not reference the deliberate production of seedless cannabis (Shi, 1957).

This is what the author said about taxonomy. I do not know if what he says is right, and I do not know if it is of interest, but since it pertains, I thought I would offer it.

The complex debate about cannabis taxonomy initially developed after Lamarck proposed the name C. indica in 1785 to describe psychoactive Indian cannabis in contradistinction to Linnaeus' description of non-psychoactive European hemp (Hillig and Mahlberg, 2004), which was regarded as C. sativa L. While Lamarck's original type specimen of C. indica reflected a narrow leaflet drug (NLD) variety, Schultes later applied the name C. indica to refer to broad leaflet drug (BLD) varieties from Afghanistan that shared the characteristic of psychoactivity but differed in morphology (Clarke and Merlin, 2013). In contrast to European hemp, which is considered as representative of a narrow leaflet hemp biotype (NLH), most landraces of Chinese cannabis are characterized as a broad leaflet hemp (BLH) biotype. (Russo et al., 2008) (see Figure Figure2).2). Chinese hemp has strong fiber and is generally not psychoactive, but DNA and chemotype distinctions suggest that Chinese hemp is more closely linked genetically to C. sativa subsp. indica [ = C. indica Lamarck] than to European hemp (C. sativa subs. sativa [ = C. sativa L.]) (Hillig and Mahlberg, 2004; Hillig, 2005). Accordingly, Chinese hemp expresses the BT alleles necessary for the biosynthesis of THC more prominently than European hemp, even though long-term selection for fiber has led Chinese hemp to produce only low levels of THC (Clarke and Merlin, 2013). This suggests that drug and fiber biotypes of cannabis in China may have shared a common ancestor and diverged through human selection, but the precise timeline of fiber hemp's increasing dominance in the Chinese gene pool remains unclear.

Yeah, if I could not tell the difference between CBD and THC, I am not sure I would prescribe it medically either!

If anyone is interested, their first recognized preparations of medically intoxicating substances showed up about 1070 CE (near the end of the article). Some of the descriptions are pretty interesting.

 

[cbdhemp808]

This is Hong Kong.

It's not surprising that the communist government of China, in its control of Hong Kong, would suppress cannabis. In their eyes, the plant is too powerful to even allow the people access to its CBD forms, let alone its THC forms.

In this one area, the government of China is similar to the U.S. Republican Party, which is notoriously against cannabis. Only the following U.S. states (6), which are controlled by the Republican Party, allow no cannabis whatsoever, including CBD oil: Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Only the following U.S. states (7), which are controlled by the Republican Party, allow CBD oil, but no other forms of cannabis, including medical cannabis: Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia. (Of the other Republican controlled states, 12 of those states allow medical cannabis, and 4 states allow both medical and adult use.)

All Democrat controlled states (19), except for Hawaii, allow both medical use and adult use! (Hawaii doesn't allow adult use.) The other exception is Alaska, where cannabis is fully legal, and which is jointly controlled by both Republican and Democratic parties.

Of the 50 U.S. states, 29 have no citizen ballot initiatives. 17 of those are Republican controlled, while 12 are Democrat controlled.

 

[cbdhemp808]

I do not want to hijack your thread, but from this study, it sounds like the MAINSTREAM of Chinese Medicine did NOT know how to differentiate CBD from THC. Therefore, it seems like they looked at it very skeptically, kind of like a "loose canon" or a "wild card" that they could not prescribe dependably, so the only part they could use was the seeds (mainly as a laxative), even though they knew about sexing plants, etc.

I took a look at the Brand/Zhao study, and it seems to be purposely skewed toward the use of the seeds. The authors sort of dance around the subject of the use of the flowers. They even describe in detail a concoction made from stir-fried seeds boiled in alcohol as a treatment for "severe pain" (circa 1070 AD?), and conjecture that maybe the seeds still had resinous bracts intact. ...Like as if the ancient Chinese weren't fully aware of the pain-relieving effects of the flowers!

The ancient Chinese bencao texts go back to 220 BC. The Shang Dynasty goes back to 1600 BC. Surely the Chinese culture existed long before the Shang Dynasty, but lets just grab that number "1600 BC". So, before the bencao texts appeared, there was a period of Chinese culture extending at least 1,380 years. That's a long time.

[EDIT: Just came across this... "The first documented case of its use dates back to 2800 BC, when it was listed in the Emperor Shen-Nung's (regarded as the father of Chinese medicine) pharmacopoeia." source. Shen-Nung is known as a "mythical emperor" whatever that means! ]

The cannabis first used in ancient China would surely have been the indigenous high-THC indica varieties, not the sativa hemp varieties or hybrids from the west. So, the ancient Chinese were likely very well aware of the psychoactive properties, and medicinal properties, of their local cannabis plants.

Meanwhile, in India to the south, they also had access to high-THC indica plants. Their system of medicine, Ayurveda, is even older than the Chinese system, going back to the Rig Veda (3000-2500 BCE)...

"Cannabis is known as “Bhanga” in Ayurveda. Atharva Veda [1200-1000 BCE] mentions cannabis as one of the five most sacred plants on Earth and refers to it as a “Freedom for Distress” or a “joy-giver”. Therapeutic value of this plant is mentioned in many of the Ayurvedic texts like the Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, and Shargandhara Samhita.​

​

Anandakand has a whole chapter dedicated to the herb, which describes various purification methods, formulations and antidotal therapy to counter the side effects of overdose of cannabis.​

​

There are around 209 formulations mentioned in Ayurveda using Cannabis as single ingredient." [ source ]​

So, you can't tell me that the ancient Chinese practitioners weren't fully aware of all this.

"The exchange of traditional medicine between China and India began in the Qin and Han Dynasties (221 BC–220 AD), prospered in the Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD), and declined after the Song Dynasty (960–1279 AD). It was also directly related to the rise and fall of Buddhism. The traditional medicines of the two countries are highly complementary..."​

[ source ]​

 

[cbdhemp808]

This is from John McPartland:

"Formally, Cannabis sativa subspecies sativa is European hemp—traditionally used for rope, not dope. The subspecies sold in dispensaries is C. sativa subsp. indica. It consists of two varieties: C. sativa subsp. indica var. indica (a.k.a. "Sativa"), and C. sativa subsp. indica var. afghanica (a.k.a. "Indica")."​

• • •​

"The oldest Cannabis pollen in Europe appeared during a previous Ice Age, known as the Olduvai cold stage, about 1.8 million years ago. That's young compared to Asia, where Cannabis pollen dates back to 19.6 million years ago. The European population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. sativa, and the Asian population may be the ancestor of C. sativa subsp. indica." [ source ]​

So there you have it, Cannabis sativa subspecies sativa is the original sativa from Europe and Central Asia landraces and wild strains. This became known as hemp when humans started cultivating it.

And, Cannabis sativa subspecies indica var. indica is what we are currently calling "sativa".

It's surprising that fossil cannabis pollen from Europe is dated at 1.8 million years ago (possible ancestor of original sativas), while fossil cannabis pollen from Asia is dated at 19.6 million years ago (possible ancestor of original indicas). This appears to contradict the idea that indicas evolved from sativas—i.e. sativas were first, and then indicas came later.

@Fenderbender said, "Indica & Sativa diverged a million years ago."

So, maybe it was all indica (short, wide leaves, adapted to colder, dryer climates) up until about 1-1.8 million years ago, and then sativas emerged (tall, narrow leaves, adapted to wetter climates). If this is true, it looks like cannabis originated in the regions now called Asia, and then about 18 million years later appeared in the regions now called Europe. But Asia is very big, consisting of Asia Minor, Central Asia, North Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Where was the epicenter of the original indicas?

Another factor: climate can change a lot in the span of millions of years...

"For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 20,000-year cycle caused by the precession of Earth's axis (about 26,000 years) as it rotates around the Sun, which changes the location of the North African monsoon."​

So, maybe we just can't tell whether the sativa form, or the indica form, was first!

 

[Azimuth]

Meanwhile, in India to the south, they also had access to high-THC indica plants. Their system of medicine, Ayurveda, is even older than the Chinese system, going back to the Rig Veda (3000-2500 BCE)...

"Cannabis is known as “Bhanga” in Ayurveda. Atharva Veda [1200-1000 BCE] mentions cannabis as one of the five most sacred plants on Earth and refers to it as a “Freedom for Distress” or a “joy-giver”. Therapeutic value of this plant is mentioned in many of the Ayurvedic texts like the Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, and Shargandhara Samhita.

And they have a drink called "bhang" (?) made from the flower and milk, and heated. Don't know how old that is but likely pretty ancient.

So they obviously figured out the relationship regarding extracting into a fat.