[WaterFarmFan]

It seems that a common belief to extraction artists, from what I understand, is that after a plant is cut, it is in a constant state of degradation. Thus, it is better to make extracts from material sooner rather than later.

How does this compare to the near infinite number of reports, including my own, that long cured material: tastes better, smokes better and produces better effects? I am talking about trimmed flowers, stored in glass with ~15% moisture - not bone dry material that has been improperly handled.

I know there are complex chemistry processes happening to all classes of molecules. Does the ageing process only help flowers and is somehow lost when making extract from cured material? Or, is the extract industry too cheap to properly store, age and use ultra-high quality material?

[WaterFarmFan]

Another item, along the same line of thought, is amber trichomes. You can get max THC with only cloudy trichomes, as some THC converts to CBN and they become amber. I suspect there are many things happening with terpene and organics composition to effect amber as well. However, depending on strain, some amber is good, and if growing sativas, much higher amber should be the goal.

The point being is that, as GW points out in Sweet Mary's Charms, THC is very far from the only thing with medical properties in cannabis, and quite frankly should not be the sole concern when judging the quality of the starting material. If you have third-party trim, make distillate to extract all THC for economic reasons, but if you have quality control over every step of the product life cycle (clone to extract), like a vineyard, there are obviously many variables and ways to create a higher quality extract, and I am attempting to explore those, and if that means THC goes down, while other medical constituents go up, so be it.

[Gray Wolf]

To name a few, bone dry material is definitely missing more than just water, simply looking at what Sweet Mary's Charms tells us was originally present, and how it smells and tastes when we are ready to extract.

Fresh cut retains the most, but also is the trickiest to work with and has the lowest yield per run, so 99%+ of our runs are cured material. That ranges from stripping the fan leaves and hanging until the small stems snap (5/7 days) before extracting, to jarring at that point and further curing before extracting.

We extract frozen, which requires water present, and note that bone dry material is also frangible and dusty.

Ostensibly, bone dry is also more likely to have the polar chlorophyll deprotonated into brown non polar pheophytin, adding harshness and color.

[WaterFarmFan]

Hey GW. I am definitely not advocating the use of bone dry material, only to draw a contrast. I would define something as being cured, if it has spent a minimum of 3 months in sealed jars, being burped occasionally to regulate moisture levels. Dubi, head breeder at Ace, recommends 6 months of curing to maximize effect for his companies elite sativas. Most people do not have the self control, but 12 month cured material has no comparison in smoothness and flavor.

There was a thread a bit ago where a bloke claimed to have 100s of pounds from last years outdoor crop, and the advice was unanimous - make extract now because it is losing value. Was it simply assumed that he did not dry and store properly? I am curious, from a scientific point, why aging can be good for flowers but not when those same flowers are used for extracts. Is it simply retained moisture levels?

If the only difference (between using same flower cured and uncured) is a darker extract, that is similar to people that only drink pink wine -fools that just don't know any better, and as such requires an education campaign. I am very happy to hear that your company uses quality flowers, and that you control the input variables to craft your product. Do you advertise as using cured material? All things are not created equal, and as such dictate different market prices.

[Gray Wolf]

Originally Posted by WaterFarmFan

Hey GW. I am definitely not advocating the use of bone dry material, only to draw a contrast. I would define something as being cured, if it has spent a minimum of 3 months in sealed jars, being burped occasionally to regulate moisture levels. Dubi, head breeder at Ace, recommends 6 months of curing to maximize effect for his companies elite sativas. Most people do not have the self control, but 12 month cured material has no comparison in smoothness and flavor.

There was a thread a bit ago where a bloke claimed to have 100s of pounds from last years outdoor crop, and the advice was unanimous - make extract now because it is losing value. Was it simply assumed that he did not dry and store properly? I am curious, from a scientific point, why aging can be good for flowers but not when those same flowers are used for extracts. Is it simply retained moisture levels?

If the only difference (between using same flower cured and uncured) is a darker extract, that is similar to people that only drink pink wine -fools that just don't know any better, and as such requires an education campaign. I am very happy to hear that your company uses quality flowers, and that you control the input variables to craft your product. Do you advertise as using cured material? All things are not created equal, and as such dictate different market prices.

We don't advertise or sell any products.

[WaterFarmFan]

Me either. Just speaking in generalities, of course.

Speaking of hypotheticals... Say you had a rare 20 week sativa, that only had 10% cannabinoids, but it is the highest of high quality. How would you make a full spectrum extract out of this to attempt to capture the complete experience in extract form? Not a process to produce pounds of end product, but a labor of love that would be your own prized personal stash - No matter of time spent, complicated nature, convoluted steps or cost. I know that given the options, it is loaded and difficult question, but I am curious of your response. Thanks!

[Gray Wolf]

Originally Posted by WaterFarmFan

Me either. Just speaking in generalities, of course.

Speaking of hypotheticals... Say you had a rare 20 week sativa, that only had 10% cannabinoids, but it is the highest of high quality. How would you make a full spectrum extract out of this to attempt to capture the complete experience in extract form? Not a process to produce pounds of end product, but a labor of love that would be your own prized personal stash - No matter of time spent, complicated nature, convoluted steps or cost. I know that given the options, it is loaded and difficult question, but I am curious of your response. Thanks!

I personally no longer do "full plant extracts". The first ones that I made worked, but the high chlorophyll content presented a problem for some folks gastric systems.

In looking at the extended list of what is in Sweet Mary, clearly some like benzene are insalubrious carcinogens, and others are the same common alkanes extracted from crude oil and considered Mystery Oil when encountered in LPG.

They may have medicinal value, but also may simply tie up the liver processing them, so as to extend the time that the cannabinoids stay in our systems intact.

Ostensibly refluxing in polar alcohol would do a better job of harvesting some of each, but even it is challenged on the longer chained alkanes and other non polars.

Non polar refuxing ostensibly misses most of the water, water solubles, alkaloids, chlorophyll, acids, some of the alcohols, et all. I would have to look up the physical properties of most of the 421 items on Old Miss's list to have an opinion, but at first glance, polar extraction would ostensibly grab the most goodies.

Now to the question of my personal choice. I use cannabis for pain and mood enhancement. It no longer produces a high, but my wife notes I'm more patient with !@#$%^&*() when medicated and it's fair to say it creates Graywolf from retired old warhorse Moi's less gentile temperament.

My own personal stash is done by either subzero LPG, or Ethanol, and I just buy CBD crystals from Hemp for my topical.

As best I can, I limit my extract to what is in the trichomes, and leave the rest of the enviable and impressive list of goodies behind.

We've also noted numerous successes against cancer and other onerous diseases with our extraction methods, but are not doctors and have no way of knowing if more might have made it if it had been whole plant extract.

They asked to try it, we voluntarily gave it to them, and some made and some didn't. Those were typically those whom had expended every other avenue open to them, before resorting to cannabis.

My theory on that, is that we don't get cancer if our endocannabinoid system is operating properly, because it controls our immune system. Dr Melamede proffers that the phytocannabinoids jump start the ailing endocannabinoid system, and it then does its job and kills the aberrant cells.

Not as much effect after chemo if there is no immune system left to fix.

As a PS: I have an engineering temperament, not a doctors and was unable to deal with the broken heart every time we lost one, so I had to step back and let partner Eloquentsolution interface with the patients. The wins were gratifying, but the heartbreaks took to much toll.

[WaterFarmFan]

Profound stuff GW. Thanks for sharing!