Sativa vs indica is the biological distinction. Personally I don’t believe it has much impact on effects. The active cannabinoids do more so. Aka CBG/A couch lock, THCV energy.
It doesn’t, like at all. This is akin to seeing a smart tall person, and assuming all tall people are smart.
The plants stature has very little bearing on the cannabinoid content. This is common sense, but thanks to the illegality of cannabis, we’re still very ignorant overall.
I can dig up some peer reviewed studies later when I get home; there’s one I remember where a 100% “indica” actually grouped as pure sativa.
This isn’t to say there isn’t a difference in effects, just that genetics does not control the cannabinoid profile. Nurture plays a huge role in nature vs. nurture.
Would twins raised in different parts of the world turn out identically?
Edit: here’s one study that shows indica/sativa is basically useless from a medical standpoint
The cannabinoid profile is genetic, as in the plants genes determine which terpenes it produces at (more or less) what concentrations. And the parent plants only pass on what they have to offer.
Its just that the traits we visually see and identify with a sativa or indica “genetic line” like leaf type, growth structure, nodal spacing, and flower time, are not genetically linked to the cannabinoid profile. As in, these traits are equally dispersed genetically in the overall population, and you can really only rely on parent to child genetic inheritance, not any sense of trait linkage from a lineage of a suite of traits.
Maybe once upon a time they were. But cultivated weed is so well interbred now that any history of genetic linkage has long since been broken.
It really really doesnt help either that growers and budtenders do not use those words the same way. A sativa in the greenhouse is not always called a sativa on the shelf at the dispensary.
Sativa vs indica is the biological distinction. Personally I don’t believe it has much impact on effects. The active cannabinoids do more so. Aka CBG/A couch lock, THCV energy.
I’m pretty sure the biological distinction speaks to the cannabinoid levels, although maybe not at a 1:1 relationship.
It doesn’t, like at all. This is akin to seeing a smart tall person, and assuming all tall people are smart.
The plants stature has very little bearing on the cannabinoid content. This is common sense, but thanks to the illegality of cannabis, we’re still very ignorant overall.
I can dig up some peer reviewed studies later when I get home; there’s one I remember where a 100% “indica” actually grouped as pure sativa.
This isn’t to say there isn’t a difference in effects, just that genetics does not control the cannabinoid profile. Nurture plays a huge role in nature vs. nurture.
Would twins raised in different parts of the world turn out identically?
Edit: here’s one study that shows indica/sativa is basically useless from a medical standpoint
https://www.iomcworld.com/open-access/cannabinoids-and-terpenes-as-chemotaxonomic-markers-in-cannabis-2329-6836-1000181.pdf
The cannabinoid profile is genetic, as in the plants genes determine which terpenes it produces at (more or less) what concentrations. And the parent plants only pass on what they have to offer.
Its just that the traits we visually see and identify with a sativa or indica “genetic line” like leaf type, growth structure, nodal spacing, and flower time, are not genetically linked to the cannabinoid profile. As in, these traits are equally dispersed genetically in the overall population, and you can really only rely on parent to child genetic inheritance, not any sense of trait linkage from a lineage of a suite of traits.
Maybe once upon a time they were. But cultivated weed is so well interbred now that any history of genetic linkage has long since been broken.
It really really doesnt help either that growers and budtenders do not use those words the same way. A sativa in the greenhouse is not always called a sativa on the shelf at the dispensary.
deleted by creator