The information available today online is huge, but that don’t make it all correct or valid, as anyone can throw out their opinion on any subject and claim it as fact.
If a plant line produces visually uniform plants that all give the same type of high, and they all have red flowers generation after generation, I would call that line homogeneous.
Heterogeneous, consisting of dissimilar parts, that is what we see in Haze and other hybrids.
Can we as a grower select the parts you want and increase these in the next generation’s Yes with the right selection you can steer that line towards it becoming homogeneous, that’s a fact.
All the old lines that people called Land Races were Heirloom varieties, they were domesticated and farmed they were like it or not a plant product that was grown and harvested for profit or subsistence.
I think it would be good to differentiate concepts. Heirloom and Landrace.
I have grown a lot of landraces and there is not always homozygous behavior in the offspring. Although landrace may be F(x), it is difficult to know for sure that its ancestors have followed a selection in previous generations, I mean, in natural environments all generations intersect with each other and that is what allows plants to are in constant adaptation. On the other hand, heirloom (heirloom) usually has human intervention in order to seek homozygous stability.
According to the genetic improvement books that I have read, from F5 onwards the behavior of the population should be quite stable.
I’m only commenting from theory, I have never reached F5 in my projects.
Greetings!
you probably should add on the end that this is your experience or opinion ,
and it may differ from actual facts ,
because it does ,
ive posted several links now that show landraces , are not heirlooms ,
unless you have written any books on the subject ,
its probabl[y best we go by folks who have , and are qualified to educate us plebs on these subjects …
Heirlooms can perhaps be classified as more stable populations with more distinct phenotypes than landraces. Heirlooms are not necessarily bound to a locality whereas a landrace is. What landraces and heirlooms have in common is that they are all, of course, open pollinated types.
The way I see it as layman as possible is that an heirloom is /are genetics that were taken from wild populations or original cultivators therefore keeping the original genetics free of hybridization or bottle neckinig and also it stops further genetic adaptation and and diversity.
I think we are also neglecting the definition of the word heirloom in itself.
As per Merriam Webster.
1
: a piece of property (such as a deed or charter) that descends to the heir as an inseparable part of an inheritance of real property
2
: something of special value handed down from one generation to another
The pin she’s wearing is a family heirloom.
3
: a variety of plant that has originated under cultivation and that has survived for several generations usually due to the efforts of private individuals
heirloom tomatoes
There’s the case of Afghan farmers who have been culling the weaker males and saving the best females for thousands of years. It’s selective breeding on a massive scale. Their plants are a local Afghani landrace but also a family heirloom that gets handed down to the next generation.
Well, that’s one definition that I hadn’t considered lol.
It seems like this ‘debate’ about definitions is bizarre, and ultimately kind of irrelevant if you’re determined to make up your own definitions as you go along.
If you are that kind of person, then knock yourself out, call a plant a spaceship if it helps you understand. Just don’t expect to get an agreeable response if you try and convince someone else it’s a spaceship, just because you believe it is.
All I know is that if I did that with any systems engineering project, all kinds of stuff would go pear shaped real fast. Every system design spec I’ve ever written starts with a glossary of technical terms. We don’t get to reinterpret those terms to suit ourselves. They are what they are. A system board, isn’t a loaf of bread by another name, no matter how much any individual may call it such.
It’s a defined thing that exists and is clearly defined by precedent, protocol and standard practice. I don’t get to form an opinion that widget A is actually Widget B because it suits my sensibilities, such things are not open to my personal perspective. My personal opinion, no matter how stridently held or expressed is entirely irrelevant as it will never conjure up a new reality, no matter how much I may wish it so. Maybe such granular definitions are not necessary here and arguing about it pointless; but it’s still important to be technically accurate, I understand some
people might see this as merely ‘semantics’ but how can we even have a productive discussion about it if we can’t even agree on the language we use?
Landrace The term ‘landrace’ was first mentioned at the International Congress of Agriculture and For- estry in Vienna in 1890 (Zeven, 1998). It is defined
as a cultivated, heterogeneous variety selected in a
specific ecogeographical area and well adapted to
edaphic and climatic conditions and to traditional
management and use there. However, due to con- tinuous evolution and further natural and artificial selection, the definition of ‘landraces’ has been reconsidered several times since then. Casañas et al. (2017) suggest that the term ‘landrace’ should be used for cultivated varieties that have evolved through conventional but also modern breeding technologies in a traditional or modern agricultural environment within a specific ecogeographical area. http://ressources.semencespaysannes.org/docs/landracereview-euphytica1998.pdf
‘heirloom varieties’ that have undergone conservative selection and may have remained free from introgression are also considered as landraces. In order to maintain the specific genotype, this germ- plasm is often maintained as clonal plants, but can also be preserved as seed.
Here is a simple but useful explanation that anyone should be able to grasp. Weed growers have adapted and mangled the terminology to be different to other plants. Haze is neither a landrace nor an heirloom according to the normal definition, it’s just a dirty old hybrid
you would almost think a geneticist could wrap his head around this hey ??
lol ,
im only a horticulturist and ive been aware of this stuff as long as i remember …
easy to understand for any person ,
and yet …
You should read the link, What I posted was only a small part of the science paper.
As a landrace has a complex and indefinable nature an all-embracing definition cannot be given. However, I suggest the following: an autochthonous landrace is a variety with a high capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress, resulting in a high yield stability and an intermediate yield level under a low input agricultural system.
This and the other part I posted are just part of the Summary of the paper.
There are no ‘autochthonous’ cannabis landraces. They are not ‘native’ to any region where the presence in that region is the result of only local natural evolution and without any human intervention.
That word is kind of important to the entire context of the paper.
autochthonous=indigenous or native.
The very first sentence in your quote contradicts your earlier statement, sadly … heterogeneous was not how you interpreted landraces at all, embarrassing when the quote you use to back up your stance blows it instead
Silver dollar haze, got seeds at Higher Education about 3 years ago from a vendor. Accidentally naturally made seeds last season. These are the biggest/heaviest looking seeds. ’
“The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called ‘sciences as one would.’ For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.”
I think you missed the point of my post. I was stating the fact that article says “should be”. Which means that it’s not the way it is.
Like I’m suggesting a $10 price but the price is actually $20.
By the articles own admission their definition for landrace and heirloom are not fact but the authors opinion on what the definitions should be. Therefore the article cannot be taken as fact or science based.
My point is it doesn’t support your @hempy argument.
