higher thc = higher potency?

[Gert Lush]

Interesting though, that in Mahlberg and Kim (the academic study in the PDF), they speak of a 'typical Mexican' sample of drug cannabis that they use, as being 6% THC. I wonder if we will ever see a real academic study using a 'typical Dispensary' sample of 25%.

Meantime, hey, I'll stick with the 6% Oaxaca, thank you very much.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Interesting though, that in Mahlberg and Kim (the academic study in the PDF), they speak of a 'typical Mexican' sample of drug cannabis that they use, as being 6% THC. I wonder if we will ever see a real academic study using a 'typical Dispensary' sample of 25%.

Meantime, hey, I'll stick with the 6% Oaxaca, thank you very much.

Well I have had some great Mexican pot in the far past, the first sinsemilla I saw in the 60's was from south of the border in Guerrero.
But it was not 6 % THC that is for sure. You are welcome to but it really is not for me. I think you would get tired of it quick.
It is easy for you to read the worldwide research and see that many if not all worldwide labs, medical or R&D, not police labs, report Cannabis over 20% THC, are they all confused and mixed up? I am not saying that a US lab may well cheat and up the % results but what about all the others world wide that report over 20%? Are they all lying? Why would they? I know many of them, they are not the kind of people you can buy to tell a lie, they are academics, scientists, and they all agree that manicured Cannabis can be over 20% THC by dry weight. We have seen it for years, there is lots of literature to read, where you can see this.
-SamS

 

[mingmen]

Interesting though, that in Mahlberg and Kim (the academic study in the PDF), they speak of a 'typical Mexican' sample of drug cannabis that they use, as being 6% THC. I wonder if we will ever see a real academic study using a 'typical Dispensary' sample of 25%.

Meantime, hey, I'll stick with the 6% Oaxaca, thank you very much.

what state do you live in?
The tested ganj I get is nice and strong and certainly better than any mexi I have gotten. At 25% my head is spinning. And when it hits 27-30% I find myself needing to shrink the size of hits I am taking. That is as scientific as I need. I do think there are lower testing grows and strains that have a high that I enjoy more but ain't nobody got time for that.
That being said I would love to get some real quality Mexican sativa sensi (or Columbian, or thai, etc). Too bad they don't send it here

 

[PWF]

this is a great thread!
i think of thc an i think of how lumber will ooze pine sap after it is processed. ive stepped in puddles of sap before lol. then i think about how when i take a macro of a fan leaf i can see all these buttons that look like glands that havent formed yet. then i remember how a buddy that worked at steep hill told me they can check a plant in veg and get %ages.
sam explained it where i could understand and put all these things together in my mind when he noted that resin is heavy by itself-
"it is in the resin which has the highest density and weight of anything found in Cannabis besides moisture if you have not desiccated the herb."
makes perfect sense.
thank you,
pwf

 

[Lester Beans]

I woul

 

[Lester Beans]

D like to thank Mr Skunkman for the explainations and the links. Also thank you for everything you have done for the.cannabis community!

And to the OP...dude with all due respect, listen to what this gentleman is saying and read up. You are lucky to have a profesional weigh in on your question/thread IMHO.

Peace and cocktails!

 

[numberguy]

not all thc is in the resin glands, but is found threwout the plant material just cause you cant see it dont mean it aint there.

 

[bigbag]

have had resin encrusted samples that couldn't give the slightest buzz as well as samples with little noticable resin, that obliterated you ??? must be those CBD's eh ?

 

[ThaiBliss]

Greetings,

This is a great start to this thread. I'm glad people are challenging the notion of the percentage of THC in tests and the relationship to the "high". What is interesting to me is that it appears that so much of the resin is THC.

On the other hand, it is shocking to me that this is page 5, and I don't believe anyone has yet to talk about the modifying effects of CBD. I have smoked strains touted as 25% + THC that I thought were not very strong. I've also have smoked strains that were supposed to be 15% THC that I thought were mind blowing. I do believe it was implied by someone who brought up their preference to Oaxacan.

For me, I think the issue is the definition of "high". I'm an old guy who has smoked weed for 45 years. I've come to lament the emphasis on THC percentage and bag appeal. I've smoked plenty of weed that if were shown around today, people would laugh at it, call it "schwagg", and not even want to try it. But some of that old school weed would blow the minds of people today. I still find this high quality weed around today, but it is more and more rare by the day.

In the most general way, what I mean by "high" is the feeling that most closely resembles psilocybin or lysergic acid. I think the highest potency/quality weed starts to feel pretty damned close to tripping. Thai Stick is the best example of this kind of high, but many others also come close, Sumatran; some examples of Haze; Jamaican Ganja; Columbian Gold; Oaxacan Gold; etc.. While I sometimes enjoy a good pure indica, the high is clouded by other effects that, in my opinion, don't really count towards what I mean by "high". These effects are to some extent in most weed, but are often more pronounced in indica strains. These effects include drowsiness, mind and muscle relaxation, slowing of thought processes. In my book, when these types of effects are pronounced, that does not make me think that the weed is stronger, only dirtier in effects. However, if effects I like are added to the trippiness, then I can say that these effects add to the potency. A couple of examples would be energetic/adrenalin effects, and euphoric effects. I know this is totally biased for my preferences, but it kills me to have people show off high THC percentage weed, and all I get is drooping facial muscles and a desire to take a nap.

With my preferences, and my notion of "high" in mind, I have noticed that weed that tests low in CBD usually seems potent to me, even if the THC tests only above 12%. I also think that THCV is a factor, but most people don't even test for this. I also believe I have read about THCV-A and others.

I think that our focus on THC and elevated levels of CBD in the belief that this is the only component that relieves pain, is doing a great disservice to the availability of strains of weed that I enjoy. I believe this might be the case for others also. Smoking is the best test, and it would do everyone some good if they ignored THC percentage and tried more varieties of weed. Too many seed companies are selling the same strains. It used to be that every new strain I smoked was an adventure into the unknown, because of the variety of kinds of highs that I would experience. Today, it is all too often the same old sleepy mind numbing weed that is very pretty to look at.

I'm not sure about the whole idea of terpenes adding to the high. I have seen a couple of threads that contradict each other. One was about the terpenes in mangos that get people higher when smoking. But the contrary evidence is the thread on water curing that seems to remove terpenes, yet increase the potency of the high. I'm sure I'll have an opinion soon.


I hope this spurs a broadening of the conversation. Even if it doesn't, it sure feels good to vent.



ThaiBliss

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

CBD is not found in most western bred Cannabis, so the effects on the high are not important if no CBD. If CBD is present then it will modify the THC effects like you say.
Terpenes however are what makes all the differences, you can get a 100% pure Afghani Indica plant that is only THC and a thai that is only THC, this can be confirmed by GC analysis, but when you smoke them the hifhs are very different, not from any cannabinoid besides THC but from THC+different terpenes found in the Afghani and the Thai. Just find 2 very different THC only clones with no CBD, one Indica and one old school Sativa and you can see the differences the terpenes create. It helps a bit if the 2 clones are similar THC levels.
You do understand that many people would not like what you call high, they want to get stoned, loaded, couchlock. It is not a matter of which high is better, each person needs to decide this themselves, I prefer up, clear, speedy, psychedelic, but that means nothing to someone that prefers something different.
That is what is nice about Cannabis, it has something for everyone...
-SamS

Greetings,

This is a great start to this thread. I'm glad people are challenging the notion of the percentage of THC in tests and the relationship to the "high". What is interesting to me is that it appears that so much of the resin is THC.

On the other hand, it is shocking to me that this is page 5, and I don't believe anyone has yet to talk about the modifying effects of CBD. I have smoked strains touted as 25% + THC that I thought were not very strong. I've also have smoked strains that were supposed to be 15% THC that I thought were mind blowing. I do believe it was implied by someone who brought up their preference to Oaxacan.

For me, I think the issue is the definition of "high". I'm an old guy who has smoked weed for 45 years. I've come to lament the emphasis on THC percentage and bag appeal. I've smoked plenty of weed that if were shown around today, people would laugh at it, call it "schwagg", and not even want to try it. But some of that old school weed would blow the minds of people today. I still find this high quality weed around today, but it is more and more rare by the day.

In the most general way, what I mean by "high" is the feeling that most closely resembles psilocybin or lysergic acid. I think the highest potency/quality weed starts to feel pretty damned close to tripping. Thai Stick is the best example of this kind of high, but many others also come close, Sumatran; some examples of Haze; Jamaican Ganja; Columbian Gold; Oaxacan Gold; etc.. While I sometimes enjoy a good pure indica, the high is clouded by other effects that, in my opinion, don't really count towards what I mean by "high". These effects are to some extent in most weed, but are often more pronounced in indica strains. These effects include drowsiness, mind and muscle relaxation, slowing of thought processes. In my book, when these types of effects are pronounced, that does not make me think that the weed is stronger, only dirtier in effects. However, if effects I like are added to the trippiness, then I can say that these effects add to the potency. A couple of examples would be energetic/adrenalin effects, and euphoric effects. I know this is totally biased for my preferences, but it kills me to have people show off high THC percentage weed, and all I get is drooping facial muscles and a desire to take a nap.

With my preferences, and my notion of "high" in mind, I have noticed that weed that tests low in CBD usually seems potent to me, even if the THC tests only above 12%. I also think that THCV is a factor, but most people don't even test for this. I also believe I have read about THCV-A and others.

I think that our focus on THC and elevated levels of CBD in the belief that this is the only component that relieves pain, is doing a great disservice to the availability of strains of weed that I enjoy. I believe this might be the case for others also. Smoking is the best test, and it would do everyone some good if they ignored THC percentage and tried more varieties of weed. Too many seed companies are selling the same strains. It used to be that every new strain I smoked was an adventure into the unknown, because of the variety of kinds of highs that I would experience. Today, it is all too often the same old sleepy mind numbing weed that is very pretty to look at.

I'm not sure about the whole idea of terpenes adding to the high. I have seen a couple of threads that contradict each other. One was about the terpenes in mangos that get people higher when smoking. But the contrary evidence is the thread on water curing that seems to remove terpenes, yet increase the potency of the high. I'm sure I'll have an opinion soon.


I hope this spurs a broadening of the conversation. Even if it doesn't, it sure feels good to vent.



ThaiBliss

 

[floralheart]

No, because the THC %age is bullshiit.
Total bullshit, if one is to be precise!

Reason 1:
THC % age means what percentage of the tested gland cannabinoids is THC.
However this doesn't tell you anything, since you do not not what percentage of the plant matter is gland cannabinoids.

In other words a plant that tests at 25% THC, but the gland cannabinoids are 10% of the tested material is 2.5% THC by weight, but the bullshit sellers will never tell you that, of course.

OTOH, a plant that is 16% THC in tested cannabinoid material, but that material is 20% of what the total weight is, will be 3.2% THC by weight, so it will be "stronger", than the supposed 25% alleged heavyweight.

Reason 2:
THC is not the only factor in strength. Terpenes and their combination with the THC seem to play a big role, but this is really not properly understood or researched yet. The childish obsession with THC number doesn't help here, either.

Reason 3: (the clincher)
A publicity seeker (seed bank, seller or whatever) will never, ever take a true average of a strain to be tested (i.e. grow, say, 100 - or even just 20 - plants from a strain and take an equal amount from each, without crooking the selection). No, they will take their bestest clone, which they may have selected from tens, even hundreds of plants, and try to fob this off on you as a "typical" sample. You only have a snowball's chance in hell of finding the same pheno from one whole pack of seeds. Only a fool would believe that every seed in that pack has the same THC %age as advertised.

Until testing is more honest (more unbiased, better explained and preferably handled by an INDEPENDENT tester) then any given THC %ages are a total waste of ink and paper.

Testing is expensive. That's probably part of the reason.

 

[GrassMan]

Hi,

I'm running a GC-FID for main cannabinoid analysis in Israel. Analytical chemistry is a known science.

I don't know how all those "cali" labs works but I suspect that they don't work like a Certified ISO lab. And I say that I suspect according to the reports I saw from them.

When I do any GC analysis or when I send to a Certified ISO lab to validate my results, I get a lot more data than what I see on those "cali" lab reports.

Which cannabinoid standards are they using?
How many calibration points did they run?
Is their method validated?
Do they know LOD and LOC?
Do they run calibration on each sequence? (implies considerable amount of cannabinoid standards)
Did they run a repeatability test? Within days? Between days?
Which is its uncertainty?
….

I agree with all what Sam_S said. There is just a small detail that could be that I disagree. When we talk about dry weight, we are not talking about 0%H or almost 0%H. It is almost impossible to arrive to this number with dessicator. The lowest humidity level achieved is something between 4-5%H.

Peace.

 

[NotaProfessor]

\There is just a small detail that could be that I disagree. When we talk about dry weight, we are not talking about 0%H or almost 0%H. It is almost impossible to arrive to this number with dessicator. The lowest humidity level achieved is something between 4-5%H. Peace.

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) has published methods for moisture determination in plant material and a desiccator is the final step in the process (cool down) but it is not the sole technique (i.e. just placing in a desiccator and waiting).

Standard procedures include vacuum oven drying at 95 to 100 C (AOAC 934.01), forced air oven drying at 103-104 C for 5 h (AOAC 935.29), drying at 135 C for 2 h (AOAC 930.15), and 105 C for 3 h (NFTA 2.2.2.5).


You may want to argue with AOAC and their methods, but I would think that is unwise. They are as fully validated as any assay can be.

 

[ThaiBliss]

CBD is not found in most western bred Cannabis, so the effects on the high are not important if no CBD.

No CBD? I don't any personal experience with gas chromatography, but I think the three most common cannabinoids tested for are THC, CBD, and CBN. I have seen purported results as low as 0.03 % CBD, but never 0.0. My assumption was that CBD is an extremely powerful modifier of THC.

Terpenes however are what makes all the differences

On the water curing thread that I was reading, the results were weed that had no flavor or aroma. The promoter of the method bragged that he could smoke a joint in public, and no one would know it because it did not have any of the trademark smells of cannabis. He also said that the high was actually stronger than traditionally jar cured weed. The discussions on the thread were not about lower potency, but rather why would anyone want to smoke weed that doesn't taste good. I have not tried this method yet. Isn't it terpenes that give cannabis the trademark smells and tastes? One thing I know for sure is that I have never noticed a correlation between the level of pungency and the potency of the weed.

On the other hand, I read that eating a mango an hour before smoking makes the high noticibly more intense. Mango is suppose to have one of the most powerful terpenes. After seeing this discussion, I have to try it.

Speaking of terpenes, I think one of the things that makes growing and smoking weed so enjoyable is the aroma. I was also a beekeeper, and opening the hive and smelling the floral aromas was one of the joys of beekeeping also. But I never got high from sticking my nose in a beehive. Then again, maybe I did. I certainly did not get high from all the money I made from that back breaking work.

You do understand that many people would not like what you call high, they want to get stoned, loaded, couchlock.
-SamS

To my dismay, I do believe people have become accustomed to the type of high from strains that were brought in to reduce flowering times. The truth is, I was originally entranced by the aromas, the size of the buds, and the instant effects of the new indica strains. But in the long run, I prefer sativas. As I get older and have less energy, the euphoric and energetic stains are even more valuable to me. I don't try to make any money from providing weed to others, so I have the luxury of growing only for myself.

B.T.W. - Skunk #1 is on my top ten list of strains that I have grown. Awesome terpenes, nice high to sativa and indica lovers alike. The cut I had was skunky, but also like hash oil, hash oil made from red wine or something. Trippy, but also dreamy in a Columbian type way.

Got to go to the coal mine.

Take Care,

ThaiBliss

 

[Green Supreme]

Thai look for Ethan Russo's paper on the Entourage Effect of terpenes. Peace GS

 

[Gert Lush]

It is easy for you to read the worldwide research and see that many if not all worldwide labs, medical or R&D, not police labs, report Cannabis over 20% THC, are they all confused and mixed up?

Nope, but the people that interpret these results outside of the lab might well be. They may be understanding something altogether different from what the labs mean This has been my point all along.

I'd like to ask GrassMan, who also seems to be involved in hands-on testing, whether he thinks that 25% THC - by weight - is a reasonable figure for a bud (Reasonable enough that so many seed banks seem claim it - IOW an everyday occurrence, given the right strain).

Specifically,
1) what percentage of the resin would be be pure THC, and
2) what percentage of the bud (by weight) he'd expect to be pure resin.

 

[Gert Lush]

have had resin encrusted samples that couldn't give the slightest buzz as well as samples with little noticable resin, that obliterated you ??? must be those CBD's eh ?

Nope, CBD, does NOT make you high, nor is it easy to feel its effects, apparently. My understanding is that it acts as an anxiolytic, an antiseptic and also has several other, little-understood medicinal effects. But high, no, it doesn't get you.

I also think the idea that it gets you "stoned" rather than "high", is also an urban myth. Many seed banks write up their ads as if this is the case, but I think we have already established that many seedbanks are as full of it as can be.

The presence of CBD is determined by a gene. Modern Western (read Dutch, American, Canadian) cannabis has had that gene pretty much bred out through selection for consistently high THC.

Incidentally, I have no idea why some strains of cannabis give you soaring, cerebral highs, while other glue you to the couch and make you resemble a retard. The way I understand it ATM, BOTH these effects are due to THC, and neither to CBD, but I think very, very little indeed is really understood about this.

Also (as far as resin goes), hemp plants can be quite resinous, but have no hit at all, so just because a plant has resin, does NOT mean that the resin will be rich in cannabinoids.

 

[therevverend]

As an outdoor grower in a northern wet climate I was curious what my THC% was. I believe my weed is excellent as good as the highly touted indoor strains in my area. Grow mainly strains bred in northern California by small growers. Went to the lab forked out the money. Found out the only cannabinoid is THC. Tested at 14-16%. Which makes sense because I find the high to be very clear and pleasant. What was interesting was the terpenoid content. Loaded with em. Limonene, eucaylptol, humulene, pinenem, linalool, and several others I can't remember. Be interesting to know what effects these have I know several are psychoactive.

 

[bombadil.360]

Your question is less rhetorical than you think.

As I state in post#47, my point of reference is what percentage of THC is reasonable to be expected in a sample of resin glands, i.e. hash. From that we can work backwards. If we work backwards and find that the number needs to be in excess of 100%, I think it's safe to assume that there must be shum mishtake.

Hope that makes it clearer for you.

well, we were not aware that to "reasonably expect" a % of THC in a given sample qualified as scientific.

but whatever floats your boat.

you seem to be unteachable.

later gator

 

[Gert Lush]

well, we were not aware that to "reasonably expect" a % of THC in a given sample qualified as scientific.

Yes, that is painfully obvious.

In which case, then, reasonable expectations for the %age weight of the cellulose, the sugars, the lipids, the various other bodies present in the cells, the other cannabinoids, etc, etc, must be equally unscientific to you.

You seem much happier in the realm of unreasonable expectations.
I cannot match your prowess at such soaring scientific heights and must thus bow out.