Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Meds What’s in a Strain Name

I find myself writing cannabis a lot, as some people on another site get worked up if you say marijuana or weed, feeling it's disrespectful to the plant.
Cannabis can sound pretentious, but still favor it. With a genetics background, using the genus name seems natural. Especially liked taxonomy and phylogeny.

From Wikipedia:
Inbred strains (also called inbred lines, or rarely for animals linear animals) are individuals of a particular species which are nearly identical to each other in genotype due to long inbreeding. A strain is inbred when it has undergone at least 20 generations of brother x sister or offspring x parent mating, at which point at least 98.6% of the loci in an individual of the strain will be homozygous, and each individual can be treated effectively as clones.

Let's do the math - 20 generations, say 12 weeks per generation. That's 240 weeks or 4.6 years. Not unreasonable, but how many breeders are willing to work that long? Especially considering that at this point, hobby growers expect variation in seeds and commercial growers use clones. For the most part, seed companies don't market anything as true-breeding. Asked various seedbanks for advice. Most mentioned Hindu Kush and only one or two others. Sensi Seeds describes their Hindu Kush seeds as identical as clones. Got some regular seeds to test next season. If it's true, do a seed run.

It's really too bad. If cannabis breeders were as serious as tomato breeders, we'd have even more interesting phenotypes to choose from.
 
Last edited:
Do Different Strains of Marijuana Cause Different Highs?

Here

And let me just add that if you search a topic like "Do different cannabis strains really have different effects?" one discovers there are more and more articles from reputable publications beginning to question the claims made by growers and sellers. That`s a good thing!
 
Last edited:
Do Different Strains of Marijuana Cause Different Highs?

Here


And let me just add that if you search a topic like "Do different cannabis strains really have different effects?" one discovers there are more and more articles from reputable publications beginning to question the claims made by growers and sellers. That`s a good thing!
Well, while I agree totally that the consumer should have little confidence that the strain name, as sold, is really that strain (strain as defined by the original grower's genetics, right). Also, that sativa and indica are very imprecise terms and get applied unequally to MJ sold in dispensaries. I have seen the same strain, from the same grower either listed as an indica or a hybrid, etc. We have three growers here in MD all growing the same "strain" and I can assure you that in fact they are very different from one another.

Until "strains" are defined by a specific genetic composition....or a specific detailed cannabinoid and other substances profile....there will be no consistency and until then there should be caution and a lowered expectation for being able to anticipate effects.

With all of that said, I think anybody who vapes some Jack Herer and then vapes some Purple Punch will tell you that there is a def difference in effect...what we collquially call "sativa or indica" like effects.
 
I do like strain names, and have ignored certain strains because I dislike the name, or it didn't capture my interest. If something is named along the lines of Orange Berry Candy Cookie Goodness, then I start paying attention. Yup, people like me are why they name strains things like Frosty Sugar Purple Donut Delight. If I see something called Gassy Chemical Skunky Dog Cheese, it literally has to guarantee that I will pass out in ecstasy before I even think about it beyond "No way, Jose ". Unless it's BOGO at the dispensary, or free seeds. I'll grow pretty much anything that's a free seed. Terpintine Nightmare, Fetid Putrid, Devil's Anus - if it's free, I'm agreeable. I'm slightly more discerning with BOGO. I want value for my money. Plenty of stuff to buy in the world, and I want most of it, so I want A Good Deal at the Weed Store. It has to be tasty, or a cross between paradise and a lost weekend if it's not. I like what I like, and I want what I want, so it's called having standards. I'm just flexible when it's called for. :weed:
 

Scientists say most marijuana strains act basically the same
Science Apr 20, 2017 4:20 PM EDT
If you believe budtender wisdom, consuming a strain called Bubba Kush should leave you ravenous and relaxed whereas dank Hippie Chicken should uplift you like a dreamy cup of coffee. But if you take pure, isolated delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC—the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana—you’ll experience “a high that has no specific character, so that seems boring,” says Mowgli Holmes, a geneticist and founder of a cannabis genetics company Phylos Bioscience.
What gives cannabis “character,” in Holmes’s view, are the hundreds of other chemicals it contains. These include THC’s cousin cannabinoids such as cannabidiol, along with other compounds called terpenes and flavonoids. Whereas terpenes are generally credited with giving pot its varied fragrances—limonene, for example, imparts a snappy, citrusy perfume—the cannabis industry and some researchers have espoused the controversial idea that such compounds can enhance or alter THC’s psychoactive and medicinal properties.
This so-called “entourage effect” refers to this scrum of compounds supposedly working in concert to create what Chris Emerson describes as “the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.” Emerson is a trained chemist and the co-founder of a designer marijuana vaporizer products company called Level Blends. Product designers like him believe they can create THC vaping mixtures tuned with different concentrations of each terpene and cannabinoid for specialized effects.

The idea that botanical marijuana creates a synergistic chemical effect, fingerprinting the experience with “uplifting” or “relaxing” or “munchy” notes, is highly contentious.
The conventional science on this topic is scant. But cannabis breeders (often working illegally in the past) have long been crossing plants to develop distinctive strains that purportedly do different things, and breeders are using genetics to make that process more precise and efficient.
“We have a huge set of cannabis genomic data that will, hopefully, allow us to ID genetic markers associated with chemical results and certain patient outcomes,” Holmes says. “We’re just getting started.” Holmes hopes breeders might eventually be able to generate cannabis plants or products that are personalized to each individual patient or recreational user’s needs.
But many scientists see the whole thing as a pipe dream. The idea that botanical marijuana creates a synergistic chemical effect, fingerprinting the experience with “uplifting” or “relaxing” or “munchy” notes, is highly contentious.
“The lay public has really taken on the notion of the entourage effect, but there’s not a lot of data,” says Margaret Haney, a neurobiologist at Columbia University and cannabis researcher. “The cannabis field can say anything and it does. I’m not against marijuana. I want to study it carefully. We know it can affect pain and appetite but the large majority of what’s being said is driven by anecdotal marketing. These guys are really trying to make money.”
There are a few arguments that entourage effect proponents use to bolster the theory: For one, non-THC cannabinoids do have some neurochemical action as they can affect—often in different ways—cannabinoid receptors in the central nervous system. The most commonly cited example is cannabidiol, or CBD. A number of scientists believe CBD actually mitigates the famously stoning and paranoia-producing effects of THC by blocking some cannabinoid receptors.
“The biggest influence [in the entourage effect] is CBD,” says psychopharmacologist Ethan Russo, a cannabis researcher in Washington State and medical director of the biochemical research company Phytecs. About 10 milligrams of THC can potentially cause toxic psychosis—or THC-induced, psychotic-like symptoms such as delusions—in about 40 percent of people, he says. On the other hand, Sativex—a multiple sclerosis medication not approved in the U.S. that GW Pharmaceuticals (where Russo worked for many years) started selling in the U.K. in 2010—“has equal amounts of THC and CBD,” he adds. “At amounts of 48 milligrams of THC, only four patients out of 250 exposures had this toxic psychosis. So this is a very important demonstration of this synergy,” he says, noting other cannabinoids might have similar synergistic effects that have not been studied yet.
THC-only pills have been available by prescription in the U.S. since the 1980s under the brand name Marinol, which is synthetically produced THC dissolved in sesame seed oil. Russo says people often discontinue Marinol due to negative side effects, which he believes come partly from the absence of marijuana’s other cannabinoids.
“They get anxious, dysphoric [and] scattered,” he says. “It interferes with their ability to function.”
As is often the case with cannabis, lore is law, said Mowgli Holmes, a geneticist and founder of a cannabis genetics company Phylos Bioscience. Photo by Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

“As is often the case with cannabis, lore is law,” said Mowgli Holmes, a geneticist and founder of a cannabis genetics company Phylos Bioscience. Photo by Mario Anzuoni/Reuters
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2016 approved another oral THC formulation called Syndros: pure, synthetically produced THC dissolved in alcohol. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration startled many marijuana proponents last month when it placed Syndros on Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, making it federally legal to prescribe. Despite the active ingredient being exactly the same THC molecule, the plant and most other forms of marijuana remain firmly in Schedule I—along with heroin, LSD and other drugs the DEA says have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
“THC alone is a lousy drug. It is a very poor therapeutic index,” Russo says. “I’ll tell you right now, [Syndros] won’t be exciting or gain a lot of traction either.”
The entourage effect gained some ground in 2011 when Russo published a paper in the British Journal of Pharmacologyreviewing the potential interactions between THC and various cannabinoids and terpenes. For example, he cites work suggesting alpha pinene—a terpene that gives some marijuana a fresh pine scent—might help preserve a molecule called acetylcholine, which has been implicated in memory formation. “So one main side effect of THC is short-term memory impairment,” he says. “People go, ‘Uh…what were you saying?’ That can be prevented if there’s pinene in the cannabis.”
Still, there is no hard evidence that the entourage effect is real. Double-blind clinical trials, the gold standard for research studies in medicine, have never been conducted to investigate the effects of marijuana’s terpenes or its cannabinoids other than THC.
“With marijuana, most of what you’re dealing with is anecdotal evidence,” Phylos’s Holmes says. “But the truth is there’s very, very little data.”

“We don’t understand how all these things are working in concert. But I put everything on the line for this, because I know this so strongly.”
And as is often the case with cannabis, lore is law, Holmes says. The entourage effect idea has firmly taken root in the cannabis industry and among consumers. Marijuana dispensaries have begun listing and advertising various cannabinoid ratios and providing detailed terpene profiles in certain strains and products. Laboratories specialize in testing weed for these compounds. Companies such as NaPro Research and Phylos have begun working out how to breed cannabis varieties with specific levels of popular terpenes—including limonene and pinene as well as myrcene, which some believe potentiates THC’s effects—for a designed experience.
Holmes says he does not like the fact that entourage effect supporters’ best evidence lies in anecdotes, but he thinks they still tell an important part of the story. “Mainly it makes me pissed off that we can’t do very basic studies about what’s really true,” he says. “But you have thousands and thousands of people reporting the same thing. It gets hard to ignore.” Studies are difficult because of marijuana’s Schedule I status, putting research licenses out of reach for many scientists.
And anecdotes are not enough for Columbia’s Haney and many others who agree with her.
“People have preconceived notions that a terpene will work for them,” says Barth Wilsey, a medicinal cannabis researcher at the University of California, San Diego. “The internet is great but it has a lot of fake news and it’s incredible what people are saying.” In order to learn how effective these compounds are, Wilsey says, “they have to do randomized clinical trials, where random people get real terpene and the fake terpene.”
Haney says she has only seen evidence against the entourage effect. In recent studies (including Haney’s own) directly comparing the effects of plant marijuana with oral THC formulations such as Marinol and Syndros, the results suggest there is little—if any—difference between them. “I wanted to get into whether [Marinol is worse than marijuana], because that was the lore: ‘We need to legalize marijuana because Marinol is no good,’” she says. “So we did the study, and it’s not a lousy drug. It works for pain. It works for appetite. Marinol works quite well.”
Even cannabidiol might be overhyped, Haney says. “There are promising data on potential medical use but the data suggesting it dampens the marijuana high are really not compelling when you look at the original sources,” she notes. “Yet this notion has swept the field.” Drugs like Sativex—the half-CBD/half-THC formulation—do not seem too different from just THC to her, either.
Russo admits the scientific literature is lacking but he remains firm in his belief in the entourage effect. Photo by Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters

Russo admits the scientific literature is lacking but he remains firm in his belief in the entourage effect. Photo by Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters
Russo admits the scientific literature is lacking but he remains firm in his belief in the entourage effect. “Do we need better studies to prove the concept? The answer is yes,” he says. “I believe in this because I’ve known for 40 years the differences between different cannabis. They smell different. They taste different. They have different effects.”
And many in the cannabis industry stand with him.
“We’ve done a lot of focus groups and data collection and analysis when we started [Level Blends], and 80 or 85 percent of people fall right into the effect we say they will get,” Emerson says. “We don’t understand how all these things are working in concert. But I put everything on the line for this, because I know this so strongly.”
Haney says marijuana may actually have an entourage effect but it is impossible to know without more information. “I would love to do a study comparing strains,” she says. “I would love to directly compare but I’m unable to work with any marijuana on the street or in dispensaries.” The placebo effect is very powerful, she notes. And if you believe smoking a bud will give you a bright, cerebral experience spilling with creativity or that a THC pill will make you anxious and paranoid, then that is what you will probably feel.
 

Scientists say most marijuana strains act basically the same
Science Apr 20, 2017 4:20 PM EDT
If you believe budtender wisdom, consuming a strain called Bubba Kush should leave you ravenous and relaxed whereas dank Hippie Chicken should uplift you like a dreamy cup of coffee. But if you take pure, isolated delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC—the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana—you’ll experience “a high that has no specific character, so that seems boring,” says Mowgli Holmes, a geneticist and founder of a cannabis genetics company Phylos Bioscience.
What gives cannabis “character,” in Holmes’s view, are the hundreds of other chemicals it contains. These include THC’s cousin cannabinoids such as cannabidiol, along with other compounds called terpenes and flavonoids. Whereas terpenes are generally credited with giving pot its varied fragrances—limonene, for example, imparts a snappy, citrusy perfume—the cannabis industry and some researchers have espoused the controversial idea that such compounds can enhance or alter THC’s psychoactive and medicinal properties.
This so-called “entourage effect” refers to this scrum of compounds supposedly working in concert to create what Chris Emerson describes as “the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.” Emerson is a trained chemist and the co-founder of a designer marijuana vaporizer products company called Level Blends. Product designers like him believe they can create THC vaping mixtures tuned with different concentrations of each terpene and cannabinoid for specialized effects.

The idea that botanical marijuana creates a synergistic chemical effect, fingerprinting the experience with “uplifting” or “relaxing” or “munchy” notes, is highly contentious.
The conventional science on this topic is scant. But cannabis breeders (often working illegally in the past) have long been crossing plants to develop distinctive strains that purportedly do different things, and breeders are using genetics to make that process more precise and efficient.
“We have a huge set of cannabis genomic data that will, hopefully, allow us to ID genetic markers associated with chemical results and certain patient outcomes,” Holmes says. “We’re just getting started.” Holmes hopes breeders might eventually be able to generate cannabis plants or products that are personalized to each individual patient or recreational user’s needs.
But many scientists see the whole thing as a pipe dream. The idea that botanical marijuana creates a synergistic chemical effect, fingerprinting the experience with “uplifting” or “relaxing” or “munchy” notes, is highly contentious.
“The lay public has really taken on the notion of the entourage effect, but there’s not a lot of data,” says Margaret Haney, a neurobiologist at Columbia University and cannabis researcher. “The cannabis field can say anything and it does. I’m not against marijuana. I want to study it carefully. We know it can affect pain and appetite but the large majority of what’s being said is driven by anecdotal marketing. These guys are really trying to make money.”
There are a few arguments that entourage effect proponents use to bolster the theory: For one, non-THC cannabinoids do have some neurochemical action as they can affect—often in different ways—cannabinoid receptors in the central nervous system. The most commonly cited example is cannabidiol, or CBD. A number of scientists believe CBD actually mitigates the famously stoning and paranoia-producing effects of THC by blocking some cannabinoid receptors.
“The biggest influence [in the entourage effect] is CBD,” says psychopharmacologist Ethan Russo, a cannabis researcher in Washington State and medical director of the biochemical research company Phytecs. About 10 milligrams of THC can potentially cause toxic psychosis—or THC-induced, psychotic-like symptoms such as delusions—in about 40 percent of people, he says. On the other hand, Sativex—a multiple sclerosis medication not approved in the U.S. that GW Pharmaceuticals (where Russo worked for many years) started selling in the U.K. in 2010—“has equal amounts of THC and CBD,” he adds. “At amounts of 48 milligrams of THC, only four patients out of 250 exposures had this toxic psychosis. So this is a very important demonstration of this synergy,” he says, noting other cannabinoids might have similar synergistic effects that have not been studied yet.
THC-only pills have been available by prescription in the U.S. since the 1980s under the brand name Marinol, which is synthetically produced THC dissolved in sesame seed oil. Russo says people often discontinue Marinol due to negative side effects, which he believes come partly from the absence of marijuana’s other cannabinoids.
“They get anxious, dysphoric [and] scattered,” he says. “It interferes with their ability to function.”
As is often the case with cannabis, lore is law, said Mowgli Holmes, a geneticist and founder of a cannabis genetics company Phylos Bioscience. Photo by Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

“As is often the case with cannabis, lore is law,” said Mowgli Holmes, a geneticist and founder of a cannabis genetics company Phylos Bioscience. Photo by Mario Anzuoni/Reuters
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2016 approved another oral THC formulation called Syndros: pure, synthetically produced THC dissolved in alcohol. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration startled many marijuana proponents last month when it placed Syndros on Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, making it federally legal to prescribe. Despite the active ingredient being exactly the same THC molecule, the plant and most other forms of marijuana remain firmly in Schedule I—along with heroin, LSD and other drugs the DEA says have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
“THC alone is a lousy drug. It is a very poor therapeutic index,” Russo says. “I’ll tell you right now, [Syndros] won’t be exciting or gain a lot of traction either.”
The entourage effect gained some ground in 2011 when Russo published a paper in the British Journal of Pharmacologyreviewing the potential interactions between THC and various cannabinoids and terpenes. For example, he cites work suggesting alpha pinene—a terpene that gives some marijuana a fresh pine scent—might help preserve a molecule called acetylcholine, which has been implicated in memory formation. “So one main side effect of THC is short-term memory impairment,” he says. “People go, ‘Uh…what were you saying?’ That can be prevented if there’s pinene in the cannabis.”
Still, there is no hard evidence that the entourage effect is real. Double-blind clinical trials, the gold standard for research studies in medicine, have never been conducted to investigate the effects of marijuana’s terpenes or its cannabinoids other than THC.
“With marijuana, most of what you’re dealing with is anecdotal evidence,” Phylos’s Holmes says. “But the truth is there’s very, very little data.”

“We don’t understand how all these things are working in concert. But I put everything on the line for this, because I know this so strongly.”
And as is often the case with cannabis, lore is law, Holmes says. The entourage effect idea has firmly taken root in the cannabis industry and among consumers. Marijuana dispensaries have begun listing and advertising various cannabinoid ratios and providing detailed terpene profiles in certain strains and products. Laboratories specialize in testing weed for these compounds. Companies such as NaPro Research and Phylos have begun working out how to breed cannabis varieties with specific levels of popular terpenes—including limonene and pinene as well as myrcene, which some believe potentiates THC’s effects—for a designed experience.
Holmes says he does not like the fact that entourage effect supporters’ best evidence lies in anecdotes, but he thinks they still tell an important part of the story. “Mainly it makes me pissed off that we can’t do very basic studies about what’s really true,” he says. “But you have thousands and thousands of people reporting the same thing. It gets hard to ignore.” Studies are difficult because of marijuana’s Schedule I status, putting research licenses out of reach for many scientists.
And anecdotes are not enough for Columbia’s Haney and many others who agree with her.
“People have preconceived notions that a terpene will work for them,” says Barth Wilsey, a medicinal cannabis researcher at the University of California, San Diego. “The internet is great but it has a lot of fake news and it’s incredible what people are saying.” In order to learn how effective these compounds are, Wilsey says, “they have to do randomized clinical trials, where random people get real terpene and the fake terpene.”
Haney says she has only seen evidence against the entourage effect. In recent studies (including Haney’s own) directly comparing the effects of plant marijuana with oral THC formulations such as Marinol and Syndros, the results suggest there is little—if any—difference between them. “I wanted to get into whether [Marinol is worse than marijuana], because that was the lore: ‘We need to legalize marijuana because Marinol is no good,’” she says. “So we did the study, and it’s not a lousy drug. It works for pain. It works for appetite. Marinol works quite well.”
Even cannabidiol might be overhyped, Haney says. “There are promising data on potential medical use but the data suggesting it dampens the marijuana high are really not compelling when you look at the original sources,” she notes. “Yet this notion has swept the field.” Drugs like Sativex—the half-CBD/half-THC formulation—do not seem too different from just THC to her, either.
Russo admits the scientific literature is lacking but he remains firm in his belief in the entourage effect. Photo by Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters

Russo admits the scientific literature is lacking but he remains firm in his belief in the entourage effect. Photo by Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters
Russo admits the scientific literature is lacking but he remains firm in his belief in the entourage effect. “Do we need better studies to prove the concept? The answer is yes,” he says. “I believe in this because I’ve known for 40 years the differences between different cannabis. They smell different. They taste different. They have different effects.”
And many in the cannabis industry stand with him.
“We’ve done a lot of focus groups and data collection and analysis when we started [Level Blends], and 80 or 85 percent of people fall right into the effect we say they will get,” Emerson says. “We don’t understand how all these things are working in concert. But I put everything on the line for this, because I know this so strongly.”
Haney says marijuana may actually have an entourage effect but it is impossible to know without more information. “I would love to do a study comparing strains,” she says. “I would love to directly compare but I’m unable to work with any marijuana on the street or in dispensaries.” The placebo effect is very powerful, she notes. And if you believe smoking a bud will give you a bright, cerebral experience spilling with creativity or that a THC pill will make you anxious and paranoid, then that is what you will probably feel.
To me, the evidence is NOT anecdotal...its directly experiential and I have reproduced the results many times. Just vape a bowl of Jack Herer or Super Lemon Haze and then the next day vape a bowl of Bubba Kush or Purple Punch and I believe that the "evidence" will become clear. What they don't have is a scientific model to predict effects because.....yes, once again....Federal law blocking serious research.

As for Mowgli Holmes and Phylos Bioscience, yeah...he has a lot of genetics and there are a LOT of growers out there who would like to have his head on a spike after he promised them no commercial or breeding involvment if they gave him their genetics....particularly selling it as a way to put this IP into the public domain and hence beyond the patent reach of Monsanto and others ....then he turned around and...well, did just the opposite.

Google Phylos and a bunch of hits will return on this subject and you can make up your own mind on this subject.
 
How Reliable Are Cannabis Strain Names?

Finding consistent, repeatable experiences with cannabis is a challenge that every consumer faces. Even the most experienced cannabis connoisseurs can struggle to find the right dose of the right strain with the right chemical composition.
Once you’ve found a strain you enjoy, the challenge continues when you return to the dispensary looking to recapture that experience. Two strains bearing the same name can vary from grower to grower, and any difference in the chemical makeup can sway the experience in any number of directions.
Which is why finding reliable strains that are accurately labeled is paramount to replicating the enjoyment and benefits cannabis provides. When shopping for a specific strain, the strain name is one of the few pieces of information that consumers have to depend on.

RELATED STORY
What’s in a Strain Name? A Lot, Actually—but Only If It’s Accurate

But exactly how reliable are strain names? If you pick up two distinct products that share the same strain name, how similar will they be? Let’s find out.
What Does ‘Reliability’ Mean in a Cannabis Strain Name?
Strain name reliability—that is, confidence that a specific strain name leads to predictable effects—comes down to the level of consistency in chemical expression (i.e., cannabinoid and terpene levels).
A reliable strain name is going to be consistent from grower to grower and batch to batch, expressing a similar chemical profile. Unreliable strain names will show a wider spectrum of variety in the expression of their chemical profile—that means your experience may differ from product to product, even if each of those products carries the same strain name.
Strain names can be unreliable for a number of reasons. The practice of counterfeiting or renaming a strain for marketing purposes can complicate things by presenting different chemical profiles under the same strain name.
Unstable genetics are another culprit of unreliability. When growers work with strains that have not been carefully bred to produce consistent characteristics, phenotypic differences—the disparate characteristics between sibling plants with the same genetic lineage—can also lead to more variability in the chemical expression of strains with the same name.

RELATED STORY
Cannabis Genotypes and Phenotypes: What Makes a Strain Unique?

Determining Reliability
The chart below helps illustrate the reliability of strain names by comparing samples of well-known strains using data from Leafly’s lab partners.
Each bar represents the average reliability of several popular strain names. Each bar represents data from many growers across the US and Canada.


The top of the graph represents a “perfect” strain. If every grower producing Blue Dream made flower with identical chemical profiles, then the bar would go all the way to the top. That would mean that every cannabinoid and terpene is present in precisely the same ratio across all products with a shared strain name. This is obviously not possible and represents an ideal state of perfect consistency.
Strain names above the dashed line are associated with fairly consistent chemical profiles across growers. Strain names far above the line, such as White Tahoe Cookies and Purple Punch, are quite consistent and reliable in their chemical profiles.
The more reliable strain names you see on the left show a relatively consistent pattern in their chemical makeup. That means if you’re smoking a flower labeled “Blue Dream,” there’s a higher likelihood that you are enjoying the same thing you did last time—the experience, as a result of its chemical profile, will be more repeatable.

RELATED STORY
What Is THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol)?

The less reliable strain names, like Durban Poison and Pineapple Express on the right, show greater variability in lab analyses of their chemical makeup, and will therefore be less reliable in producing consistent effects if the strain name is all you have to go on.
The dashed line represents how similar two flower products with the same strain name would be to each other if strain names were randomly assigned. Leafly’s data team can model this scenario by measuring the level of consistency between samples sharing the same strain name after randomly shuffling the names attached to each data sample. This tells us what things would be like if growers were randomly picking strain names.
Strain names like Blueberry, which are closer to the dashed line but still above it, are still more consistent across growers and products than if strain names were randomly chosen, but somewhat less consistent than strains like Blue Dream, White Tahoe Cookies, and Purple Punch.

RELATED STORY
CBD vs. THC: What’s the Difference?

Strain names below the line can be thought of as “consistently inconsistent.” Flower products with these strain names will commonly have more than one very distinct terpene profile. Durban Poison, for example, has returned lab results from multiple growers that test all over the place with various different terpene profiles present.
Which Strain Names Are the Most Reliable?
Given that there are no enforced rules ensuring that growers accurately choose the correct strain name, it’s remarkable that many strain names are actually fairly consistent. Let’s look at an example of one of the most popular and reliable strains according to Leafly data to learn more about why reliable strain names provide a more consistent experience.
Blue Dream is a longstanding fan favorite on Leafly. There are a number of factors we can attribute to Blue Dream’s popularity, but one of the most apparent is its consistency from grower to grower.
terpene_profiles_blue_dream_flowers_nocolor_PLOTS-768x1024.jpg
(Leafly)
Looking at the lab data for this strain, we see a clear pattern with its terpene profile. This classic hybrid most commonly expresses a myrcene-rich profile supported by pinene and caryophyllene. Terpene profiles differ somewhat grower to grower, but most samples share the same basic profile. In fact, about 80% of Blue Dream flower products express this general terpene profile. This level of consistency is what we see from lab data coming from several hundred growers across multiple geographic regions.
Blue Dream proliferated in the early-2000s, an era that saw a lot of growth and promise for medical cannabis in California and beyond. During this time, genetics were widely shared within the medical cannabis community, and many dispensaries made clones available for patients. Blue Dream was widely available, and the fact that it was mostly available by clone helped ensure that its genetic blueprint was maintained no matter who was growing it.

RELATED STORY
Opinion: It’s OK That Blue Dream Is Your Favorite Cannabis Strain

Blue Dream also features one of the most common terpene profiles across all varieties of cannabis. Myrcene is the most abundant single terpene in commercial cannabis today, and around 40% of legal flower products today are myrcene-dominant strains.
According to lab data, Blue Dream’s myrcene-dominant terpene profile is found in 54% of growers’ gardens, but 24% of growers have a pinene-dominant version supported by myrcene as the secondary terpene. These profiles share the same general makeup of terpenes but express them in slightly different ratios, likely due to subtle phenotypic differences within the genetic lineage.
Which Strain Names Are Unreliable?
Let’s look at the chemical profile of Durban Poison, a strain with a storied legacy, to better understand why some strains express less consistency when it comes to their expected effects.
terpene_profiles_durban_poison_flowers_nocolor_PLOTS-768x1024.jpg
(Leafly)
Lab data shows a variety of chemotypes available for products with the strain name Durban Poison. While this strain name is often seen with terpinolene as its dominant terpene, flower products with the name Durban Poison often show completely different terpene profiles. There is too much variability for us to associate a single chemical profile to Durban Poison.
Since this strain is consistently inconsistent in its chemical expression, it will be more difficult for consumers to rely on products with this strain name as an indicator of reliable effects. As more data becomes available the authentic Durban Poison may show itself, but true genetic authentication requires collaboration with breeders who have verified Durban Poison genetics.

RELATED STORY
Beginner’s Guide to Cannabis Breeding, Genetics, and Strain Variability

There are at least three major factors that explain why the strain name Durban Poison is not reliably associated with a clear chemical profile:
  1. It is a rare landrace strain—a cultivar native to the areas surrounding Durban, South Africa, it wasn’t bred or stabilized with the same attention and methods that breeders today use to create strains.
  2. Landrace varieties in general are rare in legal markets. They’re also highly sought-after and compelling, which makes them susceptible to counterfeiting, especially because their seeds are so hard to come by.
  3. Durban Poison is thought to be a pure sativa. Pure sativa strains are extremely rare in a market flooded by hybrid and indica varieties, so finding one is suspect.

Due to the inconsistent nature of their chemical profiles, there are some strain names we can’t rely on for predictable effects. But there are still many strain names out there you can count on, at least the majority of the time. As the cannabis industry matures, increased accountability that comes with lab testing will hopefully make strain names more reliable.
Ultimately no strain name is perfectly reliable and any seemingly subtle variance in chemical profile could influence the experience a strain provides. This is even more apparent for those using cannabis therapeutically. To make cannabis consumption a more consistent and repeatable experience, consumers must feel empowered to make the right decisions through understanding verified lab data for the products they are purchasing.
Cannabis consumers deserve better! More detailed analysis of the products you are enjoying is just the start. Leafly continues to develop tools and resources to ensure consumers understand their cannabis better through partnerships with data labs and collaboration with industry-leading breeders and growers.


 

Breeding inconsistency: Why cannabis profiles matter


One of the first reports to be published in the first ever peer reviewed cannabis journal highlights the importance of consistency of cannabis profiles for patients.
Over the last ten years cannabis has been either legalised or decriminalised in a number of countries including America, Canada and Australia, which has led to an explosion in the volume of cannabis production. This has, in turn, led to an increase in the number of different cannabis strains that are available to customers – all with different chemical profiles to each other.

Published in the Journal of Cannabis Research, the report emphasises that, currently, there are no baseline genotypes for any strains and that steps need to be taken to ensure that products are genetically congruent. However, there is no way for suppliers, growers or consumers to definitively verify strains

Cannabis profiles: federal status is a barrier
As cannabis has a Federal status as a schedule one drug it is excluded from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) protections, meaning researchers are meeting errors and inconsistencies in their studies.

The report notes: ‘The genetic inconsistencies will often manifest as differences in overall effects…. Differences in characteristics within a named strain may be surprising for a recreational user, but differences may be more serious for a medical patient who relies on a particular strain for alleviation of specific symptoms.

‘There is no consistent genetic differentiation between the widely held perceptions of sativa and indica cannabis types. Moreover, the genetic analyses do not support the reported proportions of sativa and indica within each strain, which is expected given the lack of genetic distinction between sativa and indica.
‘There may be land race strains that phenotypically and genetically separate as sativa and indica types, however, our sampling does not include an adequate number of these strains to define these as two potentially distinct genotypes.’

Looking at strains
The study consisted of reviewing 30 different strains from a total of 20 different dispensaries or donors in three American states where cannabis is legal. A total of 12 of the strains studied were classed as commonly used due to their availability in dispensaries and online information about them. Some of the popular strains that were studied include Jack Herer, Durban Poison, Purple Kush, Girl Scout Cookies, Sour Diesel, OG Kush and Chemdawg.

DNA from the strains were extracted using a modified CTAB extraction protocol with 0.0035 – 0.100g of dried flower tissue per extraction and profiles were compared to several online databases. The results showed a number of genetic inconsistencies in the strains acquired from different facilities.

The researchers found that sativa type strains – Durban Poison and Sour Diesel – have contradicting genetic assignments and that a number of hybrid type strains have differing levels of admixture both within and among reportedly similar strains, concluding that ‘reported ratios or differences between sativa and indica phenotypes are not discernible using these genetic markers’.

The report states: ‘We found high support for two genetic groups in the data but no discernible distinction or pattern between the described sativa and indica strains. If genetic differentiation of the commonly perceived sativa and indica types previously existed, it is no longer detectable in the neutral genetic markers used here. Extensive hybridisation and selection have presumably created a homogenising effect and erased evidence of potentially divergent historical genotypes’.

Breeding inconsistency
The report notes the impact of breeding on inconsistency amongst individual strains, highlighting how intensive efforts to create novel strains has amounted in the merging of the two types and has blurred previous separation between the two types.

In order to communicate the spectrum of effects of each strain to patients the categorisation of strains by differentiating between sativa and indica looks likely to continue.
The report said: ‘Instances we found where samples within strains are not genetically similar, which is unexpected given the manner in which cannabis plants are propagated. Although it is impossible to determine the source of these inconsistencies as they can arise at multiple points throughout the chain of events from seed to sale, we theorise misidentification, mislabelling, misplacement, misspelling, and/or relabelling are all possible.

‘In many cases genetic inconsistencies within strains were limited to one or two samples. We feel that there is a reasonable amount of genetic similarity within many strains, but currently there is no way to verify the “true” genotype of any strain. Although the sampling here includes merely a fragment of the available cannabis strains, our results give scientific merit to previously anecdotal claims that strains can be unpredictable.

‘Maintenance of the genetic integrity through genotyping is possible only following evaluation of genetic consistency and continuing to overlook this aspect will promote genetic variability and phenotypic variation within cannabis. Addressing strain variability at the molecular level is of the utmost importance while the industry is still relatively new’.








 
Just saw a strain I want to try. It’s called “ I Need More Cowbell”. The name caught my eye but the parentage is what got me interested. It’s half Girl Scout Cookies and the other half Hash Plant. The flavors sounded good to me - some lemon and mint turps along with other flavors it said dates or figs, interesting.
 
Last edited:
Why Indica, Sativa, and Hybrid Classifications Mean Close to Nothing


While poking around your local dispensary, it’s almost guaranteed that you will speak or hear the terms “indica,” “sativa,” or “hybrid,” at least once. These three terms remain, by far, the most common for describing the attributes and effects of cannabis flower — and even products like edibles and vapes lay claim to the categories.

For most of us, these labels are shorthand. Indicas are chill, sativas are energetic, and hybrids represent a balance between the two. But are these classifications accurate, and — perhaps more importantly — can they be used to authentically predict a person’s experience when consuming cannabis?

Indeed, according to most people in the know, they aren’t necessarily accurate. Here’s the lowdown on why indica, sativa, and hybrid classifications are slowly beginning to fall by the wayside, and what’s replacing them.

Roots of Indica and Sativa

In the late 1700s, the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck classified two varieties of the plant we now know as weed, ganja, marijuana, or cannabis. They were, you guessed it, Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica. His descriptions of Cannabis sativareflect a lighter colored, pointy shaped leaf and a taller plant, while the species identified as Cannabis indica describe a shorter plant of Eastern origins with broader, dark colored leaves.

Rigorous lab testing didn’t exist in those days, but it’s clear that plants from that time period had much lower levels of THC than what we see on today's market. And as for their terpene content? That’s anyone’s guess.

Today, most cannabis industry folk agree that the categories of indica and sativa are not particularly helpful. Dr. Patricia Frye, chief medical officer at HelloMD, told Civilized that decades of crossbreeding have left us with few, if any, pure indicas or sativas. The 18th century plant classifications, she said, “were totally based on morphology — or what the plant looked like — and not on genetics or the effect the plant has on the person using it.”

In other words, if a plant is labelled an indica, a sativa, or a hybrid based on its height, or the shape of its leaves — or even its presumed genetics — that has little to no correlation with its effect on the consumer.

If Indica and Sativa Aren’t Reliable Categories, What Should We Look For Instead?

Cannabinoid Content

The answer here depends, of course, on what you’re trying to accomplish. Medical and adult use consumers may have different goals and criteria, and each person will likely encounter variations over the course of a day, a week, and a lifetime in terms of the cannabis compounds (a.k.a. cannabinoids) that will serve them best.

No matter your goals, a strain's total THC and CBD content, and the ratios between them, matter. THC is, of course, associated with the psychoactive qualities of the plant and has numerous medical uses in treating cancer, pain, and insomnia. The non-psychoactive cannabinoid, CBD, is used for relief from seizures, anxiety, and inflammation, among other things. Adult use consumers may appreciate both THC and CBD in varying ratios, depending on how altered they would like to feel.

According to Dr. Frye, patients should first consider the THC concentration of flower, and then decide how much of it they want to consume. THC concentration has skyrocketed in the last decade, but more is not necessarily better; it’s worth noting here that both THC and CBD have biphasic effects, which means that a dose in excess of what’s needed can worsen the symptoms that the correct dose would help treat.

A few other cannabinoids like THCV, CBG, and CBN are also starting to get attention for their potential uses and benefits, though fewer commercial strains have yet to advertise significant percentages of these compounds.

Terpene Composition

Beyond cannabinoid content, terpenes are where it’s at. Terpenes are the aromatic compounds that serve the plant by attracting pollinators and deterring predators. When you inhale the scent of fresh or well-preserved cannabis flower, you’re smelling the floral, fruity, herbal, spicy, or even “skunky” evidence of terpene content. The six most common terpenes found in cannabis — myrcene, limonene, pinene, terpinolene, linalool, and caryophyllene — each have distinct characteristics that sway or influence the direction of a consumer’s experience and interact in synergistic ways with the cannabinoids through what’s called the entourage effect.

Dr. Frye recommends that patients seeking better sleep reach for flower containing myrcene or linalool; for pain relief, she’s found limonene and beta-caryophyllene are most effective. She recommends pinene, a terpene with bronchodilation and anti-inflammatory effects, for patients with asthma or COPD, and strains high in limonene for depression. She added that these recommendations are, to date, based on clinical experience with patients, but not on research.

Varying terpene compositions will influence a high in the direction of a more relaxed or energetic tone — which, in fact, mimics the classic expectations consumers have of indicas and sativas. But it’s the terpenes, much more than the ancestry of a plant or its morphology (shape and appearance), that determine these factors.

According to Alec Dixon, co-founder and director of client relations at SC Labs, terpene analysis leads to “a more woke ability to understand cannabis and to gauge effects.” With facilities in California and Oregon, SC Labs has analyzed between 85,000 and 90,000 flower samples for terpene content. With the use of clustering algorithms to help sort and analyze data, they’ve helped develop a new classification system that employs visual imagery to reflect cannabinoid and terpene content — with the goal of helping people find a strain that most closely matches their needs.

Considering the countless combinations of cannabinoid and terpene compositions that show up in flower, it may seem daunting to find the right cultivar for you. But Dixon says that 98 percent of the samples analyzed can be broken down into 12 categories, or “archetypes,” with relatively uniform effects.

A caveat, however, is the fact that the compounds in cannabis interact in complex ways with a person’s endocannabinoid system. “There are a lot of variables at play to determine how something makes you feel, versus how it makes me feel,” said Dixon. Tolerance, metabolism, and lifestyle, among other factors, come into play. Cannabis is a plant medicine, not a pharmaceutical product, and as such may never deliver the predictability that synthetic compounds can.

Why Does the Indica/Sativa Dichotomy Persist?

With all we now know about the subtle and complex nature of the plant, it’s perplexing that “indica” and “sativa” are still in everyday use. Part of the reason lies in the fact that sophisticated lab testing for cannabis is new. SC Labs, for instance, has been in business for a decade and has conducted terpene tests for eight of those years. In the millennia of human history with the plant, there were few rigorous and reliable ways to understand the clear differences between one variety and another — so classifying plants as indica and sativa, according to Dixon, “was as good as we had at the time.”

Dr. Frye believes that today, the continued references to indica and sativa are little more than marketing language. She said that if someone smoked or vaped the flower and felt sleepy or relaxed, they would call a variety indica, and if they felt energized, they’d label it sativa. “The bottom line though,” she said, “is that it’s pretty much rubbish when it comes to the species.”

In response, some new cannabis companies have begun to name their flower and other products after the supposed effect, rather than rely on what would be esoteric names for novice consumers like "OG Kush" or " Sour Diesel." The flower brand Cannadescent, for instance, carries strains by the names of "create" or "calm," based on the their cannabinoid and terpene profiles, rather than on simplistic indica/sativa classification — but even so, the extent to which a strain called "calm" makes one feel that way is still subjectively dependent on a person's unique endocannabinoid system and other factors.

So, Are Strain Names Reliable?

Maybe.

Because of the long history of prohibition-era crossbreeding without access to lab-based analysis, it’s still possible to find two wildly divergent batches of flower bearing the same name. But, according to Dixon, strains are “not as misrepresented in the name game as some people think.” Even though he acknowledges that renaming does take place for the most “played out” names like Blue Dream and Gelato, the company has found more consistency across different growers and suppliers than anticipated.

Nonetheless, through the hundreds of budtender training programs Dixon has given, he recommends empowering consumers to develop their nose instead of relying solely on strain names or outdated indica/sativa dichotomies. “Your nose can help you detect the terps that you’re most suited for, or that you need most,” he said.

Should Terpene Testing and Labeling Be Required?

Nevada’s medical and adult use market, as well as Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program, both require terpene testing for all flower sold in legal dispensaries. But the largest North American markets don’t. In California, for instance, terpene testing is only required if a company makes a claim to a certain terpene profile in their marketing or packaging materials.

Dixon admits that state-mandated terpene testing would undoubtedly provide a boon to his business. But because it’s not a safety issue, and because California already has a robust testing regime, he said, “I don’t know that it makes sense to add onto what’s already required. More testing isn’t necessarily good for the industry.”

However, if consumers begin asking for this kind of information, the industry will respond. Leading growers and distributors will start representing their products in terms of terpene content, and others are likely to follow suit. It's already begun to happen.

An Evolving Relationship with the Plant

According to Dixon, we’re entering a phase in our relationship with cannabis that is driven by data instead of anecdote or hearsay. Consumers can now be more intentional with their consumption based on how they want their endocannabinoid systems to be engaged. “Testing,” he said, “is helping to provide a language of meaning to interpret this plant and its message to us.”
 
Right now, they can call it any damn thing that they want. That's all there is too it.

Here in MD, I take note of not only the strain but the cultivator....if I like a certain flower I bought, I seek that (strain/grower) and don't assume that they are the same when from different sources.

That's it.
Baron, you are correct! In regards to paying attention more to who the cultivator is as opposed to the strain name. Here in Illinois, I look for a handful of cultivators and then look @ the strain. Certain cultivators have their shit together and some are just churning out product.

Now having said that, some strain names make me giggle, love "9lb. Hammer", whoever thought that up is a marketing genius and in IL., as long as it is grown by SCCS it lives up to its billing. As an aside, this cultivator, Shelby County Community Services has an interesting backstory. They are a community services outreach that is known for its efforts on behalf of the mentally disabled and other at-risk populations. They were awarded a cultivator license in Illinois and then beat back a legal challenge that tried to pull their license because a social service org., shouldn't be in that bidness, I say power to them! I can think of a number of charitable orgs. that could benfit from this sideline bidness. Everything I've bought from them has been fire.
 
image.jpg
Good old GrapeApe is pretty consistent in my neck of the woods. Sometimes Gorilla Glue is a Hybrid and sometimes a Sativa. I’ve been told different plants are the reason for this. Gorilla glue has a pretty distinguishable flavor. I always shop at one of three shops - good products and most of the time knowledgeable workers but not always. Maybe it’s a Sativa Hybrid that sounds more likely. I’ve even seen a Gorilla Glue Indica. We have seed to flower with a barcode in WA on each plant. It stays with the plant until harvest.

What I don’t like is when you go in for something and they don’t have it, then they try to talk you into something else. Sometimes something else works out but not always. I don’t like getting stuck with something harsh and lousy flavor, even if it couch locks me. Plenty of good flavor that has that couch lock side effect. I don’t always want that unless it’s in the evening.

I’m a flavor snob. I don’t like wine or most wines. Cannabis is like my flavors of wine.
 
Last edited:
The Difference Between Indica and Sativa. Do They Matter?

The terms indica and sativa have probably dictated every cannabis-related decision you’ve ever made. If you’re a novice, moderate, or veteran cannabis user, the first question you probably ask yourself every time you shop for a specific species of cannabis is whether you want the “body high” of indica, the “cerebral rush” of sativa, or the varied effects of a hybrid.

As you’ll notice upon browsing a well-stock dispensary shelf, there are all types of cannabis strains, or cultivars. Each has its own shape, color, aroma profile, and display of effects. What we may not be aware of is how often we limit the scope of our cannabis consumption by forcing each flower into one of two — or sometimes, three — ambiguous categories.

This isn’t to say that indica and sativa are completely irrelevant terms. Growers use them to categorize plants based on their growth traits and resulting chemical profiles, which in turn helps retailers market cannabis by categorizing effects for consumers. In other words, indica and sativa are still around because they still serve a purpose.

Conventional wisdom is seldom unfounded, but that doesn’t mean it’s always reliable. So let’s dig into the controversy surrounding indica and sativa strains — find out where these terms came from, how we use them today, and whether they’re still valuable in our current cannabis landscape.

Where Do Indica and Sativa Come From?
Together, indica and sativa have been the foundation of the cannabis lexicon since the mid-1700s. In 1753, Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus identified psychoactive cannabis plants as Cannabis sativa in his work Species Plantarum, and 32 years later, French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck identified Cannabis indica as a different species while observing the physical characteristics of India’s cannabis plants. Lamarck argued that C. indica plants have dark green, wide leaves compared with C. sativa leaves, which are light and narrow.

Species_plantarum_001.jpg

Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus first identified Cannabis sativa in his 1927 work Species Plantarum. (Public Domain photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Fast forward to 1930, when Russian botanist Dmitrij Janischewsky identifies Cannabis ruderalis as the third subspecies. This time, it was not a result of unique physical expressions, but rather unique traits in the plant’s flowering cycle. Janischewsky noticed that while most cannabis plants begin to flower as a result of the changing available sunlight, ruderalis plants automatically began to flower between 20-40 days after sprouting.

Now, you probably haven’t heard your local budtender suggest a great new “ruderalis” strain. That’s because botanists never quite agreed on a definitive cannabis taxonomy.

Another pivotal moment for our current taxonomy came in the mid-to-late 1970s, when American biologists Loran Anderson and Richard E. Schultes argued that there are three cannabis species: C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis. Departing somewhat from Linneaeus and Lamarck, Anderson and Schultes characterized a distinction between plants based on their ratio of the cannabinoids THC and CBD. They observed a difference between cultivars high in THC with low CBD (C. sativa), those with high THC and CBD (C. indica), and those with a high CBD to THC ratio (C. ruderalis).

In 1976, around the time Schultes and Anderson were making their claims, Ernest Small and Arthur Cronquist argued the existence of only one central cannabis species, which they labeled C. sativa. Human intervention, they contended, subsequently created two subspecies: C. sativa (low-THC hemp) and C. indica (high-THC cannabis cultivated for intoxication).

Fast forward to today — we’re still making cannabis discoveries that reshape our taxonomic framework. Since the mid-2000s, botanists have diverted from Small’s and Cronquist’s taxonomy — arguing that sativa and indica subspecies may have predated human intervention. We’ve also begun to recognize the importance of terpenes in shaping the cannabis experience — something previous taxonomists never took into account.

It is important to note that these terms were created for botanists and not pharmacologists. Botanists use these terms to classify plants on the basis of shared characteristics, not on their effects on the human body.

How Are These Terms Used Now?
Almost immediately upon their inception, the terms indica and sativa were used to identify cannabis plants based on the shape and size of their main leaves, and the amount of fiber they produced. Today’s cultivators use them for roughly the same purpose — separating plants into indica and sativa according to their growth traits and physical makeup.

If the indica and sativa taxonomy is for anyone, it’s for the cultivators. Unsuspecting consumers, on the other hand, may find them a bit misleading. Human intervention has dramatically changed the chemical makeup of the cannabis plant since the days of Linnaeus and Lamarck. The effects of indica and sativa plants in the 1700s probably aligned more closely with their physical classification than they do today.

Sativa vs. Indica – What are the Differences?
The real difference between today’s indica and sativa plants is in their observable traits during the cultivation cycle. Indica plants tend to grow short with thick stems and broad, deep-green leaves. They also have short flowering cycles, and grow sufficiently in cold, short-season climates. Sativa plants have longer flowering cycles, fare better in warm climates with long seasons, and usually grow taller with light-green, narrow leaves.

For the last 50 years of cannabis cultivation, crossbreeding has been the name of the game. As a result, there’s virtually no such thing as a “pure” indica or sativa anymore. Every flower you’ve ever come in contact with has most likely been a hybrid of some sort. Classifying a particular cultivar, or strain, as indica or sativa usually means that it tilts to one side or the other of an indica/sativa spectrum.

Sativa vs. Indica Effects
The “indica vs. sativa” framework has drawn controversy, and for good reason. As you research cultivars online, you may keep coming up against the same phrases to describe sativas (“cerebral,” “heady,”, “uplifting”, “energizing”) and indicas (“relaxing,” “sedating,” “full-bodied,” “couchlock,” “stoney”). It’s still perfectly valid to describe effects as “sativa-like” or “indica-like”, as long as we remember that sativa or indica-like effects don’t necessarily coincide with a plant’s sativa or indica lineage.

This is where hybrids come in. You’ve probably noticed how hybrid cultivars have become as prominent as indicas and sativas, if not more so. It’s a sign that cannabis marketing is catching up to reality. All modern cultivars are technically hybrids, but the plants we officially classify as hybrids are the intentional crossbreeds of indicas and sativas, designed to produce specific qualities and effects. Often, budtenders recommend hybrids for their highly specialized effects, flavors, and aromas.

Hybrids certainly present a more nuanced taxonomic reality, but they do not provide a label that adequately indicates the effects that a user can expect from a cultivar —- especially as we recognize how differently from one another our bodies react to cannabis. Ever settle in to relax with some indica, only to find yourself in a high-energy cerebral haze? Or, have you tried sativa-dominant strains you heard were great for productivity and ended up in a prolonged, full-body couchlock? The truth is, you can’t always rely on your body to receive indica or sativa-like effects from an indica or sativa flower. You and your friend might smoke the exact same bud and have two equally distinct experiences.

How Do Indicas and Sativas Change Your High?
The hard “indica vs. sativa = relaxation vs. exhilaration” paradigm is clearly outdated, if not totally inaccurate. So where does that leave us? What relevance, if any, do the terms indica and sativa have, and what effect will they have on your high?

The answer isn’t as hopeless, nor as clear-cut, as you might think. Each strain produces an effect as individual as its end user, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make truly educated decisions about which cultivars you’re going to try.

The effects you experience from a particular cannabis strain are much more directly tied to a specific set of compounds — more precisely, cannabinoids and terpenes — and how they affect you as an individual. THC — the dominant cannabis compound — is just one of several cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant. Each cultivar has its own cannabinoid makeup and accompanying effect. On the adult-use market, the most popular strains tend to have some of the highest levels of THC content. Terpenes — the organic compounds responsible for a plant’s flavors and aromas — greatly influence the character and effect a cannabis plant will produce, as well as the potential medicinal benefits. The labels indica and sativa were established centuries before we realized how integral terpenes were to the overall effects of a given cultivar.
 
Gonna read this entire thread with great interest when I'm not doing science. Until then, getting all analytical today:

20200714_115919.jpg
20200714_121236.jpg
20200714_120109.jpg


VERSUS:
20200714_115514.jpg
20200714_121301.jpg
20200714_120153.jpg


Identical strain, grinder, vaporizors, torch.

Different vendors. #1 $35 1/8. #2 $45 1/8 and pre-packaged.

Study still in progress. But so far the differences have been vast.

I realize that the whole thing is highly subjective, but my gut tells me that I'll be calling bullshit on the whole name thing since to begin with were talking about a living organism which produces compounds dependent on environment and nutrition.
 
I refuse to buy something called Grandpa ‘s Breath I rank that up with a strain called Cat Piss.:shakehead:

If it’s called White Widow - horrible taste every time I’ve tried it. At first I thought something was wrong with the weed, no it just has a vapor tastes, that tastes that way. Worst vapor tasting weed IMO. You hear so much great stuff about it, it’s puzzling.
 
Last edited:
I refuse to buy something called Grandpa ‘s Breath I rank that up with a strain called Cat Piss.:shakehead:

If it’s called White Widow - horrible taste every time I’ve tried it. At first I thought something was wrong with the weed, no it just has a vapor tastes, that tastes that way. Worst vapor tasting weed IMO. You hear so much great stuff about it, it’s puzzling.

I find this with uk exodus cheese... always had fond memories of smoking it.. but it just tastes aweful vaped...
I also cant stand stardawg.. good to squish though...
K2 is another one i dont like... tastes like a hedge...
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top