Thanks VRG,very much appreciated your comment!
Looking for a balanced mix of individuals for provocative and evocative sexual encounters between them and with friends 
3 Likes
Overview of the small cabinet for vege
Little Killer Skunk growing.
The others I grew before also were very compact, small and slow grow on the seedling stage.
I found lot of resilience and smell on the males while flowering.
@VRG you mentioned " if you have really good eyes" to spot sex. Any tips on the details? No pistils, just some stretch at W4 (#6-7)… Some have not stretch at all? ( Famale?)
Males are usually the first to appear:) ?
NOTE: Please note that this is a Torture Garden.
Currently runnig 12/1 cycle with low tech 20-22C 68-78 RH Vipaspectra dimmed af 20%!!! ( Yes 20W) 60x40x70H W4( i guess)
3 Likes
12 hours on and 1 hour off? What is the thinking behind that? I honestly have no idea why you would do that. Is this something you’re pioneering? or is it based on something you’ve read? Please share a link if you have one
18/6 is tried and tested for 50 years indoors and people use it because it works.
3 Likes
ello VRG,
many thanks to reply to my message.
You can’t image how happy and honoured I am to have you on board.
You are a legend to me,but I can’t say this, so please dont consider it:)
The gas lantern routine has been pioneering for more than 50 years, and I am sure you heard about it.
I guess its a victorian routine to keep plant in vegetative when lights and electric lights were still unknown.
My grandma used to keep tomatoes in vege during winter ( San Marzano people) with this technique ( filanent bulb!)
Over 12-13h plants go to vege, correct?..the extra 1 hour allow the plant to stay in vegetative with the minimum ammount of light required.
Does it work?
Absolutely:) but 5 hours of light per day are 5 hours less energy and there are two main effects:
Economically ( positive) -5h bills/day (20w is ridiculous reduction, but still it is). sustainability still count
and growing ( negative-positive):
For mother, seedling, germination, and normal lazy growing it is working well ( imho)…for growing normally to achieve the best in the minor time possible, of course doesn’t ( 5 hours of light less per day).
But… why 18/6 and not 20/4 or 17/7 or 16/8?
12/12 makes sense isn’t ? It is the maximum time you can give for bloom, more will back to vege.
Who is growing for example NLD with 12/12 over 20 or more weeks? Why not 11/13 or 10/14.
I love Dj Short tips on this topic.
I am sure I am wrong, but…is it not funny?
The 20W + 12/1 are the base of my Torture Gardens where I stress the genotype and the consequent phenotime appearance as I can with the intent to select in small ( very small) population. Under stress, the genotypes resilience reveals themself in my opinion. Good genetics survives, omogeneous one perish.
On this I am an asshole pionering ( how to breed in a small population without hybridisation). Kidding I am just a bitch;)
VRG: Let’s face it: I won’t never achieve results as you or other professional grower/breeders do. I don’t have time, money, experience and/or patience or courage maybe to do so.
I just love being an herbalist or gardener and I consider that my only support to the community is to experiment on the way.
Because the process is what count the most not the result.
I am a foreigner arriving to your country dreaming about cannabis culture.Considering that first sign of respect should be to grow your culture and traditions, preserving such culture.
You may believe that cheese, livers,etc where a selection from a Skunk#1 sensi seed pack from holland. I am sure you don’t.
There is more brotherhood in cheese that what everyone think.
There is more breeding in both cheese and livers that what everyone believe.
Imho. But still I am a bitch.
Why someone stay always in the shade, it is probably his ( we know he is he) decision, but that genetics are more special that what we think.
That’s why people still hack your work and why your work is still there ( always less unfortunately).
We love it
Btw: some people are what they are. Some we like, others no. But over and above discrepancies there is still a great work to do as community on the cannabis scene.
People is missing you on the other side of the online ocean! Dont forget you are still appreciated and readed and asked… maybe you can make peace?
5 Likes
Some picture of the flower room with:
- White Widow Bilbao cut
- ESB by Fleaur du Mal
- Erba del Diavolo by personal local source
Very keen to try erba del diavolo. It could be everything but currently it’s smelling very well, beautiful looks ans sticky trichomes.
8 Likes
Sexing all Killer Skunks.
Testing the eazy plugs over my dro cloner DIY.
3 Weeks for cloning, Vs 2 weeks in other normal medium.
Here vege mothers + 7 Killer Skunk seedlings
Here sexing
Killer Skunk #6 is Male … the firstborn
Killer Skunk #7 seems a male as well
2 Likes
While in flowering we have:
White Widow Euskalaria cut
Week 8, tricomes are cloudy but i would like to try another week.
Erba del diavolo personal selected cut is done at week 8
ESB by Fleur du Mal is still requiring at least 2 weeks (10w)
5 Likes
Lovely grow!
ESB is one of our most favorite buds I grew out last year!!
I’ve also grown out and have some going on now, Syrups Celia Bx1, super special buds to us, for the exceptional dreamy mind scape it gives us.
I can also see why, from reading the article this morning, about UK’s energy needs, and how they are buying much of it now, and it’s so expensive.
So yeah, I totally get reducing juice, if your getting results you can live with.
Sorry to babble, again lovely grow!!
webe
4 Likes
Cutting WW this week ,( w 9) 8 would have been ok also
Erba del diavolo ACA calabrese rossa will cut tomorrow…perfectly done at w8
Starting stressing test for my 3 clones to see how fast they turn herma…
If they do bin!
4 Likes
Firstly many thanks to stop by, and for the kind words
I am a fanatic of UK Landraces and Heirloom specifically if sativas.
Although I started here when Vic High and old original crew it’s Old Timer1 legacy, geniuous, kindness that brought me to UK420
I am trying all the genetics I could find of him and grew already:
Oldtimer1 B Line F2
ESB F2
CeliaxCelia
Motivation x Smile
All amazing hacking by subbies uk420 crew.
Love them!!!
Waiting for @gsyrup to release some of his wonderful hybrids ( but without pressure mate) and still looking at other uk landraces on the process of hacking my own UK landraces:)
Landrace is a term that I take with some poetic interpretation;)
8 Likes
As I continue my ongoing Killer Skunk breeding project, the process of selection has become more intense and deliberate. I am now working with seven remaining seeds from this line, carefully observing each seedling’s development and evaluating their potential for breeding. My primary objective is to identify both a male and a female plant that demonstrate the ideal genetic traits I want to preserve and enhance through future crosses and backcrossing experiments.
During the initial stages, two plants—Killer Skunk #6 and #7—stood out due to their rapid growth and vigor. They were the first to reach the point where I could cut and sex them, and both turned out to be males. While these plants displayed impressive early growth rates, I’ve chosen to reject them from my breeding pool. The reason for this is rooted in my experience and the genetics I’m aiming to refine: faster-growing males often carry traits that I find less desirable. Such traits can sometimes lead to plants that prioritize speed over the development of the dense, resinous flowers and unique terpene profiles that make Killer Skunk so special. By excluding these males, I am narrowing my focus to those that may have a better balance of growth characteristics and more promising genetic potential.
With those two males removed from contention, I am left with five seedlings still in the process of sexing. The tension and excitement at this stage are palpable; each seedling carries the possibility of being the genetic cornerstone of future Killer Skunk crosses. My goal is to identify a male that shows the ideal structure, vigor, and, most importantly, the terpene profile and resin production traits that align with the strain’s legacy. These features are crucial in ensuring that the offspring maintain the distinct aroma, potency, and overall quality that define Killer Skunk and set it apart from other strains.
Simultaneously, the search for the perfect female is equally significant. I am looking for a female plant that embodies the Killer Skunk essence—a combination of compact, heavy bud formation and an unmistakable terpene signature. Once I have identified the right pair, I plan to conduct a series of crosses and backcrossing trials. These experiments are designed to stabilize desirable traits, enhance the overall vigor of the line, and maintain the genetic integrity of this classic strain while exploring new expressions.
This meticulous selection process is not just about finding any male and female for crossing; it’s about preserving the essence of Killer Skunk while also pushing the genetic boundaries. Each decision I make—rejecting certain plants, favoring others—impacts the future generations and the potential of this strain to evolve in ways that honor its heritage while offering something new and exciting to the cannabis community.
Through patience, observation, and a deep respect for the genetic intricacies of the strain, I aim to contribute a unique take on Killer Skunk that reflects both the timeless appeal of the original and the exciting potential of thoughtful breeding. But
6 Likes
I hope everyone understands that I am writing here mainly vaped…very much.
Why talking so much about cannabis if not to get high? And that’s what matters to me.
Sorry if my texts are confusing…
Sorry if they are AI supported…my English is not the best and the function ‘write it better’ write in in english works relatively well.
I can’t promise I won’t believe tomorrow all the opposite of what I said today.
Programming the next 4 weeks…Santa is coming!
Torture Gardens 10.5/13.5
ESB FDM
More tortures!! More
Killer Skunk by UGORG cut stress test sexing
Note from Vic High
By The silicon magician
[…] He has stressed literally hundreds of plants with irregular photoperiods. What he does is put the lights on 12/12 for 10 days. Then he turns the lights on 24 hours, then 12/12 again for a few days, then back to 24 hours for a day, then 12/12 again for a few weeks. If he does this and no hermaphrodites come up, he has found a 100 % XX female that can’t turn hermaphrodite naturally. […]
White Widow Euskalaria
ESB FDM
Erba del diavolo ACA calabrese rossa
- Other mostruosities!
Sorry to alle the breeders who have crafted these beauties:(
Torture Garden Nursery
Mainly Killer Skunk by Original Underground
In different medium, hair cut and…
7 Likes
Nice thread especially post #24 it does makes sense. Sitting in and enjoy the torture.
3 Likes
Shade of Blues - Hacking over UGORG amazing breeding work over a cut only strain.
Killer Skunk Male Torture chamber…on the way to Blues/Livers
Sorry @VRG to mistreat and abuse them.
I like double serration
I would say Skunk! Others would say Cheese…maybe Blues?
I’ve been sexing and testing Killer Skunk which, I must say, are impressively resilient. #6 was the fastest and tallest of all the seedlings. From germination, it has consistently demonstrated the most robust structure, rapid growth, long internodes, and sturdy, heavy branches.
I tend to be impulsive when culling plants, always tempted to reject anything as quickly as possible—almost as if it’s a test of my patience rather than the plant’s resilience. But this time, I’ve chosen observation over impulse, taking a more attentive and deliberate approach.
Initially, I flowered #6 for three weeks before moving it to the Nursery Torture Garden 12/1, where it continued to flower and began producing pollen.
#7 has shown a similar structure and fast growth but with a more rigid stem and significantly more intense pollen production. However, I suspect these first two plants may have the perfect description quoted above by DjShort.
For instance, while examining #7, I noticed an unusual trait—a double serration on just a few blades.
6 Likes
Project Shade of Red ACA looking for La Calabrese Rossa, Erba del Diavolo.
14 days dray 18C 60%
Sila cut selection of private collection of “Calabrese” seeds.
Look my post in UK420 " La Calabrese Rossa"
4 Likes
LANDRACES
- Definitions, Concepts,Provocations and evolution to a new concept? -
Why I am growing UK Landraces?
For this reflection I will refer to the following publications:
“Defining and Identifying Crop Landraces” by Taina Carolina Camacho Villa et al. (2005):
"A landrace is a dynamic population(s) of a cultivated plant that has historical origin, distinct identity and lacks formal crop improvement, as well as often being genetically diverse, locally adapted and associated with traditional farming systems."
“Landraces: A Review of Definitions and Classifications” by A. C. Zeven (1998):
"As a landrace has a complex and indefinable nature, an all-embracing definition cannot be given."
“Toward an Evolved Concept of Landrace” by Pablo Negri (2017):
"Landraces should be viewed as evolving entities in contrast to modern cultivars, which are expected to be maintained true to type according to Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) rules."
The concept of “landraces” plays a crucial role in the conservation of biodiversity and the history of agricultural development. Landraces refer to traditional varieties of crops that have evolved through centuries of interaction with their local environments and farming practices.
Landraces have been integral to agriculture since its inception. Early farmers developed these traditional varieties through the continuous cycles of planting, harvesting, and seed-saving.
Over time, landraces adapted to specific agro-ecological and cultural contexts, enriching the genetic pool of crops and ensuring food security for traditional and subsistence farming systems. For millennia, these landraces were the cornerstone of agricultural production and improvement, serving as the foundation for modern crop varieties.
However, the advent of formal plant breeding and genetically uniform cultivars during the 19th and 20th centuries led to the gradual replacement of landraces. These modern cultivars, designed for higher yields under optimal conditions, contributed to a significant reduction in genetic diversity within cultivated crops, a phenomenon known as genetic erosion.
Studies, such as those by Srinivasan et al. (2003), demonstrate how landrace replacement has led to marked reductions in genetic diversity, threatening the resilience and adaptability of agricultural systems.
The difficulty in arriving at a universal definition of landraces due to their dynamic and context-specific nature.
Based on a thorough review of literature, stakeholder workshops, and interviews with conservationists and plant geneticists, the authors of “Defining and Identifying Crop Landraces” identify six key characteristics commonly associated with landraces:
Historical Origin: Landraces have a long-standing history in specific regions, often cultivated for centuries. They are intrinsically linked to the geographical and cultural landscapes where they originated, although migration and informal exchanges have introduced landraces to new regions.
Genetic Diversity: Unlike modern cultivars, landraces are genetically heterogeneous. This diversity provides resilience to diseases, pests, and environmental stresses, making them valuable for crop improvement and adaptation to marginal conditions.
Local Genetic Adaptation: Landraces are uniquely suited to the specific climatic, soil, and agricultural conditions of their regions. This local adaptation ensures yield stability even under suboptimal or adverse conditions.
Recognisable Identity: Landraces are distinct entities often identifiable by their morphological traits, usage, or local names. However, the identification process can be complex due to inconsistencies in naming conventions and overlapping traits.
Lack of Formal Genetic Improvement: Landraces evolve through natural selection and informal, often unconscious, farmer selection. Unlike cultivars developed in formal breeding programs, landraces are shaped by traditional farming practices.
Association with Traditional Farming Systems: Landraces are closely tied to traditional agricultural practices and knowledge systems. Farmers play a pivotal role in maintaining their diversity through seed saving, exchange, and cultivation.
Despite these defining traits, the authors caution that not all characteristics may be present in every landrace. Exceptions often arise due to variations in crop propagation methods, breeding systems, and local conditions.
The conservation of landraces has gained increasing attention due to their role as genetic resources for modern crop improvement and their cultural significance. Conservation efforts focus on both in situ preservation (maintaining landraces within their natural farming systems) and ex situ preservation (storing seeds in gene banks). These efforts are driven by concerns over genetic erosion and the loss of biodiversity caused by the dominance of modern agricultural systems.
Without a clear definition, creating inventories and monitoring changes in landrace populations becomes difficult. To address this, the authors propose a practical working definition:
“A landrace is a dynamic population(s) of a cultivated plant that has historical origin, distinct identity, and lacks formal crop improvement, as well as often being genetically diverse, locally adapted, and associated with traditional farming systems.”
DEFINITIONS
The concept of a “landrace” originates from agricultural contexts and reflects the deep interplay between human cultivation practices, environmental adaptation, and genetic diversity. Landraces are defined as locally adapted plant or animal populations that have evolved over time due to natural selection and traditional farming methods. They are distinct from modern cultivars, which undergo formal breeding for uniformity and productivity.
Origins and Early Definitions
The earliest discussions about landraces as genetic resources date back to the 19th century. During the International Agriculture and Forestry Congress in Vienna (1890), participants such as E. von Proskowetz and F. Schindler emphasized the importance of preserving these primitive cultivated forms. However, it was not until the 20th century that specific definitions of landraces were articulated.
Von Rümker (1908) offered one of the first definitions, describing landraces as crop varieties cultivated in specific regions “since time immemorial.” These landraces were noted for their adaptation to local conditions and minimal human interference. While concise, this definition also highlighted the resilience of landraces, which retained their traits even when cultivated outside their native regions.
Subsequent definitions, such as those by Mansholt (1909) and Kiessling (1912), expanded on this by introducing the concepts of genetic stability, resistance to adverse conditions, and adaptability. By emphasising a mixture of forms or phenotypes specific to a region, they underlined the genetic heterogeneity within landraces, a stark contrast to the uniformity of modern cultivars.
Landraces are not merely agricultural entities but are also part of the cultural heritage of regions. Zeven emphasizes that they are akin to monuments or traditional folk practices, deeply intertwined with the socio-economic and ecological systems of their regions. This cultural aspect is evident in their naming, often derived from the region of cultivation, phenotypic traits, or historical associations.
Landraces have been integral to sustaining agriculture for millennia. Their ability to thrive under low-input agricultural systems, coupled with their yield stability despite biotic and abiotic stresses, made them invaluable to traditional farming. In contrast, modern cultivars prioritise high yields under optimal conditions, often at the expense of adaptability and genetic diversity.
Key Characteristics of Landraces
According to Zeven, landraces possess several defining traits:
Genetic Diversity: They are genetically heterogeneous, offering resilience against diseases and pests through the presence of diverse genotypes.
Local Adaptation: Landraces evolve specific adaptations to the environmental and cultural conditions of their regions, ensuring their survival and productivity in those settings.
Yield Stability: While not as high-yielding as cultivars, landraces provide dependable yields under traditional agricultural practices.
Cultural Integration: Their cultivation and maintenance are closely linked to local traditions, making them integral to the cultural fabric of rural communities.
Over the decades, the understanding of landraces has broadened. By the mid-20th century, researchers like Harlan (1975) refrained from offering a rigid definition, instead describing landraces as dynamic populations with genetic integrity. Harlan highlighted their equilibrium with the environment and pathogens, emphasizing their genetic adaptability.
By the 1990s, the discourse shifted towards the conservation of these genetic resources. Researchers like Louette et al. (1997) and Teshome et al. (1997) recognized the interdependence of traditional farmers and landraces. They described landraces as “variable plant populations” tailored to local agroclimatic conditions and maintained through farmer selection.
One of the key challenges in defining landraces lies in their dynamic nature. Zeven concludes that no all-encompassing definition can capture their complexity. Instead, he proposes a practical definition:
“An autochthonous landrace is a variety with a high capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress, resulting in high yield stability and an intermediate yield level under a low-input agricultural system.”
Conservation efforts have been a recurring theme throughout the history of landraces. Early initiatives in Europe, such as those by Fruwirth and Mayr, emphasized the need to preserve these genetic resources in situ. Modern efforts, spurred by concerns over genetic erosion, focus on both in situ and ex situ conservation to ensure the survival of landraces and their invaluable traits.
Understanding Landraces: A Dynamic and Evolving Concept
The term “landrace” has traditionally been used to describe cultivated varieties of plants that have adapted to specific ecological and cultural environments through natural and human-mediated selection. Historically, these varieties have been viewed as stable entities with distinct characteristics tied to their geographic origins and traditional farming systems. However, Casañas et al. argue that landraces are far from static; instead, they are dynamic populations, continuously evolving due to genetic, environmental, and human influences.
The historical context of landraces begins with their origins as the first domesticated plant varieties. Early farmers played a key role in shaping these populations through selection for traits suited to their agricultural practices and local environmental conditions. Over time, landraces became integral to traditional farming systems, offering resilience and genetic diversity in the face of environmental stresses.
A central theme of the article is the need to redefine the concept of landrace to reflect its dynamic nature. Previous definitions, such as those proposed by Zeven (1998), focused on landraces as genetically heterogeneous populations with high adaptability to biotic and abiotic stresses. These definitions emphasized their ability to produce stable yields under low-input agricultural systems. While these traits remain relevant, Casañas et al. argue that such definitions often overlook the continuous evolution of landraces, including their adaptation to new environments and management systems.
The authors propose a more inclusive definition of landraces, describing them as:
“Cultivated varieties that have evolved and may continue evolving, using conventional or modern breeding techniques, in traditional or new agricultural environments within a defined ecogeographical area and under the influence of local human culture.”
This expanded definition acknowledges the role of modern technology and changing agricultural practices in shaping landraces, emphasising their adaptability and potential for future development.
Human intervention has always been a driving force in the evolution of landraces. From the Neolithic period to the present, farmers have acted as both custodians and innovators, selecting for traits such as yield stability, pest resistance, and cultural or sensory preferences. This symbiotic relationship between humans and plants has created landraces that are deeply embedded in local traditions and economies.
The article also highlights the impact of contemporary agricultural practices on landraces. The introduction of modern cultivars and genetic improvement programs has led to the “contamination” of traditional landraces through gene flow and hybridization. While some purists argue that such changes compromise the integrity of landraces, Casañas et al. contend that evolution is an inherent characteristic of landraces, making them adaptable to changing circumstances.
One of the key challenges in landrace conservation is balancing the preservation of their genetic and cultural heritage with the need for modernization. Traditional conservation efforts often focus on maintaining landraces as static entities, either through in situ (on-farm) conservation or ex situ (gene bank) methods. However, the authors argue that this approach risks relegating landraces to the status of “museum relics” rather than living, evolving populations.
To address this, the authors advocate for a participatory approach to conservation, involving farmers, researchers, and other stakeholders. This includes the use of modern breeding techniques to enhance the resilience and productivity of landraces while retaining their essential characteristics. By integrating landraces into contemporary agricultural systems, their genetic diversity and cultural significance can be preserved for future generations.
The article envisions a “new generation” of landraces, developed through a combination of traditional knowledge and modern technology. This approach seeks to harness the strengths of historical landraces while addressing their limitations, such as low yields and vulnerability to new pests. For example, targeted breeding programs could introduce traits like disease resistance or drought tolerance without compromising the unique qualities of landraces.
Casañas et al. also propose the development of “evolved landraces,” which incorporate genetic variability generated through mutation, recombination, and crossing with other populations. These new landraces would be tailored to specific environmental and cultural contexts, offering a sustainable alternative to homogeneous commercial cultivars.
To refine:
The concept of landraces has long been tied to the idea of plants evolving in harmony with specific ecological and cultural conditions. Traditionally, landraces are defined as genetically heterogeneous populations adapted to their local environments and traditional farming practices over centuries. However, as agriculture and cultivation methods continue to evolve, so too must our understanding of what constitutes a landrace. Could plants grown indoors under artificial lights and nurtured for decades in the United Kingdom, for example, qualify as a new kind of landrace? Although this notion challenges traditional definitions, it opens up a provocative discussion about the role of modern environments in the preservation and evolution of genetic diversity.
Historically, landraces have been associated with open-field cultivation in specific geographic regions, where natural selection and traditional agricultural practices shaped their traits. These plants thrived in marginal conditions, offering resilience, genetic diversity, and cultural value. Definitions provided by scholars such as Zeven (1998) and Camacho Villa et al. (2005) emphasize characteristics like local adaptation, genetic heterogeneity, and absence of formal breeding.
In contrast, indoor-grown plants are cultivated in controlled environments where variables such as light, temperature, and humidity are artificially manipulated. At first glance, these settings seem far removed from the ecological and cultural landscapes typically associated with landraces. However, when we consider the dynamic nature of landraces and their continuous evolution under human influence, the idea of “indoor landraces” begins to take shape.
Over the past few decades, underground cultivation—especially of plants like cannabis—has thrived under artificial lights in urban environments across the UK and other regions. This form of agriculture emerged partly as a response to prohibition, creating a hidden yet highly innovative ecosystem. Growers adapted their techniques to replicate optimal growing conditions indoors, using tools such as HID,LED lights, hydroponic systems, and climate controls.
Over time, specific strains of plants have been selected and propagated within these closed environments. These strains, often passed down through generations of growers, have adapted to the unique conditions of indoor cultivation. While these plants lack the direct influence of natural environments, they are subjected to another form of selective pressure: the preferences and practices of their cultivators. This parallels the role of farmers in shaping traditional landraces through selection for traits like yield, taste, or resilience.
One of the defining characteristics of landraces is their genetic diversity, which makes them resilient to environmental stresses. Indoor-grown plants, despite their artificial surroundings, can also maintain or even enhance genetic diversity. In the underground cultivation scene, growers often preserve unique genetic lines by avoiding cross-contamination and prioritizing stability. This intentional preservation can mirror the traditional seed-saving practices that have sustained landraces for centuries.
Moreover, just as traditional landraces reflect their cultural and agricultural contexts, indoor strains are shaped by the distinct “culture” of underground growers. These communities value traits such as potency, flavor, and adaptability to artificial conditions, which are passed on through informal breeding programs. In this sense, the plants become a reflection of their environment, much like traditional landraces are shaped by the soil, climate, and culture of their native regions.
The proposal to consider indoor-grown plants as a new type of landrace challenges some of the more rigid aspects of traditional definitions. As Casañas et al. (2017) argue, landraces are not static entities but evolving populations that adapt to changing conditions. Their definition of landraces as “cultivated varieties that have evolved and may continue evolving…under the influence of local human culture” provides a framework for including indoor cultivation within the broader concept.
This expanded definition acknowledges that landraces are not confined to open fields or rural landscapes. Instead, they can emerge wherever humans actively shape the evolution of plants in response to specific conditions—whether those conditions are defined by natural ecosystems or artificial environments. Indoor cultivation represents a form of co-evolution, where plants and growers adapt to each other in a highly controlled yet dynamic setting.
The idea of “underground landraces” also carries symbolic significance. In a world increasingly dominated by monoculture and commercialized agriculture, these plants represent a form of resistance to homogenization. Underground growers, much like traditional farmers, play a crucial role in preserving genetic diversity and ensuring the survival of unique traits that might otherwise be lost in the rush toward uniformity.
These plants also highlight the potential for innovation in genetic preservation. By creating new environments for cultivation, underground growers expand the boundaries of what is possible in plant breeding and conservation. Their work demonstrates that genetic diversity can thrive even in artificial settings, challenging assumptions about the limitations of modern agriculture.
The inclusion of indoor-grown plants as landraces may provoke debate, but it also reflects the need for a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of genetic diversity. As Casañas et al. suggest, landraces should be viewed not as relics of the past but as living entities that continue to evolve in response to human and environmental influences.
By acknowledging the role of underground cultivation in preserving and shaping plant genetics, we expand the conversation about biodiversity and conservation. These indoor strains, while unconventional, represent a modern extension of the landrace concept—one that bridges the gap between tradition and innovation.
…
7 Likes
The idea of “underground landraces” also carries symbolic significance. In a world increasingly dominated by monoculture and commercialized agriculture, these plants represent a form of resistance to homogenization. Underground growers, much like traditional farmers, play a crucial role in preserving genetic diversity and ensuring the survival of unique traits that might otherwise be lost in the rush toward uniformity.
These plants also highlight the potential for innovation in genetic preservation. By creating new environments for cultivation, underground growers expand the boundaries of what is possible in plant breeding and conservation. Their work demonstrates that genetic diversity can thrive even in artificial settings, challenging assumptions about the limitations of modern agriculture.
The inclusion of indoor-grown plants as landraces may provoke debate, but it also reflects the need for a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of genetic diversity. As Casañas et al. suggest, landraces should be viewed not as relics of the past but as living entities that continue to evolve in response to human and environmental influences.
By acknowledging the role of underground cultivation in preserving and shaping plant genetics, we expand the conversation about biodiversity and conservation. These indoor strains, while unconventional, represent a modern extension of the landrace concept—one that bridges the gap between tradition and innovation.
“Underground landraces” are cultivated plant varieties that have evolved within controlled, artificial environments, such as indoor grow rooms, over multiple generations. Emerging from a culture of necessity and innovation, particularly in response to prohibition, these strains adapt to selective pressures imposed by human preferences, cultural practices, and artificial conditions rather than natural ecosystems. Like traditional landraces shaped by farmers in their native regions, underground landraces reflect the interplay of cultural values, technological advancements, and ecological constraints of urban cultivation, representing a modern evolution of genetic diversity in agriculture."
5 Likes
Sexing Finalized:
We started with 8 seeds, 7 of which successfully sprouted.
Remarkably, the plants split evenly—4 females (#1, #2, #3, #4) and 3 males (#5, #6, #7).
It’s intriguing how balanced the sexes turned out, isnt?
Here’s a detailed breakdown of each plant:
Females:
#1: The shortest of all the plants. She rooted exceptionally quickly when cut but is slow to grow overall.
#2: A robust female with strong root development, similar to #4. She also displays double-serrated leaf blades.
#3: A very tall female, possibly sativa-dominant, characterized by long internodes and rapid growth.
#4: Shares similar root development traits with #2, suggesting a consistent growth pattern.
Males:
#5: An interesting male with a short, bushy phenotype. However, he lacks the double-serrated leaf blades seen in the other two males.
#6: A male with prominent double-serration on the leaves and heavy pollen production, making him a strong pollinator candidate.
#7: The tallest and fastest-growing male, also featuring double-serrated leaves. His stature makes him stand out as the most vigorous among the males.
Which one would you keep?
12/12
Males
12/1
4 Likes
Any support regarding naming systems, protocols, excel sheet or any info to keep track of the lines and info, would be very much appreciated. I have a strictly DC control system to apply, but it is not fully clear to me all the parameters to consider.
1 Like
#2 & #3 on fem and #6 on male.
Good luck on these brother! 
2 Likes