[HN Gopher] Cannabis pollen dispersal across the United States
___________________________________________________________________
Cannabis pollen dispersal across the United States
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 78 points
Date : 2024-12-19 10:17 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| contingencies wrote:
| Nature's gonna nature.
|
| The fallacious line of thinking that one can fully isolate an
| outdoor planting is the more interesting issue this touches on, a
| skeptical take is that this fallacy continues to exist in
| regulation only for its utility of abuse by large companies
| seeking to profit from the commercialization of sterile GM crops.
|
| I'm sure the upper echelon of commercial weed growers typically
| have a far higher education in landscape ecology than the
| captured regulators.
| lukan wrote:
| "The fallacious line of thinking that one can fully isolate an
| outdoor planting"
|
| Who thinks that? It is about reducing unwanted pollination. So
| if you know the wind will come strong from this area and lots
| of hemp field are there, you can maybe protect your plants some
| time of the year, or know beforehand, that an area is not a
| good spot for you.
| indrora wrote:
| Monsanto, at one level or another. While they pinky-promise
| to not sue, if their corn gets into your corn and you replant
| the seeds, they've fought about it in court to mixed results.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Almost nobody replants their own corn. Almost all corn
| planted is an F1 hybrid, the first generation of a cross
| between two varieties. Subsequent generations perform very
| much worse. This is a natural thing not an engineered
| thing, many plants on the first generation cross between
| two varieties perform much better.
|
| Most corn is also patent encumbered, but that is less of
| the reason.
|
| Soybeans are actually different and before all of the
| patented genetics people did sometimes replant their own
| grown seed.
| to11mtm wrote:
| I thought Canola (which is a disturbing plant in general
| for food use) was their big hitter for that sort of thing?
| cyberax wrote:
| > While they pinky-promise to not sue
|
| They will not only "not sue", but they will compensate you
| for the cost of the contamination.
|
| The only court cases where Monsanto (now Bayer) got damages
| involved farmers knowingly and intentionally replanting
| Monsanto's seeds.
| beardedwizard wrote:
| But the cannabis industry is mostly large companies capturing
| regulators and litigating genetics, so I'm not sure the
| distinction is accurate.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| In New York the cannabis industry is still largely grey
| market.
|
| I have been trying to quit, we finally cut up the plants that
| we had from last year and put them in jars and sent them away
| but then somebody shows up with a jar of something they grew.
|
| I don't think I'll ever buy weed from a dispensary because
| between being able to grow a few plants for myself and
| getting weed from friends who also grew it for themselves as
| well as knowing people in the industry (leaders in the trade
| association) it keeps showing up.
| bregma wrote:
| Why do my cannabis-sector ETFs keep going down then?
| kramer2718 wrote:
| This is a largely political problem. Cross pollination does not
| affect the utility of commercial help-only its legality. You can
| study wind dispersal, etc, but at the end of the day, the problem
| is a bunch of clueless old men.
| diggan wrote:
| > This is a largely political problem
|
| Is it? "leading to contaminated seeds, reduced oil yields, and
| in some cases, mandated crop destruction" sounds not like a
| political problem, or you mean the causes for those things are
| political?
| mholm wrote:
| These issues at least partially stem from the politics
| surrounding cannabis. 'Mandated crop destruction' is
| absolutely a political problem, because it's just driven by
| seeds cross pollinating into plants that exceed the arbitrary
| political limit. Oil yields and contaminated seeds are not
| specified, but might be due to similar arbitrary
| restrictions, rather than actual issues with the product
| uhhhhhhh wrote:
| Yields are real impacts from cross pollination and has zero
| to do with politics.
|
| CBD only strains with THC, vice versa. Lower strengths etc.
| All impact product quality and impact.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| The labeling of seeds as "contaminated" is a political issue.
| Its not like seeds being pressed for oil are not good for
| that purpose if they are arbitrarily determined to be
| contaminated. I suspect the reduced oil yields are the result
| of the destruction requirements not because the plant made
| less oil.
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Isn't it also a problem for breeders? I would think pollenation
| could cause issues for indoor as well as outdoor crops,
| especially specific strain breeding and understanding
| pollenation patterns would help mitigate some of that.
| olyjohn wrote:
| It's not a very popular opinion, but I don't think any grower
| really knows what strain they are growing anyways. I think
| the strains have been so mixed and matched, and probably some
| growers will call theirs a specific strain just to sell more
| of it. And with how long Marijuana growing was underground,
| the sources of the seeds are totally undocumented. It's
| basically like a big game of telephone at this point.
| squirrel6 wrote:
| I never thought about this. It would be interesting to run
| mass spec on resin samples from different growers to see
| the interval of genetic variation
| finnh wrote:
| And yet Headband really did feel like you were wearing a
| headband =)
| HKH2 wrote:
| The motor cortex goes across the brain like that.
| ralusek wrote:
| AFAIK they mostly grow from clones, and thus, would be
| completely unaffected by pollination. Unless I
| misunderstand plants, pollination impacts the seeds
| produced, and therefore the subsequent generation. So long
| as it keeps being cut and propagated, rather than grown
| from seed, you could be relatively certain of near
| identical genetics.
| conductr wrote:
| I think hemp farmers use seed more than clones, which are
| more popular in the THC supply chain
| worik wrote:
| Clones are good. But it is not possible to keep a clone
| line going indefinitely.
|
| Periodically you need males and females doing their
| wonderful thing and mixing it all up from seed
| bregma wrote:
| For example, every apple variety out there. Every potato
| variety out there. Every garlic variety out there. Grape
| varietals. All gone because their clone lines expired.
| Not being able to propagate clone lines is why we can't
| have seedless oranges or watermelon or grapes.
| ralusek wrote:
| What makes clone lines no longer able to propagate?
| ralusek wrote:
| > But it is not possible to keep a clone line going
| indefinitely
|
| What is the mechanism that prevents this?
| worik wrote:
| I am no botanist
|
| But I think the DNA degrades over time
|
| Meh! What we do not understand about genetics matters
| more than what we do....
|
| I am no botanist
| Vegenoid wrote:
| There is also little evidence that the strain has any
| effect on the pharmacological effects of cannabis, beyond
| the amount of THC per gram of flower (potency). Although it
| can greatly influence the smell/taste, which is meaningful.
|
| However, if you've tried the "same" strain from multiple
| growers you've likely found that the smell can vary
| significantly, and (as a consumer) there's really no way to
| know what the flower's aroma (and appearance) will be
| without direct observation. This is aligned with your
| hypothesis.
| jknoepfler wrote:
| I live in a state that 'inadvertently' legalized THC products
| when trying to pass hemp legislation in 2022, so... yeah. Not
| that I'm complaining, mind you. It was followed closely by
| actual legalization because nobody in their right mind was
| going to try to roll it back and stay in office.
| openthc wrote:
| Another thing that happens to outdoor grown cannabis is pesticide
| contamination. Even if your farm is a good distance from some
| commercial agriculture, if they spray it can, and does,
| contaminate your crop -- which for regulated cannabis requires
| destruction. Literally burning (or composting) thousands of
| dollars of product.
|
| And if the pesticides test are hot on the cross-contaminated
| cannabis; how much is on those apples three fields over?
| to11mtm wrote:
| Wouldn't composting risk having the pesticides go into the next
| crop further contaminating?
|
| Although, to your point, they can just sell it to the nearby
| farms growing stuff we eat that isn't tested the same way...
| openthc wrote:
| Typically, and USA specific, the rules are to grind it up,
| mix with equal parts existing dirt/compost and then it's OK.
| So that dilutes it by half; then this compost is spread
| around and, like you said, can be used for other crops. Also,
| as the material sits in the compost pile, which should be
| agitated, the pesticides will leach out/break down.
|
| I just got a message from WA-LCB today with updated pesticide
| information, working with WSU, so here's some details --
| https://agr.wa.gov/departments/cannabis/pesticide-use
|
| And here's the Action Limits defined in WA law:
| https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=314-55-108
| waldothedog wrote:
| Many asterisks here but there are methods for remediating
| herbicide and pesticide contamination. Not saying it's
| universally solved, but its not universally unsolvable
| either.
|
| Edit: I meant to speak specifically in terms of compost
| production.
| ajross wrote:
| > which for regulated cannabis requires destruction
|
| Which regulation is this that requires destroying a nearby
| crop... instead of the one the pesticide was actually applied
| to? I'm confused here. Pesticides don't "contaminate" crops in
| that way, they're literally intended to be use _on the food_.
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| I live in NZ where there are medical standards applied to
| legal cannabis - only recently have I seen dispensaries
| advertising non irradiated cannabis, presumably because the
| manufacturing facilities have progressed to no longer require
| it.
|
| It might be something similar?
| pests wrote:
| non irradiated?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It's a common sterilisation technique [1].
|
| [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-
| food/food-irra...
| setopt wrote:
| Quite common for example for dried spices, which pre-
| irradiation used to have a risk of dangerous bacterial
| contamination if they were dried outside.
| anamexis wrote:
| I'd imagine that there are different standards applied to
| things intended to be eaten vs things intended to be inhaled.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Some of it has to do with combustion breakdown products.
| Some Canadian producers got nailed with using (directly or
| indirectly) antifungals with that issue:
|
| https://www.canada.ca/en/health-
| canada/news/2017/03/clarific...
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Some of it has to do with highly effective lobbying by
| food manufacturers and a highly restrictive approach
| toward cannabis cultivation.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| cannabis aint food
| bregma wrote:
| Well, sometimes.
| cess11 wrote:
| Really? I'll mention that to the birds in my neighbourhood.
|
| The seeds and oil are quite nutritious, and the leaves
| sometimes have a tinge of turpentine that fits well in a
| vinaigrette salad. It's also common to make cannabis butter
| for culinary as well as cosmetic uses.
| konfusinomicon wrote:
| these brownies are strictly for cosmic, err, cosmetic
| usage only officer
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| The regulations are because it's inhaled. That it can be
| eaten is secondary
| cess11 wrote:
| What's food is a matter of regulation now?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| No
| schwartzworld wrote:
| In fairness you can't wash a dried pot flower like you would
| an apple.
| rolph wrote:
| systemic pesticides are actually taken into the plant, and
| dont wash out.
| dzink wrote:
| Big nope - pesticides are there to repel or kill bugs. A lot
| of times the recommendation is to wash fruit before eating it
| to remove pesticides or lead from fuel burned by cars in the
| vicinity, etc.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Uhh, no cars are emitting lead anymore? AV gas, maybe, if
| the field is near an airport that is a potential risk.
| jrflowers wrote:
| You can buy leaded fuel for racing. In theory lead
| contamination could be an issue near a speedway.
|
| https://www.sunocoracefuels.com/fuels
| jajko wrote:
| I guess he meant general soot from burned fuel, as much
| if not more toxic than lead itself.
| snypher wrote:
| Residue levels are researched and regulated, along with drift
| trespass lawsuits and crop damage insurance.
|
| I guess my answer to cannabis is that if the zero-tolerance
| remains a factor then it's a business risk decision to grow
| outdoors vs indoors.
| lm28469 wrote:
| How bad is smoking pesticide vs eating pesticides?
| dzink wrote:
| The eaten one goes through your stomach acid and can be
| flushed out naturally through the system. The inhaled
| particles may get stuck in your lungs or worse: absorbed.
| Lungs are not a through channel. Things absorbed there go to
| the brain, blood stream, a lot faster. The stuff you spray on
| plants is usually meant to kill or repel bugs and critters.
| So won't be friendly to lung or brain tissue. Possible
| cancerous too.
| fransje26 wrote:
| These pesticides are a bit like the magical Chernobyl
| radioactive cloud, which, thanks to some miraculous high
| pressure and low pressures zones, neatly avoided some
| countries by flowing along their borders.
|
| Here, the pesticides are magically contained by our stomach
| acids, and never pass the gut barrier to enter our bodies,
| making them absolutely safe.
| dzink wrote:
| The produce you buy at safeway comes from all over the
| place and spraying sometimes is done with a a crop-
| dusting air plane.
|
| Nobody claims they are contained in food. Just possibly
| less absorbable than via lungs.
| kortilla wrote:
| That's a stupid comparison because country borders don't
| have physical differences.
|
| The stomach is nothing like the lungs. Inhale a glass of
| water and let us know how fake that difference is.
| rolph wrote:
| some chemistry occurs as a result of burning. dependent on
| substance it can be worse, or more immediate.
|
| e.g. benomyl [fungicide]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benomyl
|
| will produce cyanide as combustion product.
| jcarrano wrote:
| Yet corn hybrid production, which requires strict controls on
| pollination, is made to work. Is there a difference with hemp
| pollen or is the problem on the regulatory side?
| squirrel6 wrote:
| The fact that cannabis is so genetically unstable is very
| interesting. The root cause of the problem is that the level of
| CBD or THC produced by the plant in the resin is a result of
| polygenic expression-- in other words, even if you have two
| strains of CBD-dominant crop, pollination can still result in
| increased THC in the next generation of the plant.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Fascinating. But there's a level of scientific understanding to
| your comment that I just don't understand. Do you have any
| recommendations for learning resources to better grasp what
| you're talking about?
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| Dude with 3 eyes screws a girl with 1 eye and births someone
| with 2 eyes
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| A closer result to the above would be a child born with 17
| eyes to the same couple.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It just means that multiple genes contribute to the outcome,
| so it's not a binary flip of THC or CBD depending on a single
| gene - if it were like that, then two parents who had the CBD
| gene would almost certainly produce CBD kids. Polygene means
| that it's a more complex interaction, and you can't assume
| that two CBD parents will result in a CBD child.
| redwood wrote:
| The reverse problem here means it'll be harder and harder to
| avoid fertilizing females plants grown for flower outdoors!
| worik wrote:
| It is really really annoying
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-20 23:02 UTC)