Core Ideas Some hemp traits are more strongly affected by environmental factors than others. Multi‐environment testing is an integral part of hemp cultivar development. Water availability can have a significant impact on yield and other traits. Starting with the 2014 Farm Bill, hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is being re‐introduced as an industrial crop in the United States. Since the crop has been absent for over 70 yr, little is known regarding the genetic mechanisms controlling economically relevant traits. Particularly, with federal legality of the crop hinging on a stringent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of 0.3% or less, it is necessary to assess variance in this trait due to environmental effects and genotype × environment interactions (GEI) to avoid running afoul of federal law. Understanding how physical and biochemical traits respond to the environment also plays a strong role in selecting and developing appropriate cultivars for production in diverse growing regions. In 2016 we performed cultivar trials in multiple environments in Colorado to assess performance characteristics of a diverse set of germplasm from breeding programs across Europe and Asia. From these data, we were able to identify traits nearly entirely controlled by genetic factors, like days to maturity and THC and cannabidiol (CBD) production. We also identified traits strongly influenced by the environment and GEI, like grain yield, plant height, and water use. Individual cultivars also exhibited widely varying degrees of sensitivity to the environment. This underscores the importance of continued work to characterize genetic control of hemp traits to expedite breeding of cultivars that are well‐adapted to target growing regions.

No abstract

BackgroundErgogenic aides are widely used by fitness enthusiasts and athletes to increase performance. Alpha glycerylphosphorylcholine (A-GPC) has demonstrated some initial promise in changing explosive performance. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine if 6 days of supplementation with A-GPC would augment isometric force production compared to a placebo.MethodsThirteen college-aged males (Means ± SD; Age: 21.9 ± 2.2 years, Height: 180.3 ± 7.7 cm, Weight: 87.6 ± 15.6 kg; VO2 max: 40.08 ± 7.23 ml O2*Kg−1*min−1, Body Fat: 17.5 ± 4.6 %) gave written informed consent to participate in the study. The study was a double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over design. The participants reported to the lab for an initial visit where they were familiarized with the isometric mid thigh pull in a custom squat cage on a force platform and upper body isometric test against a high frequency load cell, and baseline measurements were taken for both. The participant then consumed either 600 mg per day of A-GPC or placebo and at the end of 6 days performed isometric mid thigh pulls and an upper body isometric test. A one-week washout period was used before the participants’ baseline was re-measured and crossed over to the other treatment.ResultsThe A-GPC treatment resulted in significantly greater isometric mid thigh pull peak force change from baseline (t = 1.76, p = 0.044) compared with placebo (A-GPC: 98.8. ± 236.9 N vs Placebo: −39.0 ± 170.9 N). For the upper body test the A-GPC treatment trended towards greater change from baseline force production (A-GPC: 50.9 ± 167.2 N Placebo: −14.9 ± 114.9 N) but failed to obtain statistical significance (t = 1.16, p = 0.127).ConclusionsA-GPC is effective at increasing lower body force production after 6 days of supplementation. Sport performance coaches can consider adding A-GPC to the diet of speed and power athletes to enhance muscle performance.

No abstract

No abstract