I think we have that with an "organic" label don't we?

Wild simulated "DEFINITION" is still doing no more than planting the seed and letting nature take its course even if that means most of it dies. Any other intervention is woods grown or cultivated.

Now on truly wild ginseng I've been doing a lot of research. A lot of your remote populations have their own genetic codes but are actually inferior because of inner breeding. Test had been done by bringing in plants from other poulations in the same areas maybe a few miles away to cross pollinate and the results were actually a stronger plant.

But on the other hand seeds from cultivated plants from a totally different state and climate could have an adverse affect on wild populations and genetics.

In other words the more I read the more confused I get.

rootman

I know what you mean Rootman.

I think everyone is on the same page with Wild Simulated and Cultivated.

But, woods grown vs woods cultivated is the issue. I think 5prong brings up a good point about the use of fungicides. I think no matter what method, wild sim (mandatorily without any chemical fertilizer or fungicide), or wood grown or woods cultivated, one who uses no chemical fertilizer or fungicides could rightfully call their product organic in the common sense of the term.

I think most confusion and the most benefit from diferentiating, would come from defining a difference in woods grown vs woods cultivated. The later using fertilizers which changes the characteristics of the root.

I agree, woods grown in my understanding is cultivated seed that is planted with some form of soil cultivation like tilling, and no chemicals. So then woods cult. wood be cultivated seed grown with the forest canopy instead of an artificial one, plus fertilizers,fungicides and pesticides.

In the near future wild ginseng WILL be illegal to harvest, in the US, this is why proper cultivation techniques must be followed. In fact in Canada they are saying that wild simulated,is illegal because it grows were wild could grow.The two woods growing methods are ok because you can manipulate the soils in an area unsuited for wild growth.
Knowing that these ideas are coming from CITES it will not be long till this becomes standard in the US. Some states are seeing the beginning of this now. This along with the newly developed tests for finding the origins of plant stock can cause some frustration in the future.

One way to circumvent this is to start state forest ginseng grower organizations that can have a say at CITES conventions.In Canada we have to much secrecy behind growing ginseng in the forests to be able to start organizations.

Guy

alot of the research that we read and hear of are written by university students as exersizes and their thesis. They do not have to be correct in what they say, just back up the finds by listing the orginal authors. referencing the stronger plant study.

guy

Guy,

Do you have the source for the literature you discussed? I wouldn't mind reading that paper for myself. I can see how they may distinguish between species, but, from the other literature I read, I'm not sure how they'd use a PCR _base_d technique to distinguish between "wild" and cultivated. Interesting for sure.

I found it:

Qin et al. Rapid authentication of ginseng species using microchip electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection. Anal Bioanal Chem (2005) 381: 812–819


It looks a bit sketchy to me. They use phrases like "bands can frequently be found in cultivated" and "band x seems to be more frequent in wild". For them to state that "cultivated and wild American ginseng can be distinguished on the basis of allele sizing" I think was a bit of a reach to drum up some interest. They shouldn't make such statements _base_d upon "seems" and "more frequent" in my opinion. From what I read, there is still a lot of genetic diversity in cultivated ginseng as well as wild. That would make it very difficult to distinguish between the two using a PCR _base_d method. Again, interesting stuff!!