Sativa Indica Confusion

[Polarbearboy]

I've been smoking dope and now vaping for some 50 years. But in the last two years I've been increasingly buying and using my legal dope according to whether its Sativa or Indica. In Canada, or at least the Atlantic Provinces which I travel through and stay in, all flower is tested for purity, THC and CBD content and labeled "Sativa", "Sativa derived", "Sativa hybrid", etc. I've been doing sativas(Galliano, Island Honey) during the day(I'm retired) when I want to get stuff done or hike for a few hours or bike up a series of ascending hills or early evening when I want to stay awake for friends or to watch a movie. Indica(Kosher Kush, Quaddra and Afghani Kush) at night to help me with insomnia. Just as the cannabis charts tell me.

But I'm a science oriented guy. I've read the recent literature which says that both chemically and genetically the sativa/indica difference has no basis in fact or effect on humans. Just curious what other folks think of this.

 

[Tranquility]

But I'm a science oriented guy. I've read the recent literature which says that both chemically and genetically the sativa/indica difference has no basis in fact or effect on humans. Just curious what other folks think of this.

Yet, I've never gotten paranoid or anxiety from anything but a sativa.

 

[Hackerman]

The difference between Indica and Sativa is in the terpenes. Generally speaking, Indica varieties will have a high concentration of Myrcene while the Sativa strains will generally be higher in Pinene and Limonene. Mycene in usually associated with pain relief and sleep while Pinene and Liminene are generally 'uplifting' and/or 'stimulating'.

Unfortunately, names like GRAPE and BUBBLEGUM and flavor oriented sales are breeding away from the simpler strains and towards what sells. I generally grow landrace strains. Or, if I can get the seeds, early Skunks, Haze and Kush varieties. Very predictable effects with solid strains.

 

[JCat]

The difference between Indica and Sativa is in the terpenes. Generally speaking, Indica varieties will have a high concentration of Myrcene while the Sativa strains will generally be higher in Pinene and Limonene. Mycene in usually associated with pain relief and sleep while Pinene and Liminene are generally 'uplifting' and/or 'stimulating'.

Unfortunately, names like GRAPE and BUBBLEGUM and flavor oriented sales are breeding away from the simpler strains and towards what sells. I generally grow landrace strains. Or, if I can get the seeds, early Skunks, Haze and Kush varieties. Very predictable effects with solid strains.

Love Haze varieties My go-to daytime meds generally if I can find it that's good quality

 

[Baron23]

I've been smoking dope and now vaping for some 50 years. But in the last two years I've been increasingly buying and using my legal dope according to whether its Sativa or Indica. In Canada, or at least the Atlantic Provinces which I travel through and stay in, all flower is tested for purity, THC and CBD content and labeled "Sativa", "Sativa derived", "Sativa hybrid", etc. I've been doing sativas(Galliano, Island Honey) during the day(I'm retired) when I want to get stuff done or hike for a few hours or bike up a series of ascending hills or early evening when I want to stay awake for friends or to watch a movie. Indica(Kosher Kush, Quaddra and Afghani Kush) at night to help me with insomnia. Just as the cannabis charts tell me.

But I'm a science oriented guy. I've read the recent literature which says that both chemically and genetically the sativa/indica difference has no basis in fact or effect on humans. Just curious what other folks think of this.

I absolutely agree that science does NOT distinguish these are seperate species at all and neither does science have an firm explanation for what almost all of us have directly experienced....sativa is more up, indica more couch lock and sedative.

To me, this is an indisputable fact...that there seems to be two polar extremes in cannabis effects.

So, to me...aside from other superficial physical characteristics (tall vs short, dense short nugs vs longer more willowy, etc) these two categories are better to be thought of as strains grouped by effect rather than indicating any genetics or chemotype.

 

[Tranquility]

I absolutely agree that science does NOT distinguish these are seperate species at all and neither does science have an firm explanation for what almost all of us have directly experienced....sativa is more up, indica more couch lock and sedative.

To me, this is an indisputable fact...that there seems to be two polar extremes in cannabis effects.

So, to me...aside from other superficial physical characteristics (tall vs short, dense short nugs vs longer more willowy, etc) these two categories are better to be thought of as strains grouped by effect rather than indicating any genetics or chemotype.

https://phylos.bio/galaxy/

 

[3dfx-glide]

A fun test is to have a friend/family member pick some strains and grind and pack them in your choice of vape, vape them - one a day, and you need to guess if it's sativa or indica.

If you can't correctly guess what's what in terms of sativa or indica, well, there you go that way it doesn't matter what people online think or "science"

 

[Baron23]

https://phylos.bio/galaxy/

Yes, and if I remember correctly one of the biggest surprises to come out of that, aside from them lying to the people who OG gave them their genetics, is that they found some indicas much more closely aligned with the genetics of some sativas than other indicas....and vice versa.

 

[Tranquility]

Yes, and if I remember correctly one of the biggest surprises to come out of that, aside from them lying to the people who OG gave them their genetics, is that they found some indicas much more closely aligned with the genetics of some sativas than other indicas....and vice versa.

They would claim they did not lie, but that the OG misunderstood. The principal still claims he cannot breed from the data and he claims he told them would not use the info for breeding.

 

[3dfx-glide]

@OldNewbie don't mean to butt in but curious what the discussion you're having with @Baron23 is actually about? I'm out of the loop in terms of history!

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie don't mean to butt in but curious what the discussion you're having with @Baron23 is actually about? I'm out of the loop in terms of history!

https://www.wired.com/story/high-drama-cannabis-biotech-company-roils-small-growers/
https://cannabisnow.com/phylos-bioscience-sparks-outrage-over-new-breeding-program-announcement/
https://www.ganjapreneur.com/mowgli-holmes-cannabis-family-tree/
https://www.portlandmercury.com/blo...tion-with-phylos-bioscience-ceo-mowgli-holmes

http://terpeneliteracy.com/a-conversation-with-phylos-bioscience-ceo-mowgli-holmes-blogtown/
A key defense:

And then people started to get very worried about the fact that we had their data, and so then we would hear from people, “Are you stealing my genetics?” And we would say, “Well, no, you sent in a dead stem sample that we used to get DNA out of, and nobody can bring a plant back to life from that dead stem sample.” The whole point of the Galaxy is for you to put a stake in the ground and show that you own that plant. It’s a way for you to lock in your possession of the plant and publicly claim it. We have no rights over those plants at all, so we have literally no way to physically have those plants. We just had a dead sample, but you can’t bring it back to life.


We would say that and then they would go, “But yeah, but you have my genetics.” And I think what they mean by that is we have their DNA sequence, and their fear has been that, well, maybe that gives us some control over the plant somehow. Maybe we can use that DNA sequence to patent it or claim ownership of it. And we could go to the USPTO [US Patent and Trademark Office] and say, “Here’s this DNA sequence for this plant. Now we own that plant.” And that’s not true either. Having the DNA sequence doesn’t give you any control over the plant that USPTO won’t accept that as a patent application.

And then in addition, we made all of that data public so we didn’t have anyone’s genetics in any way. And the data that we did have, we actually made public so that other scientists could use it, and so that it would be proof of the existence of these plants so that no one could ever try to patent them, because there would be proof that they existed in private possession, or in the public domain and no one could ever patent them. Somehow the fact that we made all of that data public—which is very unusual, science companies don’t do that typically—we’ve lost investors because they feel like having access to that data would have given us an advantage.
​

 

[Baron23]

They would claim they did not lie, but that the OG misunderstood. The principal still claims he cannot breed from the data and he claims he told them would not use the info for breeding.

Yes indeed, there are two very different stories in this tale and it’s hard to know who is truthful

 

[3dfx-glide]

(under the influence of a sativa so mind is racing) I read one article and already I'm being paranoid of what high-science like this means to the future of cannabis. In the future cannabis is going to get so specific "this strain only gives you a 50% boost to sleep, and does nothing else", "this one boosts your sleep by 75% and does nothing else", but if you want the good old weed that just did all kinds of wild stuff that interacted well (entourage effect?) will be relegated back to the underground illegal market because it's no longer "approved" by government and because private companies lobby for complete control, and the public's choice is reduced to the least common denominator, like music on the radio nowdays

I mean it already is, as most dispensaries focus on high THC strains and don't bother carrying anything else, because that's what shoved to us and because the typical stoner just wants to get blasted and doesn't know any better.

Now these articles are talking about making strains intellectual properties? It's an effing natural plant.. they're going to stretch this to mean "oh, we actually own the rights to this and that terp and this and that cannabinoid so no one else can sell any strains that contain it"

It used to just be a thing to grow and smoke and enjoy one of many of Earth's wonders, and truly gives you a sense of how privilaged we are to live on Earth and experience it. But now it's turning into plain business and fame

(I don't actually know what I'm talking about, just being creatively 'paranoid' and feel like writing it down)

 

[Tranquility]

Yes indeed, there are two very different stories in this tale and it’s hard to know who is truthful

I don't know if there has to be a truth and a lie here. It would greatly depend on what is written down. Generalized "understanding" is going to always be a problem. I wonder how many realize what they lost when they signed the forms and submitted their DNA to somewhere like 23andMe?

While I tend to lean against a technical defense as a general rule, I'm not sure this really depends on what the meaning of "is" is. What were the expectations of all?

The data is out there for anyone to use, according to Dr. Holmes, he has no special advantage over anyone else using the data.

 

[invertedisdead]

I don't agree that the terpenes are the differentiating factor, or at least the main one. The different effects are perceivable when combusting which burns off all of the terpenes.

I think cannabinoid diversity plays a bigger role, particularly compounds such as THCV, and possibly some of the other hundred cannabinoids which are rarely referenced.

I also know growers who use indica and sativa to describe the growth structure and maturation time of the resin, which is very different than using it to describe the effects.

Also for all intensive purposes very very few people are hitting true indica or sativa genetics, most everything is a hybrid unless you've got access to landrace genetics like @Hackerman - I do agree that the emphasis on terpenes in genetics has lead to an overall weakening of effects in most "new" strains I encounter. I'm a big fan of fruit terps too so this is something I've had to seriously weigh on. I'm noticing my favorites lately tend to be the stoney indica dominants that still have a unique fruity hit to it, a good example would be Banana OG (Ghost OG x Skunk Haze) or even the classic Blueberry.

 

[Baron23]

I don't know if there has to be a truth and a lie here. It would greatly depend on what is written down. Generalized "understanding" is going to always be a problem. I wonder how many realize what they lost when they signed the forms and submitted their DNA to somewhere like 23andMe?

While I tend to lean against a technical defense as a general rule, I'm not sure this really depends on what the meaning of "is" is. What were the expectations of all?

The data is out there for anyone to use, according to Dr. Holmes, he has no special advantage over anyone else using the data.

So, growers say that they were led to believe that this was an attempt to get genetics documented and into the public domain so that they can't be patented and become IP of large Agra (though, if they thought about it, it only takes a small change to genetics to get around a patent, I believe) AND that Phylos would not be using their data for a commercial and profitable breeding program.

Holmes says that is all bunk, nobody was misled, and that the genetics he has are not specified in sufficient detail to allow artificial cloning. Perhaps not, but perhaps it would also be a roadmap for other, big Agra, growers to use to guide them in repro'ing most/all of the characteristics of the subject strain.

Hard to tell who's really on first and yes, I suspect the breeders involved did not think about this hard enough or cynically enough to understand the risks.

I still think this whole thing blew up is because Holmes parents named him after a Jungle Book character (jk...haha).

Cheers

 

[Tranquility]

An article talking about Phylos and intellectual property. (Mostly how to protect IP.)

https://mjbizdaily.com/how-cannabis...-in-the-wake-of-the-phylos-bioscience-uproar/

Holmes says that is all bunk, nobody was misled, and that the genetics he has are not specified in sufficient detail to allow artificial cloning. Perhaps not, but perhaps it would also be a roadmap for other, big Agra, growers to use to guide them in repro'ing most/all of the characteristics of the subject strain.

You can't "clone" from data.

 

[Hackerman]

There's a mile long thread on Phylos at IC Mag, also.

 

[3dfx-glide]

You can't "clone" from data.

"yet"

 

[Tranquility]

"yet"

While I was going to go into it more in the first response, when we have the ability to "clone" from data, you're basically building the entire DNA strand. Once you get to that point, why copy? Make the plant exactly how you want it by turning on and off the genes you want.

 

[kuzko]

Cannabis strains have been crossbred so much over the years that the Sativa-Indica designations have become outdated. There are Sativas that have all the characteristics of Indicas and Indicas that have all of the characteristics of Sativas. The industry is trying to pull away from the Indica-Sativa terms. Now it’s all about Terpene profiles. Find the profile that makes you feel the way you want to feel and stick with that. A lot of dispensaries list terpene profiles now, if not, at least the top 2 or 3 terpenes in the strain.

 

[Hackerman]

To be back on topic, here is an interesting post from a member at ICMag....

Terpenes are pretty minor byproducts, they are what make lemon haze different from super lemon haze,not what makes "haze".

Its volatile fatty acids that give all noteworthy Cannabis it's flavors and the traveling aromas now lost to the West coast. You can attempt to recreate these pungent aromas with non-pungent terpenes, but first thing you'll notice is the smell doesn't travel, second you'll notice the flavor isn't there. 3rd thing you'll notice is the bud gets worse over time instead of better.

Haze tastes good. Incense does not. Essential oils do not. Terpenes do not. It's fatty acids produced by microbes eating carbs, and residual glucose saccharification. Terpenes are not involved in any of the classic strains. Its all from fatty acids being oxidized, enzymes and microbes breaking down sugars.

We should be identifying enzymes and microbes that contribute to the rich flavors under specific conditions, not minor aroma-only byproducts put in the spotlight by the lung killing ecig industry and chart worshippers who don't consume.


Terpene: Tide pods, laundry soap, scented Lisa Frank stationary. Who ever associated terpenes with Cannabis production had strictly financial intentions.

Not sure if he is correct but it's something I am looking into.

 

[Tranquility]

To be back on topic, here is an interesting post from a member at ICMag....

Terpenes are pretty minor byproducts, they are what make lemon haze different from super lemon haze,not what makes "haze".

Its volatile fatty acids that give all noteworthy Cannabis it's flavors and the traveling aromas now lost to the West coast. You can attempt to recreate these pungent aromas with non-pungent terpenes, but first thing you'll notice is the smell doesn't travel, second you'll notice the flavor isn't there. 3rd thing you'll notice is the bud gets worse over time instead of better.

Haze tastes good. Incense does not. Essential oils do not. Terpenes do not. It's fatty acids produced by microbes eating carbs, and residual glucose saccharification. Terpenes are not involved in any of the classic strains. Its all from fatty acids being oxidized, enzymes and microbes breaking down sugars.

We should be identifying enzymes and microbes that contribute to the rich flavors under specific conditions, not minor aroma-only byproducts put in the spotlight by the lung killing ecig industry and chart worshippers who don't consume.


Terpene: Tide pods, laundry soap, scented Lisa Frank stationary. Who ever associated terpenes with Cannabis production had strictly financial intentions.

Not sure if he is correct but it's something I am looking into.

Apparently, the author never walked by a Cinnabon.

I agree there are multiple possible avenues for the differing effects. The mechanism posted is one. The terpene entourage effect has some adherents and some studies to back them as well:
https://rawlsmd.com/health-articles/need-know-terpenes-cbd-oil-entourage-effect

 

[kuzko]

Unfortunately, most cartridges on the legal market have botanical terpenes added instead of reintroduced terpenes from the specific cannabis plant. The real deal can be found though.