An half century was a bit arbitrary but he’s right in the core of the demonstration. The waves of popularity are made from cycles since decades, then the demand bringing a specific genetic in front of the said scene.
A big library (seeds or clones) permit to wait “the hour of each genetic” where “zero library” is a totally different management also in the methods used (promoting fast development to follow the trends).
It’s a more difficult subject that it appear from my perspective.
By the delta (again, it’s pure stats) of variations, more. It’s not because your genetic is rich that it have to be unstable. The same way it’s not because a line is unstable as fck that it promote diversity.
It’s not a passive and mechanical leverage.
You can have a poor genes diversity but a rich allele dynamic too.
Not in the numbers of possible combinations, virtually infinite with seeds.
Not in the perspective of evolution, without starting to complicate the subject with the notion of “breeding recessive continuously”.
These cuts by example have a status in their own genotype, that we took the habit to let it unknown (because their stories are funnier). It’s not happening with seeds, you directly see who’s leading the line or who’s not.
I mean the comparison is biased for me. It’s comparing a pizza (final product), with each of its component (materials). A cut being generally sold to gain time on the selection, that’s the main purpose.
Def it doesn’t strictly need scientists for conducting good science but i must say non-scientists mostly lack in two most clear factors for genetic study; statistics and bioinformatics. Moreover, for genetic studies you often need equipments that doesn’t make sense to have it for normal individual. Luckily scientists often are accessible on those equipments via their jobs/companies.
I think you are right. Obviously I’m not a biologist (and english is not my first language) but I think it may come down to Epigentics. A seed should be able to display a higher number of phenotypes than a clone (assuming they are genetically identical) because you can expose it to different environmental factors earlier in the lifecycle, which would make a bigger impact.
Okay, I’m in plant science sector but heavily falls under cultivation perspective, not genetic studies. So my explanation on genetic study lacks but anyway, you are def on the right track.
Just that to preserve more diverse genetic you need both dominant and recessive of alleles, and elite clones will def lack in these diversity compare to unworked regional seeds together with seeds of mutated lines. Also, combination of alleles will matter in terms of diversity (realistic perspective of view), which again elite clones lacking. Especially thinking elite clones share very much god damn similar ancestors to each other.
I can say diversity of elite clones and hybrid seeds may not be statistically significant difference. However, I assume diversity of elite clones to unworked regional seeds will have statically significant difference.
Scientists matter, but who’s leading the science shouldn’t.
I think I understand better this discussion wasn’t a science question. It was more of a marketing question or thought experiment.
Every study I have read includes hemp in the conversation. I haven’t seen anyone suggested adding industrial hemp or CBD strains like Harlequin or ACDC to the vault…
I suspect this is true:
And I think you would be surprised.
Statistically different, yes. As different as ‘people’ think? Probably not.
I’m on the hunt for the study I was reading that I really liked. I might find it again if I’m lucky.
Humanity bottle necked at under 1300 people. Now we have a wide variety of “phenotypes”. Working lines, actually growing plants, is what preserves genetics. I raise “rare breed” chicken and turkey, the Livestock Conservancies say is “eat 'em to save 'em”.
Clones are the opposite to diversity,
only new genes they might introduce are those that they develope during their life cycle, and possible give on to the next clone.
its a way to preserve certain genetic combinations but even those adapt to their environment eventually.
Seeds on the other hand are the natural way of evolution and diversification, especially if they arent self pollinated or inbred. They seemingly randomly mix genes, add mutations, good ones (for that environment) are passed on, bad ones die out, usually.
So for preservation, clones are somewhat better. Self pollinated females not considered since they miss half the possible gene pool, but they offer quite the same as clones in regards to preserving a certain female, with the possibility for more mutations and better storage options.
But for diversity and improvement, nothing beats male x fem seeds afaik atm. (maybe if we cross weed with a plant that propagates via spores or somin and still has decent genetic improvement that way, this might change). Problem here is that we select for breeding to achieve certain goals which might contradict the environment and the desire of the plant (see sunflowers and their loss of scent/terpenes due to breeding for industrial seed production).
Id also presume, that once our science and understanding of natural systems advances further, we might be able to extract the genetic information of ancestors from their current offspring gene patterns.
If it comes down to Having to pick One, or the Other. I will go with Seeds.
The main reason I choose seeds, is because, when scientists decided to preserve as many of the worlds food crop species, they went to the North Sea/Norway, and built a seed vault. They didnt build a clone vault, though, I believe if possible, Id do both, but Seeds, are less vulnerable to be lost.
Weed, not allowed. Or any drug plant.
Oh that’s an interesting input. Why do you think that I would be surprised? Because the variability will be huge in elite clones as much as the unworked regional seeds?
Maybe I gotta ask, If you mean that there is huge unstability in a single cultivar or overall huge diversity over whole elite clones? (Ofc i meant your assumption not like asking for scientific sources😁 i like those “hypothesis” talk)
I do assume there will be a difference as “people” think. Wonder why you think it probably is not?
Especially, bigger the tested population becomes, there will be even bigger difference between elite clones and unworked regional seeds.
For example,
If the unworked regionals have trait such autoflowering which is mutation and you won’t see in elite clones or true hermaphrodite that you won’t see in elite clones as people cull down those genes, I clearly expect to have bigger diversity in the unworked regional seeds (and those traits are common in unworked landraces or wild cannabis seeds). And statistic will show that this difference didn’t happen coincidently.
This was how my logic was following and assuming
Super curious of your thought hehe
I have read that all weed, including hemp, landraces etc. are very genetically similar. It was a very interesting study, I might have to go into my browser history to find it again. It went into the history of how weed spread across the continents as humanity cultivated it for drugs, then HEAVILY hemp, but also drugs.
I don’t know what your expectations are, we don’t cross paths a lot but I hope we do in the future.
I’m making wild assumptions on the dude-bro science I see online. I assume ‘people’ think landraces (I’m thinking lambsbread, Hindu kush, Durban) are genetically exotic. They are wild and unknown strains like we have never seen before from far away lands, untouched by human hands, or ‘pure’. I feel this line of thinking is wishful at best and racist/ colonialist at worst.
I would expect the opposite. Usually, wild types are fairly similar. Nature culled down to the hardy survivors. Unless a mutation or microclimate or some other intervention is working on one population and not another.
I enjoy the conversation, but I fear I have dragged this thread way off topic isn’t the first time, and won’t be the last
Oh this is def interesting! If you get to find again let us know the link hehe but no pressure
I know sometimes its just not possible to find those links🤣
Hope the same!
Yesss definitely those are exotics! For me those siberian wild plants are true wild plants tho🤣 you know the ones that doesn’t have much value as our smoke but as a plant and genetic it definitely is interesting hehe
But I get what you mean😁
Ahh I understand where you coming with
That’s a fair point
Perhaps we may be mixing a bit of stable/unstable genetic and diverse genetics! But we’ll stick to the topic now😂
Don’t want to distract the thread as well hehe
Good point you made!
The thing about saving clones, is that most clones represent a lack of genetic diversity, rather than having it. Ostensibly, clones are a rarity that have to be hunted. You might keep that clone and breed something nice from it, and when you do, you’re always reducing diversity.
Save a clone, you save a snapshot of a specific pheno. Save a seed, and you’re probably going to save more than one. So IMO saving seeds gives you more diversity.
I do happen to be a biologist (ecologist really) and have worked quite a bit with quantitative genetics, populations genetics, and evolutionary genetics.
You are 100% right that beans beat clones. And beans let you grow a large population you can use for reproduction, allowing you to keep a high diversity seed population. You can then take that through selection and when you hit a bottleneck go back to the original, high diversity population to help. The upside is lots of diversity, the down side is diversity also means unwanted traits.
Clones are dope because, by definition, they are identical to the mother. Meaning all desirable traits are in offspring. They do not amount to much diversity though. The value of their collection is likely the ability to bring some older, desired traits into new generation seeds. This can be yield related, terpene related, or disease and pest resistance. Or anything really that is deemed desirable.
When you talk genetic diversity, its a property of populations. Big (1000s of plants) or small (1 to 10s of plants). And seeds will beat clones almost everytime. The goal is to keep a line that has been selected and worked as a subgroup of the overall population. Lets you lock in traits you want but provides enough diversity from the line to potentially rescue when inbreeding becomes a problem.
So the paper you linked is a good one and there is another out of UW-Madison from a genetics researcher named Shelby Ellison that build off the principles. What they conclude is that different cannabis accessions, hemp vs feral vs drug type are more closely related to others in their accession than to those between types. Mostly they are looking at genes and their different forms, and are comparing similarity. This type of analysis has some built in bias, and since the changes between hemp and drug type are minimal (genetically) they also seem similar. They are also surveying genes present in populations that are naturally occurring so that also complicates the picture.
Wild accessions are absolute gold for breeders. They are more likely to have traits related to environmental stress tolerance because that will be their biggest selective agent. Woked lines often trade out these genes for more yield related genes, energy for building biomass gotta come from somewhere. Most feral lines of plants, unless they are clonal, will harbor large amounts of standing genetic diversity. Feral populations from across the country may be similar genetically if they share a founder, but you can also see small genetic signatures of adaptation to local conditions.
I’m speaking of a collection to preserve diversity (of cannabis used for recreational an medical purposes) and not a museum for different flavors of high THC cannabis mostly bred in the US.
To make it more practical the collection should give a breeder the ability to breed plants that can adapt to a wide variety of climates and “natural” soils from 60° latitude to the equator and can produce high quality flower for recreational and medical purposes (and if hemp cultivars are useful for this endeavor you are free to include them).
they found a judean palm seed that is allegedly 2000yrs old… and it grew into a tree…
they found weed seeds in germany, cultivated, 5000yrs old, not sure if those are still viable.
funnily enough, the oldest regrown plant is not from seed, but tissue according to that wiki article above. so… a clone… 31.000 yrs old …lul
(well kinda, they took mature seeds and invitroed their placenta tissue… not sure if that a seed or a clone now tbh)
It’s a very hot topic, the OP became quite fast a kind of gold law in bonus. It complicate the discussions even more.
In Maroc it’s coming back to traditional lines, while the hybrids were used mostly on the bottom of the valley. But it’s not finished yet, they study (too slowly) to open a part of the production to export (legally). It’s amusing somehow because they are the main provider of hash by tons of the whole EU since decades ^^
In Thailand with the Dutch rush money and the production units delocalized … i think that it will hit harder and longer.
I agree with this and it’s where TC take its importance imho. The problematic being the low turn over of these materials and the necessity to work them a bunch before the selection of the representative cuts. The terroir play a big role in the render of the weed or the hash produced from these materials, complicating a bit the manner to spread them.
Seeds of these cultivars still floating around without much problems, to loop on the subject. Works less ^^
It’s true if the epigenetic factors are lethal. If not, it’s more about a terroir of the final product. The value being more in the resistance/linked traits not explored “on site”, to inject in lines that have losted their resilience or that are locked by destructive sequences.
Totally agreed. It complicate a lot the dialog with preservation projects, to change the perspective set a bit like a systemic martingale.
Hemp is a world a lot more structured and industrialized, you can’t vault anything without cascading implications. On stuff like Cannatonic, ACDC, Harlequin … they still cash machines actually too. And anyone can operate a BX ^^
Very bad analogy buddy. As humans we thrive only in F1 somehow; the vegetal reign can’t be putted aside at the same level. Add to this that “our females” are unable to produce thousands of unique babies, and that our lifespan is not one year ^^
Cattle management on advanced works can be eventually discussed for their values while adapted to the vegetal reign, but in general talking genetic with mammals and vegetal at the same level is just leading to heated irrational sophism most of the time ^^
how can you say this monstruosity ?
because i’m not insulting at the point to qualify you as a vegetative being ^^
That’s the whole game, yes. Compromises.
I consider the variability threshold as the diversity, for the grid.
Clones in S1 being the only way to transform directly the phenotype/cut in a “kind of diversity”, for me there is not even a debate ^^ But i enjoy the discussions around it.
That’s a good example actually to turn around the complicated factors.
I flowered a bunch of elites, the majority of them are latent herms and for an human reason i don’t understand yet, old cuts present generally high ethylen levels at the same time ^^
The unworked landraces is a concept i don’t really take in count in the actual world, most of valuable ones to work with are logically hardly worked ones (generally hash cultivars). The main difference being the scale of the selection, the duration (centuries) and also what kill naturally the young plants at early stages (for a big part of the leverage that narrow these cultivars).
In term of diversity, there is no doubt but it’s necessary to stay pragmatic on coincidences imho.
Without politicizing the discussion, it’s a true factor on what is worked outside the original locations. Narcotourism à la Strain Hunters can be debated in the same vein too (not my favorite subject, it’s no longer about plants).
A lot ^^ But that’s a discussion I sip, the way it’s articulated can maybe change the perspectives on deleterious practices.
This is the justification of the THCa and CBDa PCRs in fact.
Two years is the deadline with cannabis, but it’s not always well understood. This is not “how long” you can store seeds in the fridge, it’s more linked with the optimal window for genetics.
isn’t the first time, and won’t be the last
