Decoding The Holy Grail: Terpene & Cannabinoid Retention: Decarb to Extraction

[Bucudinkydow]

In my opinion, if you're looking for complete decarb with terpenes, you can't beat fresh harvest oil, or this method.

Oil, lecithin, and ground, undecarbed bud in the oven, on the lowest setting for 36 hours, shaking every tine you think of it to release more and more gasses. I know it's decarbed, because I can see it happening. I'll keep it in the oven until it stops decarbing, then it goes into the fridge for 24 hours before I use it.

This oil is meant for brownies, so I don't even have to strain it out. I'll be getting 100% of what these buds have to offer.

Thanx, SweetSue. Very similar in principle to what I'm doing with my ethanol extractions: heat it, contain it and chill it for proper condensation. How well do you think the terpenes will survive the heat during the brownie making, though?

 

[Bucudinkydow]

While I've never tried it, I've always been a fan of the bubble watching decarb technique. Absolute accuracy without the guesswork. Bubbles stop it's done. First time I've seen it done in a sealed container, however. Interesting possibilities.

 

[Canyon]

Now I'm confused Sue. Canyon just said "We did find out that the FHO run was not decarbed after eight hours of low temp heat."

Did he mean that 8 hours isn't enough and 36 hours is?

The run I did was about 10% decarbed. I brought the temp up slowley starting with a soak in warm oil for about two hours. When the temperature got close to boiling I held it there or a little above. for several hours. Then let it clime to about 235 for probably 30 minutes.

This was just adding coconut oil in an open beaker and oven heated. There was no water added.

The terpene recovery was around 50%.

What is worth noting is that I got good infusion with time and temperatures lower than needed for a good decarb. This could be useful if you wanted to keep some or most of the acids.

I took samples that were to be tested for infusion with the tCheck. This is the kind of test that anyone who has one can run and post results.

A closed container and 36hr time is getting good reviews. I am not sure what the water in the plant material is doing to the temperature.

 

[InTheShed]

When the temperature got close to boiling I held it there or a little above. for several hours. Then let it clime to about 235 for probably 30 minutes.

So it was held at the boiling temp of the oil for several hours and then at 235° for 30 minutes? And after that it was only 10% decarbed? How does that jibe with what SweetSue said about 36 hours on low being completely decarbed.

 

[Scientific]

While I've never tried it, I've always been a fan of the bubble watching decarb technique. Absolute accuracy without the guesswork. Bubbles stop it's done. First time I've seen it done in a sealed container, however. Interesting possibilities.

That is very interesting! But I was skeptical that enough CO2 would off-gas to make visible bubbles--this just seemed too cool and too easy--so I did the arithmetic, and it looks like an ounce of good herb should produce about 262 milliliters (over a cup) of CO2!

The devil is in the details, of course, with questions like "How much of the CO2 goes into solution in the alcohol?" and "Is the CO2 released in a consistent fashion?" (The decarb graph suggests that CO2 production would peak and then slowly taper off, so bubbling might stop before decarb is done).

If you put a match over the surface of the jar, does a layer of heavier-than-air CO2 over the surface extinguish the match? Or do you get tincture flambe?

I want to try this, but the weak-ass buds I've got in a jar from my little outdoor grow on the balcony are nothing like 15% THC. I'm not sure they'd be adequate gas generators (or mood alterers).

Check my arithmetic:

• An ounce (28 g) of good quality herb (15% THCA) would have 0.15 * 28 = 4.2 grams of THCA
• A mole of THCA weighs 358 grams.
• 4.2 g THCA / 358 g per mole = 0.0117 moles of THCA.
• Assuming 100% decarboxylation, 0.117 moles of THCA will off-gas 0.0117 moles of CO2.
• 0.0117 moles of CO2 will make 262 milliliters of CO2 gas (assuming that all of the CO2 bubbles off and doesn't go into solution and knowing that one mole of gas occupies 22.4 liters at room temperature).

 

[InTheShed]

Check my arithmetic:
4.2 g THCA / 358 g per mole = 0.0117 moles of THCA.

I have no idea what you're talking about but if you want me to check your arithmetic, why are you dividing grams of THCA by grams per mole instead of multiplying them to get total moles of THCA?

 

[Scientific]

I have no idea what you're talking about but if you want me to check your arithmetic, why are you dividing grams of THCA by grams per mole instead of multiplying them to get total moles of THCA?

I could have made that clearer:

Grams of THCA divided by grams of THCA per mole of THCA gives moles of THCA.

In other words, you have 4.2 grams of THCA and a mole of THCA weighs 358 grams, so you have 4.2/358 = 0.0117 moles of THCA.

(For those those who didn't take chem, a mole is is a standard unit measure for chemists, equaling 602 sextillion of something. Something that has caught my interest lately is that we are now sometimes measuring light in our grow tents in moles of photons, which kinda blows my mind... )

 

[InTheShed]

I could have made that clearer

Yeah yeah, it was your fault

 

[Kicknitup1]

"A mole of THCA weighs 358 grams."

Where did you get that #? Not saying it's wrong....
the # of molecules/mole of a solution is 6.023x10 th the 23rd. But I don't know how much a molecule of thca weighs.

 

[Scientific]

"A mole of THCA weighs 358 grams."

Where did you get that #? Not saying it's wrong....

Wikipedia of course! Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid - Wikipedia

I posted that stuff so people could check my work. It's so easy to drop a decimal or make an erroneous assumption...

Double-checking the molar weight, the empirical formula for tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (once again, from W'pedia) is C22 H30 O4.

C: 22 * 12=264 g
H: 30 * 1=30 g
O: 4 * 16=64 g
Total: 358 grams

 

[Scientific]

I'm guessing y'all have seen this guy's video in which he successfully decarbs at about 196 F in a fancy double boiler setup, no? It's a nicely done experiment that's worth watching IMHO.

Decarboxylation: Marijuana Alchemy - YouTube

 

[InTheShed]

I'm guessing y'all have seen this guy's video in which he successfully decarbs at about 196 F in a fancy double boiler setup, no? It's a nicely done experiment that's worth watching IMHO.

That's an informative video. It's only failing is that the damn guy decided to decarb at 200° instead of 212°! I can boil water easy but I have to buy some gizmo from Nova (your fave manufacturer ) to maintain 200°! Would it have been so hard to run it at 212° as long as you're going to do it?

 

[Scientific]

That's an informative video. It's only failing is that the damn guy decided to decarb at 200° instead of 212°! I can boil water easy but I have to buy some gizmo from Nova (your fave manufacturer ) to maintain 200°! Would it have been so hard to run it at 212° as long as you're going to do it?

He had the very expensive sous vide kitchen gizmo, so of course he chose a custom temp.

A kitchen thermometer in a saucepan would probably get you close enough!

 

[Amy Gardner]

Interesting video, thanks. Maybe someone can help me out here because I can't tell what that final image from the lab report means. It's only a set of measurements. How do you know what those numbers mean if there's nothing to compare it to. Seemed a leap from process to - success.

Also - all that plastic and heat. Nasty combination. Shouldn't really let anything you consume be adjacent to heated plastic. Has anyone read 'Slow Death by Rubber Duck'?

.

 

[Canyon]

Amy,
The test results are showing that 1.44% of the sample is thcAcid and was not converted to THC.
The THC reading of 8.9% would have been converted from the THCA.

If you had a chart of the same material that was not decarbed, it would probably have readings around THC 10.??% and THCA 0.50%.

The decarb is only about 85% complete.

 

[SweetSue]

Amy,
The test results are showing that 1.44% of the sample is thcAcid and was not converted to THC.
The THC reading of 8.9% would have been converted from the THCA.

If you had a chart of the same material that was not decarbed, it would probably have readings around THC 10.??% and THCA 0.50%.

The decarb is only about 85% complete.

He mentioned the first sample was 86% decarbed, and the second was 100%. Interesting.

Thank you for the link Scientific. I'd known about the method - Shiggity did that recently - but I'd not watched it being done. Watching now got me to thinking that if I wanted an oil with about 15-20% THCa in it I could probably stop my decarb of the 36-hour oil somewhere around hour 20-25.

Ahhh, for inexpensive and easily accessible testing.

I keep thinking we're too wrapped up in complete decarb, when evidence is beginning to show that the most effective oils medicinally are more diversified. Even if your goal is recreational you're better off with a more balanced mix of cannabinoids instead of heavily-tilted to THC. Your high will be deeper in effect and longer-lasting with a balance of THC and CBD. The therapeutic effects are also enhanced with a balance of major cannabinoids.

So what's important for us to know here? To me, that depends greatly on what your goals are. Mine used to be maximum conversion of THC, but that becomes less and less the goal the more I understand the ECS, terpenes, and cannabinoids. The more I look at cannabis as a nutrient the less concerned I find myself with fine-tuning, and the more inspired I become to use the plant as a whole.

It occurs to me that this 36-hour oil I make is more valuable than I thought it to be. Time to give it another shake.

 

[SweetSue]

Thanx, SweetSue. Very similar in principle to what I'm doing with my ethanol extractions: heat it, contain it and chill it for proper condensation. How well do you think the terpenes will survive the heat during the brownie making, though?

I know it's mighty potent oil, and it's the terpenes that determine potency. My experience suggests the terpenes survive at a higher rate. I have no idea how.

The run I did was about 10% decarbed. I brought the temp up slowley starting with a soak in warm oil for about two hours. When the temperature got close to boiling I held it there or a little above. for several hours. Then let it clime to about 235 for probably 30 minutes.

This was just adding coconut oil in an open beaker and oven heated. There was no water added.

The terpene recovery was around 50%.

What is worth noting is that I got good infusion with time and temperatures lower than needed for a good decarb. This could be useful if you wanted to keep some or most of the acids.

I took samples that were to be tested for infusion with the tCheck. This is the kind of test that anyone who has one can run and post results.

A closed container and 36hr time is getting good reviews. I am not sure what the water in the plant material is doing to the temperature.

These are dry buds. Well.... They're at around 62%, come to think of it. Never gave it much thought. It's never created a problem, and there's no apparent evidence in the final oil of any water. Hmmmm..... Curious.

So it was held at the boiling temp of the oil for several hours and then at 235° for 30 minutes? And after that it was only 10% decarbed? How does that jibe with what SweetSue said about 36 hours on low being completely decarbed.

That is very interesting! But I was skeptical that enough CO2 would off-gas to make visible bubbles--this just seemed too cool and too easy--so I did the arithmetic, and it looks like an ounce of good herb should produce about 262 milliliters (over a cup) of CO2!

The devil is in the details, of course, with questions like "How much of the CO2 goes into solution in the alcohol?" and "Is the CO2 released in a consistent fashion?" (The decarb graph suggests that CO2 production would peak and then slowly taper off, so bubbling might stop before decarb is done).

If you put a match over the surface of the jar, does a layer of heavier-than-air CO2 over the surface extinguish the match? Or do you get tincture flambe?

I want to try this, but the weak-ass buds I've got in a jar from my little outdoor grow on the balcony are nothing like 15% THC. I'm not sure they'd be adequate gas generators (or mood alterers).

Check my arithmetic:

• An ounce (28 g) of good quality herb (15% THCA) would have 0.15 * 28 = 4.2 grams of THCA
• A mole of THCA weighs 358 grams.
• 4.2 g THCA / 358 g per mole = 0.0117 moles of THCA.
• Assuming 100% decarboxylation, 0.117 moles of THCA will off-gas 0.0117 moles of CO2.
• 0.0117 moles of CO2 will make 262 milliliters of CO2 gas (assuming that all of the CO2 bubbles off and doesn't go into solution and knowing that one mole of gas occupies 22.4 liters at room temperature).

Good God, I love it when you start to talk all technical, but I understand little of what you're saying at this point. Your explainations are excellent, so it won't be long before it makes more sense to me. Thank you for communicating all of this so effectively. It's just too late for me to digest.

I won't open the jar until I'm ready to dump it into the brownie mix. Never considered setting it aflame before I did that, but I can try.

Are you suggesting that cessation of the bubbles isn't the indication of when decarb is complete? How can this be? Decarboxylation releases the CO2, and I can't see how that could keep from creating bubbles. Anyone have a viable explaination for why decarb wouldn't be done when there are no more bubbles?

Nine hours left, and the bubbles have appreciably diminished.

Maybe it might be a good idea for this woman to get some sleep. It's getting harder to see the keys. LOL!

Goodnight everyone.

 

[SweetSue]

32 hours - 4 hours to go.

 

[Scientific]

Are you suggesting that cessation of the bubbles isn't the indication of when decarb is complete? How can this be? Decarboxylation releases the CO2, and I can't see how that could keep from creating bubbles. Anyone have a viable explaination for why decarb wouldn't be done when there are no more bubbles?

The arithmetic says that a significant amount of CO2 would be released during decarb, but it seems like it could be a stretch to use that for an indicator of completion. What if, for example, the first CO2 released went into solution, then a bunch got released early in the process, and then that process tapered off. (That's how I'd expect it to go.) You'd get few bubbles, lots of bubbles, and then few bubbles. That's hard to use as an indicator since it's so nonlinear. It's nice to think "Decarb makes bubbles so just watch the bubbles," but processes are seldom so simple...

I read an article once about a guy who had a fancy new telescope mirror checker. He took it to a star party in which all the people who had ground their own mirrors for their telescopes were proudly showing off their work. He went up to each one with his new tool and was able to tell them, "Your mirror has 12.5% distortion," "Your mirror has 15.3% distortion," etc., thinking they'd be happy to know exactly how good their results were. Then he saw the unhappy looks on their faces and realized that this is why scientists and engineers are sometimes left off the guest list.

 

[Oldbear]

Finally had the opportunity to try out a second run on oil soaked mash.

Quick recap: combo decarb and extraction using olive oil with approx 5 grams of air dried flower. Did a 2.5 hour bake at 220F in the toaster oven. Drained off the oil.

Added enough new oil to cover the mash with about 1/8 inch extra. Baked this for an additional hour. Drained off the oil, added LSL and left it in the fridge overnight.

Tried a sample first thing this am. The results were good - pretty much the same as the first run oil.

Conclusion: matched the C&K lab results and confirmed that it is worth doing the second extraction.

I've mixed the two oils together for storage in the fridge.
The leftover mash is in the freezer while I contemplate what to do with it. Smoothies and home made nutrition bars seem like good possibles. Also salad dressings, baking into banana cake, cookies and the like.

I macgyvered up the spreadsheet using information provided by our resident real lab test superheros. a

What is it telling me:

Olive oil extractions work very well and certainly well enough that I dont need to buy any gadgets.
A second extraction run using hot oil as a wash and/or a soak should be considered.
The leftover mash has too many goodies to throw away.

Hypothesis - there is still a lot of cannabinoids in the wet mash which must be a big part of the unaccounted for figures.

Some % of the unaccounted for will be left on the processing tools. Now a good cleanup, where all that is recovered and ingested, makes that a non issue.

Take away: Olive oil extraction is a keeper. Everything in it is good for you (unlike solvent based extracts). There is no significant waste anywhere because the left overs are edible.