Pure Strain definition request

thetrickstergod

Well-Known Member
Is there a botanical definition of a "pure" strain? Keep reading about pure sativas and indicas but pure to what? Does pure just essentially mean non-hybrid or is it more refined than that...ie no intentional genetic variances over multiple generations.
 

thetrickstergod

Well-Known Member
Pure, landrace and heirloom may all have different meanings to different people ...just looking to see if there are any roots in botany for calling something pure...but pure/landrace could be a distinction without a difference.
 

CrixMix

Member
Yeah I've heard that scientists can't check/prove a strain is 100% sativa or indica. Shows we're not as advanced as we think we are.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Exact definitions will vary depending on who you consult, but I'll give you MY definitions of the above terms:

Strain: A group of genetically related plants that share similar characteristics. How similar they have to be to constitute a "strain" is debatable, but this IS actually a formally defined term in biology. A more general way of putting this is that a "strain" is a subgroup of organisms within the same species that only exhibit minor variation.

Landrace: A local variety of a plant or animal that has become acclimated to a particular geographic region over many generations and is ideally suited to that region. Again, this is a formally defined term. . .I didn't just make that up. All landraces are strains. . .but not all strains are landraces.

In general, human selective pressure may. . or may not. . .have been a contributing factor to the development of these strains, though in the case of cannabis strains, all of the drug-producing ones people are interested in WERE selected by humans. In other words, "landrace" strains are NOT the same thing as "wild" strains. . .the "wild" cannabis strains mostly all contain small to negligible amounts of THC like hemp.

Heirloom strain: Unlike the other two, definition here is a bit more debatable. Typically you're talking about a non-commercialized strain that has been perpetuated locally by open pollenization for many (human) generations. EG, like great-great-grandmas tomatoes. In the case of cannabis, most of these heirlooms are actually landrace strains, but the terms do have different meanings.

"Pure line": People use this term, but I think it lacks precision. In my opinion, the better term is. . .

Inbred line: Also known as "true breeding line". This is a line where all the offspring are both genetically and phenotypically similar to the parents and to each other in terms of characteristics. They won't necessarily be identical, but should share most of the same characteristics. Note overlap of this term, and "strain". Also note that the opposite of an "inbred" line is a "hybrid" line (that combines genetics from multiple inbred lines).

This, by the way, is why many so-called cannabis "strains" actually aren't. If ten sibling ceeds all grow into plants with different characteristics, that's not really a "strain".

Stable: Similar to "inbred", this means that all plants of a given generation will be similar in characteristics.

Unstable: Similar to hybrid, this means that plants from a given generation may have different characteristics.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
The term strain has no official ranking status in botany.
That's true, but just to clarify, the term strain *IS* a formally defined term in botany.

That is has no "ranking" status, just means that its not used to divide organisms into a hierarchy of classes, in a taxonomic sense. IE, its not the same as phylum, genus, species, subspecies, etc. Within any given species, different strains should always be able to interbreed, and therefore different strains of the same plant share the same "rank".


Yeah I've heard that scientists can't check/prove a strain is 100% sativa or indica. Shows we're not as advanced as we think we are.
That's because those are taxonomic (ie classification-type) terms, not genetic ones. Lamarck invented the "indica" term in the 18th century, describing indica as a separate species of cannabis.

But by any modern genetic classification, all cannabis plants (including commercial hemp plants, feral cannabis, ruderalis, and indicas) are part of the same cannabis sativa species. In other words, EVERY cannabis plant is 100% "sativa". . .just some subset of them may be further subclassified into indica variants.

Meanwhile, the terms indica and sativa get widely used (and misused) by people who don't really understand what they mean.

In my opinion, by strict definition, the only strains that "should" called "indicas" are either landrace strains from the Indian subcontinent or hybrids between those strains. So if 100% of its genetics aren't from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh, etc, its not really an "indica".

Using this definition, most of the so-called "kush" strains and other modern drug strains that people call "indicas" really aren't. . .they're hybrids containing some subcontinental landrace genetics mixed in with non-subcontinental genetics.
 

thetrickstergod

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response Jorgo..that certainly helps! There have been recent comments about how a ceed vendor was distributing fem ceeds to landrace farmers...really just trying to understand the long term genetic impact and having the working definitions that you provided helps with the overall context...I read where genetic diversity is a good thing but then I read where the vendor is "polluting" the pure strains with fem ceeds. Preserving landrace genetics seems wise but also planning for worse-case scenario seems prudent as well...ie how to minimize the overall impact of fem seeds on landraces.
 
A strain would be considered pure by three standards, what physical representation it gives, what it's recessive genetics are. And what type of off spring it produces.
 

gudkarma

New Member
landrace & cultivar are words that go hand in hand.
selective pressure applies to these types.
& the way jogro defines indica
i completely agree.

also i've always wondered about the term "pure" when applied to native types of herb.

my friends that have been to afghan or paki type places,
videos you may have seen on youtube about weed (strianhunters or indigenous hash making vids for example),
and things you think are already known about cannabis can always have a fresh look taken at them ...these ideas make looking at pure lines a little difficult for me.

some videos you see of one mountainside in pakistan have incredible variation in what is supposed to be a local specie.
next moutainside something different , in smell , in structure, in leaf shape , etc.

some friends have told me they've done raids in afghanastan and peeped different fields of pure local landrace.
these fields are cultivated at the hand of men obviously.
selected for sure.

when pollen is so damn small , can be blown on the wind, can travel miles & miles & miles , how is it that 100% pure indica (or sativa or afghan kush or lebenon red etc) is even possible?

& dont get me started on those vids i see where arjan is passing out GH beans to local canna farmers.
 

colocowboy

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by thetrickstergod
...just looking to see if there are any roots in botany for calling something pure...

The term strain has no official ranking status in botany.
The question is "pure" as a term as you even quoted..... what is your boner with discrediting the word "strain"?
For the rest of you that may think I am just trolling out here, I have gone round and round with PJ and his butt buddies about this exact issue. I love that Jogro dropped the expo, awesome dude! Professionals in the trade use it, it has a widely accepted understanding amongst professionals (despite any community misunderstanding) which is good enough to accept it as part of the professional vernacular with no more explanation. "Official ranking" is irrelevant and as much pulled out of your ass as claiming to be the "official word" on this topic to begin with.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response Jorgo..that certainly helps! There have been recent comments about how a ceed vendor was distributing fem ceeds to landrace farmers...really just trying to understand the long term genetic impact and having the working definitions that you provided helps with the overall context...I read where genetic diversity is a good thing but then I read where the vendor is "polluting" the pure strains with fem ceeds. Preserving landrace genetics seems wise but also planning for worse-case scenario seems prudent as well...ie how to minimize the overall impact of fem seeds on landraces.
This is a LONG discussion, but I'll try to make it as quick as possible; see below.

landrace & cultivar are words that go hand in hand.
Well, to be clear a "cultivar" ("cultivated variety") is basically any strain created and maintained by people. When it comes to cannabis, all or nearly all landraces are cultivars, but most cultivars aren't landraces. Get it?

Also i've always wondered about the term "pure" when applied to native types of herb.
The implied meaning of the term is that the plant in question contains only unhybridized landrace genetics. If you say something is "pure Afghani" you just mean that is has no other genetics in there except ones found locally in Afghanistan. Almost by definition, all landraces are "pure" and the term could also be used to describe any true-breeding (ie inbred) strain that isn't really a landrace.

when pollen is so damn small , can be blown on the wind, can travel miles & miles & miles , how is it that 100% pure indica (or sativa or afghan kush or lebenon red etc) is even possible?
Because of the effect of populations. Being tongue in cheek here, this is a bit like asking why, if Irishmen can go anywhere they like on vacation, the country of Nigeria hasn't become red-headed!

Even assuming viable pollen can rise into the atmosphere, travel to another CONTINENT, and fertilize plants there, the genetic impact there is going to be absolutely minimal.

Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that some pollen from one hermie flower on your Gudkarma kush floats out of your growroom, into a gulfstream, and lands right onto a young bud on a mountain in Afghanistan. So ONE CEED out of MILLIONS there will now have hybrid genetics. Even assuming this ceed germinates and develops into a mature plant, its still outnumbered a million to one, and its contribution to the local Afghani gene pool will be negligible.

Even assuming this plant were to propagate, there is simply no way your American drug plant is going to be as acclimated to the local Afghani grow conditions as plants selectively bred there for 2000 years specifically to thrive in that exact climate and pathogen mix. So your drug genetics are going to be working at a significant selective survival DISADVANTAGE to others, and the local genetics will quickly outcompete it.

The only probable way your "foreign" genetics will gain a foothold in the local genetics pool is if local farmers identify the new genetics, and decide to selectively maintain them. Realistically, probably not going to happen.

& dont get me started on those vids i see where arjan is passing out GH beans to local canna farmers.
I'm "getting started" on this now. Nobody who claims to want to preserve landrace genetics and who even has the foggiest idea how about actual genetics would EVER want to introduce foreign genetics into this sort of situation. There is absolutely NO good that can come of that, at least not from a genetic maintenance perspective, and the ONLY expected outcome is that there is some chance outside genetics get introduced into the local gene pool.

That said, how "bad" is this practice, really? The answer is "it depends". It mostly depends on what the locals DO with said genetics after Arjan jets back to Amsterdam.

As above, a small amount of foreign genetics introduced into a large regional gene pool aren't going to significantly alter the pool. Its just pure numbers. If I go to Kashmir and plant 100 "Sour Diesels" in one spot, that's probably not really going to do anything to alter the genetics in hundreds of thousands of other local hash-plants. Too few, and the outside genetics probably won't "take" very well in that climate anyway.

So if the locals grow out a few fem plants one season, even if there were a small amount of pollen "leakage" from hermies, so long as the locals don't deliberately try to breed with these plants, the impact on local genetics will be negligible, and likely zero.

The real problem comes if/when the locals decide that they like Arjan's stuff better than their own, or just feel like playing with the "new" plants, and then either deliberately hybridize their local genetics to his and select for hybrids, or (worse), just abandon their local landrace altogether and go entirely with outside genetics. If this sort of thing were to happen, within just a few generations, that kind of hybridization and selection could significantly and permanently alter a regions local gene pool. How probable this is depends on the genetics and area in question, but its not inconceivable that it could happen.
 

hsfkush

Well-Known Member
"Pure" for the most part is just a commercial thing to make it sound better than it actually is.
 
Top