98% THC Budder fact or fiction?
- Thread starter Gray Wolf
- Start date
Hey all! Thanks for making me my own thread wolfy! Been busy all weekend, since I wasn't subbed to this thread, and I have a life, I didn't see that wolf was trolling me into a response. Here goes nothing!
One night as I was getting lit with friends, a buddy produced a sample of "Budder King" budder, and said it was the purest concentrate ever (he actually tried telling me it was CO2, I lol'd) He said that it had been tested "at a Colorado analytical lab" and was 98% THC. He was referring to it as ear wax. A quick search of "budder" online seemed to verify his claims. Here is the Wikipedia article about budder that states the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budder
Budder is a concentrated form of THC, the main psychoactive chemical in cannabis (marijuana) that has 80 % – 99.7 % THC and 5 % – 15 % total cannabinoids (THC/CBN/CBD),[1] several times more potent than the buds of the cannabis plant that are usually consumed (5 %–25 %). One hit of "Budder" is equal to one to two full cannabis joints.
I couldn't remember where I had read that, but I know I did read it somewhere (albeit a less than credible source)
And no, I didn't edit that BTW, but I am sure you will wolfy, because it seems that you have nothing better to do than act like a tweaker.
Be good!
One night as I was getting lit with friends, a buddy produced a sample of "Budder King" budder, and said it was the purest concentrate ever (he actually tried telling me it was CO2, I lol'd) He said that it had been tested "at a Colorado analytical lab" and was 98% THC. He was referring to it as ear wax. A quick search of "budder" online seemed to verify his claims. Here is the Wikipedia article about budder that states the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budder
Budder is a concentrated form of THC, the main psychoactive chemical in cannabis (marijuana) that has 80 % – 99.7 % THC and 5 % – 15 % total cannabinoids (THC/CBN/CBD),[1] several times more potent than the buds of the cannabis plant that are usually consumed (5 %–25 %). One hit of "Budder" is equal to one to two full cannabis joints.
I couldn't remember where I had read that, but I know I did read it somewhere (albeit a less than credible source)
And no, I didn't edit that BTW, but I am sure you will wolfy, because it seems that you have nothing better to do than act like a tweaker.
Be good!
You are making yourself look so stupid.
exactly hammalamma!
i guess them boys tested some 50% extract, on a ms which was calibrated with a 52% standard LOL!!! (i bet this kind of "loco" talk gets the one eyed "king" a lot of awe and respect among the blind... and some top $ ....)
blessss
i guess them boys tested some 50% extract, on a ms which was calibrated with a 52% standard LOL!!! (i bet this kind of "loco" talk gets the one eyed "king" a lot of awe and respect among the blind... and some top $ ....)
blessss
did your friend produce a sack of magic beans too? easily verifiable as THE magic beans, by use of the internet oracle?
cannabis legend and lore makes me want to run with scissors.
P
powerrobbie
I have smoked the budderkings butter, it is very easy for me and anyone that lives in Canada to source it as a very well known and reputable online service based in B.C. has been shipping it within Canada for years. This stuff is UNREAL holy shit one tiny little hit and your gone! It was a completely different buzz, very pshycadelic. I dont know if the 98% shit is true but its believable to me....I've never smoked anything like butter in my life, the best BHO I've had doesn't even come close.
I don't see any reason to square off on sides, because we still have unanswered questions, without which this input can't be properly evaluated or accepted.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for the details, which we still don't have.
For instance, a scanned copy of the report would allow us to evaluate the complete package, rather than just bits and pieces.
The biggest question of course is where these things came from, as some are synthesized at the refinery and/or aren't even present in the original crude oil feed stock, when the butane was separated from it by distillation.
Propanediamine for instance is synthesized and is a fuel additive. If you look at the molecule, they've added a nitrogen atom. It isn't present at the time the butane is distilled off, before the heavier Pentane and Hexane are turned into gasoline and Propanediamine added.
Propane, pentane, and their isomers are typical contaminants of butane, but how did anything as heavy as hexane make it through any multiple distillation processes?
Still unanswered is the question about the standards used for the HPLC test.
The molecular structure of some of the turpenoids are close enough to the molecules detected, that they could be easily confused without standards for all of the turpenoids present.
If they had those standards, why didn't the readout show the rest of the turpenoids in the readout?
The labs around here sure don't have a full set of standards; what standards did these folks use and how were they certified? How much experience reading cannabis extractions?
As RB, notes, the process of diluting the sample when preparing it makes any measurement in the ranges shown anecdotal, without backup tests to confirm it.
Labs don't just run one sample if accuracy is required, they run multiples for backup comparisons. How many tests were run to confirm this data?
How was the extraction conducted and what kind of butane was used? No one has yet to say that they made it themselves, or offer details.
What kind of butane was it and who was the manufacturer?
If those contaminants were in the butane and show up as residual, where is the residual butane in the test. How can it be gone and the contaminants in it left behind?
I don't think we have anything to debate until we have more answers. Anyone have any of those?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for the details, which we still don't have.
For instance, a scanned copy of the report would allow us to evaluate the complete package, rather than just bits and pieces.
The biggest question of course is where these things came from, as some are synthesized at the refinery and/or aren't even present in the original crude oil feed stock, when the butane was separated from it by distillation.
Propanediamine for instance is synthesized and is a fuel additive. If you look at the molecule, they've added a nitrogen atom. It isn't present at the time the butane is distilled off, before the heavier Pentane and Hexane are turned into gasoline and Propanediamine added.
Propane, pentane, and their isomers are typical contaminants of butane, but how did anything as heavy as hexane make it through any multiple distillation processes?
Still unanswered is the question about the standards used for the HPLC test.
The molecular structure of some of the turpenoids are close enough to the molecules detected, that they could be easily confused without standards for all of the turpenoids present.
If they had those standards, why didn't the readout show the rest of the turpenoids in the readout?
The labs around here sure don't have a full set of standards; what standards did these folks use and how were they certified? How much experience reading cannabis extractions?
As RB, notes, the process of diluting the sample when preparing it makes any measurement in the ranges shown anecdotal, without backup tests to confirm it.
Labs don't just run one sample if accuracy is required, they run multiples for backup comparisons. How many tests were run to confirm this data?
How was the extraction conducted and what kind of butane was used? No one has yet to say that they made it themselves, or offer details.
What kind of butane was it and who was the manufacturer?
If those contaminants were in the butane and show up as residual, where is the residual butane in the test. How can it be gone and the contaminants in it left behind?
I don't think we have anything to debate until we have more answers. Anyone have any of those?
Apologies was all baked and mistook hplc for tlc for a minute. Peace GS
Last edited:
And back to the purpose of this thread, may I put things in perspective.
If cannabis oil isn't 98% THC before whipping the air into the budder, so how did this magically convert the rest of the cannabinoids and turpenoids into THC?
It takes further chemical refining to achieve those levels and 98% THC isn't of a consistency that will whip into budder.
Lastly, if it was 98% THC, it would have flat effects, as it is entourage effect of all the cannabinoids and turpenoids that we experience as a high. The oil that I've isomerized was sort of ho hum as far as improved effects.
We still do not have any test or document that says Budderking budder is 98% THC, including the referenced reports thus far.
If cannabis oil isn't 98% THC before whipping the air into the budder, so how did this magically convert the rest of the cannabinoids and turpenoids into THC?
It takes further chemical refining to achieve those levels and 98% THC isn't of a consistency that will whip into budder.
Lastly, if it was 98% THC, it would have flat effects, as it is entourage effect of all the cannabinoids and turpenoids that we experience as a high. The oil that I've isomerized was sort of ho hum as far as improved effects.
We still do not have any test or document that says Budderking budder is 98% THC, including the referenced reports thus far.
its not the purity, its the strain used. the budderking budder was made with watty kush, and is a killer strain.
As I stated earlier, that article and Dr.Hornbey are frauds. Not sure why you keep looking for further evidence to back his claims. Peace GS
Agreed 100% save your breath people, this subject was discussed years ago.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=5905&highlight=budderking
Maybe we should ask bubbleMan about this.
Tug taught budderking and it wasn't even Tug's method.Tug is now Quick maybe we can ask him as well.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=21219&highlight=budderking&page=2
check post #29
There's a lot of good info in that thread. I like the part where tug himself states that budder is nothing more than emulsified honey oil.
Where is all this thc magically coming from?
GS, can you please explain why HPLC cannot evaluate component percentages of a test sample?
Preferably with some references or scientific explanation as to why this is.
Thanx RB
Preferably with some references or scientific explanation as to why this is.
Thanx RB
C
Chamba
Has anyone had samples of their (thoroughly purged) butane extractions accurately tested to find out what potentially harmful chemicals they contain? It might be less than what joint or bong smokers inhale when they light up?....maybe it's greater?
and if there are more than minute amounts of toxic chemicals, then perhaps it would be saner to dry sift your material first, then use alcohol to extract the goodness from the sift instead of butane?
and if there are more than minute amounts of toxic chemicals, then perhaps it would be saner to dry sift your material first, then use alcohol to extract the goodness from the sift instead of butane?
Bingo, my thoughts as well!
eloquentsoution
Member
a profile of the component one is in search of is needed. what that means...you must know what you are looking for to compare with the cannabis sample. it requires software for each component (contaminant). there is no way to inexpensively load all the potential contaminant software for random comparison. make sense?
I bet you won't do it...
Depends on the butane used. If the BHO smells like leeks or onions, it contains ethyl mercaptan. That is a toxic substance that will not purge out.
I find it odd that somehow Chamba received a negative feedback for this seemingly innocuous post. It seems that so many here have a vested interest in solvent based extracts, they will do whatever it takes to marginalize anyone who dares to illuminate the public about the dangers.
This thread should be over anyway, it seems my data has been thoroughly debunked by a random person posting an opinion on the internet with no supporting information whatsoever. And what do you know, it just so happened to agree with OP's opinion. GO FIGURE! What a joke...
BudderKing Budder
Budder King is our exclusive supplier of "BK Budder". BK Budder is an extremely strong, super potent product, made through isopropyl extraction. Only a tiny amount (0.05 gram) is needed to produce a soaring, sweat-inducing stone.
BK Budder comes in the form of a light, golden-brown paste, which becomes more solid as you cool it down, quite brittle if frozen, and much more sticky when warmed up.
You only need to use a very tiny amount of BK Budder to get a big powerful toke. BK Budder is best smoked in a pipe over a fine mesh screen which has been thickly layered with ash. You can also put a tiny drop of budder onto a hotknife and inhale the smoke through a glass tube. To find out more about BK Budder, visit here.
from: http://www.budbuddy.biz/BB/Products#Budder
Submitted By: Demo11 (Member and Editor)
Camera Used: ?
Name: Budder
From: BudderKing
Grade: A+
Type: Concentrate
Price: $85/g (CDN)
Looks: Like thick dried out honey. Light brownish yellow in color.
Smell: Very interesting, almost like kush with a hashy sweet twist. Or as my girlfriend says “it smells like potency”.
Taste: Wow. I created a layer of ash in my bong over a screen, dropped a piece the size of a pinhead, and i got one gigantic toke that tasted indescribable.
Purity and Potency: This batch of budder was made with OG Kush, Purple Kush and the infamous Pineapple Express.
Budder is brittle when cold, runny when heated, and sticky at room temperature.
Lab tests show budder to be 99.7% pure THC. Smoking just one hit is the equivalent of smoking 2-3 full size joints.
It creates a clear, yet crippling high of the purest quality.
I recommend this product to anyone looking to get the most out of their money. Each gram contains approximately 40 hits – 1 hit is like smoking 2 joints… you do the math. –Demo11
http://forum.grasscity.com/stash-jar/543784-[review]-99-7%-thc-budder-you-need-see-[pics].html
Budder King is our exclusive supplier of "BK Budder". BK Budder is an extremely strong, super potent product, made through isopropyl extraction. Only a tiny amount (0.05 gram) is needed to produce a soaring, sweat-inducing stone.
BK Budder comes in the form of a light, golden-brown paste, which becomes more solid as you cool it down, quite brittle if frozen, and much more sticky when warmed up.
You only need to use a very tiny amount of BK Budder to get a big powerful toke. BK Budder is best smoked in a pipe over a fine mesh screen which has been thickly layered with ash. You can also put a tiny drop of budder onto a hotknife and inhale the smoke through a glass tube. To find out more about BK Budder, visit here.
from: http://www.budbuddy.biz/BB/Products#Budder
Submitted By: Demo11 (Member and Editor)
Camera Used: ?
Name: Budder
From: BudderKing
Grade: A+
Type: Concentrate
Price: $85/g (CDN)
Looks: Like thick dried out honey. Light brownish yellow in color.
Smell: Very interesting, almost like kush with a hashy sweet twist. Or as my girlfriend says “it smells like potency”.
Taste: Wow. I created a layer of ash in my bong over a screen, dropped a piece the size of a pinhead, and i got one gigantic toke that tasted indescribable.
Purity and Potency: This batch of budder was made with OG Kush, Purple Kush and the infamous Pineapple Express.
Budder is brittle when cold, runny when heated, and sticky at room temperature.
Lab tests show budder to be 99.7% pure THC. Smoking just one hit is the equivalent of smoking 2-3 full size joints.
It creates a clear, yet crippling high of the purest quality.
I recommend this product to anyone looking to get the most out of their money. Each gram contains approximately 40 hits – 1 hit is like smoking 2 joints… you do the math. –Demo11
http://forum.grasscity.com/stash-jar/543784-[review]-99-7%-thc-budder-you-need-see-[pics].html
Hee, hee, hee, snicker, snark, snort..............................
Just because you got a new IP address and a new handle to escape your stink, doesn't improve the quality of your input to newbies brother MR, even in the name of the rose.
As you may recall I committed to protect only the newbies from your deceit, as the experienced folks already have you pegged, as evidenced by their responses.
For starters, Ethyl Mercaptan smells like rotten eggs. You must be confusing her with some of her sisters you dreamed of dating, which is easy enough, if you have no personal experience, but another dead give away otherwise.
In truth, what I find odd is that no one even mentioned Chamba's sage observation, so it seems like you have such a vested interest that you continue to not only post threads that do not support your statements (refute), but you read things in our posts that aren't there (projection).
Either you're reading comprehension and math are abysmal, or you are trying to stir up fights. Since you most certainly wouldn't have the latter on your mind, shall we all just accept that you are abysmally mentally challenged?
I infer that, because unlike you, Chamba is a respected part of this community, as a international authority on dry sieve and is so because over time he reliably tells it like he has experienced it, not what he read somewhere and didn't comprehend.
He doesn't go out of his way to offend folks, like you do, and responds to enlightenment in the form of new input, which you don't. I personally admire those qualities in a person, and as you are trying to machinate the other members of this forum and suck Chamba into your petty tempest in a teapot as collateral damage, I infer that it infuriates you.
Good! Often, you can tell more about a person from their enemies than their friends. Your ongoing assaults on the time proven icons on this forum only belies any input you may offer and clearly establishes just how full of festering fecal matter and your own sagging ego that you are brother MR (by any other name).
If you were here to help, instead of disrupt, to get even for being asked to pay for your advertisement on this forum, you would offer new enlightening information, instead of twisted falsehoods.
If you were successful in attracting enough business on your own sick website, you would be too busy to mess with us, so I infer your plan is failing.
Too bad, soooooo sad leeedle brother! i wonder if it has anything to do with your openly raging ego and how you appear to the general public, whom you seem intent on manipulating instead of educating, by your presenting half truths and even outright deceit?
Sooooo, back to earth, can you rize above your petty ego and focus on attracting new members to your own pitiful web site with sugar instead of vinegar, and show some respect for the intelligence of the members of this forum?
No? I predicted not and challenge you to prove me wrong with actions and facts instead of just more inane bullshit.
Do you have it in you to play that straight game, or shall we continue this charade?
What are you actually made of MR? Is it simply petty disruption of competing sites your best game?
