Too much THC: what now?

[mike5]

For some years, I have cultivated and manipulated a strain of my own design, named Diablo. A few days ago, I decided that the time had come for a formal laboratory assessment. I completed a full plant extract, using food grade ethanol, and upon completion of the removal of all trace ethanol, submitted a sample of the full plant extract to an internationally accredited laboratory.

Imagine my surprise when the test result reflected a total THC/THCA of some 40% (with a standard deviation of +_ 1.5%), and a CBD content, of around 1%. These percentages are by volume.

I would appreciate your comments to my findings, especially since a plant displaying these characteristics, technically does not exist?

 

[Virgin Ground]

Cool. If love to see the lab report. I love lab reports, for some reason. Curious mind, I guess.

 

[buzz62]

Hi Mike, I have sent in dried herb for tests and have got results as high as 21% on it. I think the fact that you concentrated it with an extract is why you have such a high reading. And if your extraction method was supposed to maintain the original ratio, could there have been a math error on your part? I am curious as to why did you not send in a sample of your dried herb for testing, as it sounds like that is the number you are actually looking for?

 

[Dwight Monk]

I agree with above post, as you would have to send the flower to them and let them do their thing to be an accurate number, as sounds like you making a concentrate and sending them that, but I don't have any experience with any of that making hash/oils/concentrates as I use it "old school" and just burn it in it's natural state . As some extracts can be in the 90% range done by folks that know that stuff.

 

[mike5]

Thank you, Virgin, Buzz and Dwight, for your insight. I was afraid that I would be dismissed as a crack-pot.

Virgin, lab report attached for your perusal. I too share your penchant for reports....kinda makes you feel like "...don' worry...every ting gonna be aaalright mon..."

Indeed Buzz, the laboratory result that I was looking for was an indication of potency.
My reasoning behind sending an extract vs dried and cured herb was in an effort to establish an average figure to be used as a baseline for further calculations.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand, the number of cannabinoids in the crown bud of a plant that weighs a hypothetical 10 grams (the bud, not the plant) may vary significantly to a bud on the same plant weighing the same 10g, however, situated at the base of the plant.

It seems illogical to me to expect that all buds will contain the same number of trichomes, so while an extract from the plant, excluding trichomes, may reflect a fairly predictable cannabinoid content, I feel that the only way of establishing a true baseline, is to reduce that particular plant to its total essence, in the form of a full plant extract.

Bearing the above in mind, let us assume (for the sake of round numbers) an extraction rate of 50 ml of full plant extract cannabis oil per kilogram of dried and cured plant material.

According to the attached report, 40% by volume, would comprise THC/THCA.

It is now evident that each kilogram of dried plant material would contain 20 ml of
THC/THCA.

Herein, I think lies the rub, in that the indication on THC content of the plant would actually be closer to 20%, and not 40%...do I have this correct?

And, Dwight, I too, in the name of science, burn bud in its natural state...

 

[Virgin Ground]

Thanks for indulging the nerdy part of my brain.

 

[Jackalope]

I'm just jealous you have a place to send samples for testing. Because of that I refuse to be helpful at all in this thread.

 

[mike5]

Hi Jerry.

I like a man who is up front.

I will make a note that I am not to expect any helpful input from you until such time as you have access to a test lab, and your jealousy has subsided.

Might I suggest that in the interim, you download test results from the web, and make them your own!...you know the old adage "fake it 'till you make it"?

seriously, though, I've always thought that the best test method is the cultivator. We shower care, attention, love and affection on our ladies, with the intention of grooming them to be mothers, warriors, healers, muses, and lovers.

The cultivator is the Architect, in total control of his or her stable. Look at the Architect before you examine his wares...his pride in his women will tell you far more than a lab report.

It seems a crying shame that consumers require a black and white, and most importantly, impersonal paper which denotes the composition of a plant.

This, in my opinion, is exactly the same as quantifying Joan of Arc, the maid of Orleans as consisting of 75.5% water, and a bunch of other "unimportant" constituents. (see attachment for illustration).

Let your ladies out in public, only when you are prepared to defend their honour with your reputation. Don't think lab report black and white...rather think 50 shades of grey...

 

[mike5]

I

Thank you, Virgin, Buzz and Dwight, for your insight. I was afraid that I would be dismissed as a crack-pot.

Virgin, lab report attached for your perusal. I too share your penchant for reports....kinda makes you feel like "...don' worry...every ting gonna be aaalright mon..."

Indeed Buzz, the laboratory result that I was looking for was an indication of potency.
My reasoning behind sending an extract vs dried and cured herb was in an effort to establish an average figure to be used as a baseline for further calculations.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand, the number of cannabinoids in the crown bud of a plant that weighs a hypothetical 10 grams (the bud, not the plant) may vary significantly to a bud on the same plant weighing the same 10g, however, situated at the base of the plant.

It seems illogical to me to expect that all buds will contain the same number of trichomes, so while an extract from the plant, excluding trichomes, may reflect a fairly predictable cannabinoid content, I feel that the only way of establishing a true baseline, is to reduce that particular plant to its total essence, in the form of a full plant extract.

Bearing the above in mind, let us assume (for the sake of round numbers) an extraction rate of 50 ml of full plant extract cannabis oil per kilogram of dried and cured plant material.

According to the attached report, 40% by volume, would comprise THC/THCA.

It is now evident that each kilogram of dried plant material would contain 20 ml of
THC/THCA.

Herein, I think lies the rub, in that the indication on THC content of the plant would actually be closer to 20%, and not 40%...do I have this correct?

And, Dwight, I too, in the name of science, burn bud in its natural state...

 

[Jackalope]

Strength is relative anyway. It is all about the effects.

 

[Dwight Monk]

Strength is relative anyway. It is all about the effects.

Yeah a lot of other factors in it, as I have had Dispensary stuff that was 16% work just as well as some that was 28%. I tend to go more by looks and smells than the numbers from a test when I occasionally buy stuff at one of the Dispensaries here in town.
I would love to have some that I have grown tested, but can't see coughing up $100+ just to find out for a basic test, as I don't need all the other tests required of stuff to be sold here in OR (let alone can't ship it in the mail so I would have to drive 45 miles to drop it off or try and arrange a pickup if they in area for a grower/dispensary).

 

[Jackalope]

Oregon? I love Oregon. I grew up in the Rogue valley near Grants Pass. Oregon was a major part of my pot education LMAO.

I agree on the percentage thing. One of my favorite dispensary strains was a 19% Dark Cherry Soda.

I have also tried 3 different Bruce Banner from 25% to 30% none of which I liked. They said it was great and I kept trying LMAO. One of us was wrong.

 

[buzz62]

Indeed Buzz, the laboratory result that I was looking for was an indication of potency.
My reasoning behind sending an extract vs dried and cured herb was in an effort to establish an average figure to be used as a baseline for further calculations.
.

Whlie your method seems correct, and the 20% THC seems far more likely, an overall plant average could be obtained by grinding up some bud from 2-3 different parts of the plant, or all of it in the name of science, and sending in a blended sample. You have bottom buds? You must be outdoors somewhere warm! With indoor grows going horizontal, there really aren't buds, or anything else at the bottom any more.
I do agree with the above posters that the high thc testing numbers do not seem to be the whole story, as I have tried some 26% and it seemed not to be much different than the 17% I usually buy. Of course, I'm a frequent flyer so there's that.......

 

[Jackalope]

Another thing on percentages. Time is a factor in some cases. Just because it tested at a certain percent. Doesn't mean it didn't sit around for months losing potency. If it is a slow seller it sits tell it sells.

Plus as someone mentioned. What did they send for testing. If they test the best bud of the best pheno of a grow. Then sell the whole crop at those numbers then the stated percent would be wrong.

Kind of like what DNA says. It is not just terpenes that don't lie. Effects don't lie either.

 

[mike5]

Gentlemen, thank you for taking the time to post.

Allow me to clarify.

By no means am I promoting or insisting on the supposed content of my strain. My cultivation of Diablo has been a self-serving labour of love. I am a war veteran with physical and emotional damage, which damage, I mitigate by ingesting cannabis, either in the form of oil or by inhalation.

I am a methodical type of person, able to understand that the concept of process repeatability has a direct impact on product quality. This is true for all manufacturing processes.

While I do agree that effects (pertaining to cannabis) do not lie, the fact remains that "effect" is a subjective matter, and as you are aware, subjectivity plays little role in scientific analysis.

The oil that was tested, was manufactured totally under my control, with no 3rd party involvement, from all the useable buds on the plant, from popcorn size to fist size. Buds were trimmed (by hand), dried and cured as if for smoking, then finely ground, and soaked in food grade ethanol for 5 minutes and filtered. The ethanol was then evaporated from the resultant solute, leaving the thick black oil as the final product. It is this unadulterated oil that I place in capsules for pain relief.

I am pleased to say, that the comments to my post have highlighted one critical factor, and that is the fact that I cannot say with certainty what the starting weight of raw plant material was, which resulted in the laboratory's findings.

I have repeated the experiment, this time, using exactly 2 kilograms (4.40925 Lbs, for you Coca-cola land residents), of bud, and the oil/ethanol solution (+_ 8 Litres), is currently in the freezer, awaiting completion of winterization, and filtration of chlorophyll and waxes. Ethanol removal will follow, and lab testing over the next week or so.

I look forward to discussing the results of the second test with you guys.

 

[Jackalope]

Now we come to the big question. How to truly scientific test marijuana.

I understand keeping it professional. You want to leave personal and subjective matters out of it.

Science always wants to take the personal part out of everything. Sometimes you can sometimes you can't. Marijuana is nothing but personal. It is useless without a person involved. Which makes it hard to test without a personal information.

We have 2 different mindsets LMAO. I want to know just the personal stuff you want to know what the numbers. Numbers are a good thing. Now that we can get good terpene percents along with THC CBD and other numbers. It will only help to build better pot.

With that said I am still interested about your results. Sorry if we took your thread a different way.

One suggestion. Send in one nice fat bud to be tested also. It will give you a more accurate numbers on terpene levels.

 

[mike5]

Jack, you are quite right, of course.

I have found two schools of thought in the burgeoning cannabis research boom. The first is a more natural, and for lack of a better word, esoteric approach. The second revolves around formal analysis which by its nature, excludes anything not able to be proven mathematically. Both methods are totally acceptable, depending on the individual's needs regarding quantification.

In my case, it is important that I dose accurately, as my quality of life is dependent on the quality of my product. (cannabis oil)

On the flip side, I grow Big Buddha Cheese, and from this, I make no oil or extracts. A couple of tokes of the good ole BBC sets me on a creative and introspective tangent of contemplation that could never be quantified scientifically.

Unless.....you consider photographic "evidence" of contemplation to be acceptable as "proof"...see attached file.

 

[Jackalope]

Nice. Love the picture LMAO. Those are great plants or you are really short LMAO. I understand where you are coming from. Exact results from living things is a hard thing to do. When you have exact needs you have no choice but to do it.

I like that you keep the Big Buddha Cheese for smoke. Cheese strains can be some of the best happy weed going. Now that you have found that part the rest will come.

One suggestion. If you want consistent results day in and day out. Look to some of the most well known strains. Stuff like Blueberry, White Widow and a few others will have less variation in plants giving you more consistent results.

I now have no idea where this thread started. I am not even sure If I know where it is now LMAO.