Cannabinoid Ratios: The truth's and not so truth's

[alemo]

The entire plant has as much cbd as it will thc. So this idea of high cbd oil is just about how you make it

[420SA]

Also you do know that the entire plant has as much cbd as it will thc. So this idea of high cbd oil is just about how you make it

 

Educate me  so you're saying every strain of cannabis contains equal amounts of THC and CBD?

[alemo]

Every plant has equal amounts of the major cannabinoids THC and CBD. However the concentrations in tissues will be different. Beyond that, you can extract more specifically for CBD over THC with the right solvents.

[SkunkPharm]

Sjo I do not agree with that statement. Every plant strain is different. Thus the persentage of CBD and THC varies from strain to strain. Strains with Low CBD high THC is the most common. Trying to get 1:1 CBD:THC or high CBD strain seem to be hard (this is where the real medical value lies it seems). Extraction methods is giving different results in lab testing with carbon and butane extraction methods showing low value to have medical value. It seems that food grade ethanol extractions is the most popular for medical use.

Currently we are experimenting with High CDB strain. Which they say has between 10-15% CBD. But testing will be the only way to determine this.

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

 

[alemo]

You don't have to agree. You just need to do some reading.

[alemo]

Read my signature.

[420SA]

Every plant has equal amounts of the major cannabinoids THC and CBD. However the concentrations in tissues will be different. Beyond that, you can extract more specifically for CBD over THC with the right solvents.

 

So if I'm understanding you right you're saying that in theory, if you were to extract every single cannabinoid from the entire plant, including the stem, leaves and roots you would end up with 50% THC and 50% CBD? But say for instance we're just extracting from the resin(trichomes), the ratio would differ, more towards the ratio of what the breeder suggests the strain contains?

 

Gotta admit this is an odd revelation to me. Can you point me to a write up on this?

[alemo]

Spot on buddy. Most just extract from the resin using a polar solvent. Use the same polarity index and you can start figuring out what pulls out more of what. A write up? Yes yes, give me a few hours to use google scholar because you're too lazy

[Pat999]

Makes sense. Why it's always good using the whole plant

 

Sent from my G3312 using Tapatalk

 

 

[alemo]

Not always. Depends what you want to make. Me, I'm not a fan of water solubles. Cannabinoids aren't unicorn pee, you can use some simple science to pick and choose what you want to pull, activate, isomerise, extract , degrade etc etc etc.

[__DANNY__H__]

Every plant has equal amounts of the major cannabinoids THC and CBD.

[...]

Most just extract from the resin using a polar solvent. Use the same polarity index and you can start figuring out what pulls out more of what.

 

You make this claim about equal amounts, but provide no source... I'm under the impression that the vast majority of cannabinoids are in the resin, and it's a demonstrated fact that different strains of cannabis reliably produce different ratios of the various cannabinoids in their resin.

 

 

[alemo]

Well your impression doesn't match decades of research and published journal articles. If you don't know how to find white papers, I can't help further.

[__DANNY__H__]

Well your impression doesn't match decades of research and published journal articles. If you don't know how to find white papers, I can't help further.

 

I'll have a bloody hard time finding white papers backing up the claim that the sky is green and the moon is made of spaghetti, as well. I spent about 15 minutes googling and found nothing even coming close to what you have said. Besides, the onus of proof is on the person who makes the claim. You look like a typical internet "scientist" that has neither education nor expertise when you say things like this buddy. ;P

[alemo]

Yeah sure thing. Just as well I don't see the need for trying to educate those that can't muster more than a quarter of an hour "googling" for exact claims from some "internet scientist". Fortunately internet consensus doesn't undermine tertiary institutions.

 

You're right, I am wrong. It's not like people grow hemp cultivars for CBD isolate.

[SkunkPharm]

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm

This is the first CBD drug registered by the FDA.

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Smeegol]

I'm sorry but that is a load of wank I personally think, all those side effects caused by CBD, load of horse turd.. How much were they being dosed with to bring out those symptoms in the patients, micro dosing obviously has eluded the FDA, but thank you for an interesting read.....

[alemo]

Why cos your GDE matric makes your opinion valid versus an entire structure and methodology of scientific investigation? C'mon, no one has to like it, but you can't argue things you can't even begin to understand at the same level those people do. We're talking tenured profs and world specialists, there are multiple instances of cannabinoids actually exacerbating cancers.

 

Again, if you can't use the internet properly, I can't help further, but a good place to start would be somewhere like GW pharma's research page.

[Smeegol]

Good morning guys, hot n sunny today...

Hope it's a cracker folks....

 

And the article is totally valid, Guinea Pigs for trials, monopoly on meds.. GO USA.  How else are they going to retain their dignity... 

 

Have a rooting tooting stomping cowboy of a day....

[alemo]

And this is where I prove my point, you haven't even read their research papers and patent application, but why would you right? The black market is where you will always stay and want to stay.

[Green Leaf Organics]

People may not like they way Alamo comes across (no offence bud) but that doesnt mean he is wrong. In the end he is trying to educate people , that's what this site is for. People shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as a crazy internet cowboy

[alemo]

My favourite thing is it's not like I'm coming out with controversial science or bro backed observations. Simply repeating what is already out there. Most people didn't even know about GW until their approval came through, meanwhile they've been growing since lps were the choice indoor lights. So many ganja growers think they know some magical shit that no one else could possibly know more about. Meanwhile the rest of the world is hiring tomato growers and biochemical engineers, not a "master grower" or "extraction artist" in sight.

[SkunkPharm]

My favourite thing is it's not like I'm coming out with controversial science or bro backed observations. Simply repeating what is already out there. Most people didn't even know about GW until their approval came through, meanwhile they've been growing since lps were the choice indoor lights. So many ganja growers think they know some magical shit that no one else could possibly know more about. Meanwhile the rest of the world is hiring tomato growers and biochemical engineers, not a "master grower" or "extraction artist" in sight.

Thank you for educating me. Will have to educate myself about the extraction processes. Need a hand book or an engineer.

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

 

[CG420za]

Oh how I've missed you alemo[/member]. I should make more time for the forum

[alemo]

PSH, no one misses me, but you should make more time. I should work on my tact, but it turns out a horse drinks not upon command, request or indictment.

[__DANNY__H__]

My favourite thing is it's not like I'm coming out with controversial science or bro backed observations. Simply repeating what is already out there.

 

Thing is man, I've never seen anyone but you say such things. I doubt anyone else on this forum has either. Even "bro backing" is better than expecting people to believe blind assertions.

 

You claim it is so simple to find things that back up what you say, and yet you *still* have not even pointed out where we could find an authoritative source stating what you are apparently repeating. You bring up "decades of research", but can't say the title of a single paper, book, journal dedicated to related topics, nor even post a helpful-yet-sarcastic LMGTFY link. If I wanted to prove a point and not just be a troll, I would attempt to share my sources, give reasonable arguments, etc. Maybe you should too, huh? Here's how you do something like that:

 

Searching for the phrase "cannabinoid biosynthesis in cannabis sativa" in Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=cannabinoid+biosynthesis+in+cannabis+sativa&btnG=

 

The literal first paper in this search, cited by 45 other papers: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.04949.x

Titled "The hexanoyl-CoA precursor for cannabinoid biosynthesis is formed by an acyl-activating enzyme in Cannabis sativa trichomes." This should already be enough to hint to you that the majority of cannabinoids are going to be in/around the trichomes.

 

Second paragraph of the left column of the second page of that paper states that "The primary site of cannabinoid biosynthesis is glandular trichomes that form on female flowers (Lanyon et al., 1981)." That Lanyon et al paper, however, seems to be stating more weakly that "several studies have implicated the glandular trichomes as the site of cannabinoid accumulation".

 

Now look at Table 1 in the hexanoyl-CoA paper, and you'll see that CBDA (and the precusor) is almost entirely in the flowers: if you take the upperbound of the single-stddev confidence intervals for CBDA content in stems, roots and leaves and sum them, you get 0.795, which is less than half of the lowerbound of the single-stddev confidence interval for CBDA in flowers, 1.6.

 

It also states "The characteristic cannabinoid in this clone, CBD, averaged 59.4 ±  22.8 ng/gland and represented an average of about 97% of the cannabinoids present in each sample (table 1). Other cannabinoids, delta-9-THC in particular, as well as some CBN, were detected in small quantities in some samples (table 1)." This clearly implies the strain produces resin that is mostly (>90%) CBD/A. (The samples in question were resin extracted from trichome heads by means of a micropipet.)

 

Let's assume (and I fully understand if this is disputable) that, had these papers both tested the same strain, they'd have come to the same conclusions. In order for THC/A and CBD/A in a plant to be equal in amounts (assuming in your favour the above-mentioned upperbounds for roots/stems/leaves and lowerbound for flowers) we'd need to satisfy the linear equation

 

       Aw + Bx + Cy + Dz = 1.6w + 0.7x + 0.09y + 0.005z

 

where variables w, x, y and z represent total mass of flowers, leaves, stems, and roots (respectively) of a given plant, and coefficients A, B, C and D represent the amounts of THC/A in the same units as the CBD/A measurements in the table.

 

Holding on to the claim that over 90% of the cannabinoids in the trichomes are CBD/A, we yield the inequality

 

       A <= 0.1*1.6 = 0.16.

 

We need to distribute the rest of the THC, which is at minimum 0.9*1.6 = 1.44, into the leaves, stems and roots. This wouldn't make sense at all. Look the tables and, in particular, the charts of total cannabinoid content in leaves at a given number of nodes down from the growth tip from this paper: https://www.realhemp.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/9-Cannabinoid-Content-Of-Individual-Plant-Organs-From-Different-Geographical-Strains-Of-Cannabis-Sativa-L.pdf

 

You'll see that below the 7th node from the top (i.e. the leaves that are not part of the flower, by the authors' explicit statement), total cannabinoid content drops to about (or below) half of the upper leaves, in all cases. Coupled with the fact that the non-drug strains produce effectively no THC in their leaves (i.e. B ~= 0), you'd need the THC content of the CBD-rich plants' roots and stems to be ridiculously high, which we all know is simply not the case.