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

[Oldbear]

I have more testing to do but I think whats happening is its looking for a google account, not your personal email. To create the google sheet, I needed to create a google account which is in the format of "username of choice"@gmail.com. People can use their 420mag username, or any close variation.

This allows anonymity to be retained but also an approver will know who is asking. A step where a 420member sends a pm to another, as owner of the file, which advises of the gmail user name being used may help. Something like that....

I'm still researching if its possible to make it wide open - ie anyone with a gmail account can see the file(s) without any approval step.

The gang will need to reflect on who can do updates so that it doesn't become very confused.

All dependent on 420mag agreement to allow this of course.....I can see some safety risks/concerns. Easy to embed unwelcome software in one of these.

When I clicked the link, I got a screen saying that I needed to request access. I clicked the link, but if accessing the spreadsheet means sharing email addresses, that's not going to be popular in places where the herb is illegal...

Better would be just to make it accessible to all, I think.

Here's what the Google help file says (I added the red color):

Get permission to open a file

1. Open the file.
2. On the "You need permission" page, click Request access.
3. The owner of the file will get an email asking for approval. After they approve your request, you'll get an email.

 

[Scientific]

The gang will need to reflect on who can do updates so that it doesn't become very confused.

If you set up a good template, people won't mess it up too much.

By "a good template" I mean preformat the rows, so there's THC, THCA, myrcene, etc., etc. and people just fill in the blanks.

 

[CheeseWedge]

I have a "what if" that probably is explained somewhat by the entourage effect. If aromatherapy is more than a placebo effect but it requires some effort from the user, perhaps THC and the other cannabinoids provide an "automatic" version that is passive to the user at least consciously.

Non-western medicine has used herbs for thousands of years. Perhaps blends of smokeable herbs, with specifically desired results, mixed with some THC and cannabinoids will have the same effect as strains bred specifically for those effects.

Herbal teas even, brewed and then combined with cannabinoids to be consumed.

Then it wouldn't matter so much what strain it is, so long as the necessary elements of the entourage are present.

 

[Canyon]

I have a "what if" that probably is explained somewhat by the entourage effect. If aromatherapy is more than a placebo effect but it requires some effort from the user, perhaps THC and the other cannabinoids provide an "automatic" version that is passive to the user at least consciously.

Non-western medicine has used herbs for thousands of years. Perhaps blends of smokeable herbs, with specifically desired results, mixed with some THC and cannabinoids will have the same effect as strains bred specifically for those effects.

Herbal teas even, brewed and then combined with cannabinoids to be consumed.

Then it wouldn't matter so much what strain it is, so long as the necessary elements of the entourage are present.

Welcome to the thread.
You triggered visions of cloves cigarettes. Yes, I was that stupid.

I kind of like the idea of adding something extra when infusing oils though.

I may try grinding a small amount of it into an oil batch.

Something to try would be to strip the oils from your second favorite herb using a QWET method and use that alcohol to strip your cannabis.

I never know

 

[CheeseWedge]

I may try grinding a small amount of it into an oil batch.

I ordered some Native American style smokeable herbs. I'll grind them with some bud and see if it "fixes" the intended effects of the herbs. They have a few different blends (daytime, nighttime, etc).

I'll try my test and report back here with any thoughts. At the very least it should be good for rolling phatties and enjoying a good puff without losing my mind.

 

[Canyon]

Thanks OB, I am walking away as well. Going to join a friend for a session of solving world problems by using cannabis.

Stay medicated. Isn't that a misquote from "Solinet Green" (Sp)?

I never know

 

[Canyon]

Not sure if there are any tests opportunities left.

One I would welcome is terpene profile and concentration on harvest day, and a comparison with same sample after air drying for a couple weeks. (Or whatever period of time people would like to see)

OB, I thought I had already sent this. It was auto saved. My bad.

I am not sure about testing wet buds. I can call.

There is one full terpene test left from the good will offer, oil or flower. I paid for the last cannabinoid test and used one freebee for the terpene. I have 4 flower terpene tests that I am entering the data into the beginnings of another chart that may give us some ideas.

Two of those tests are Ghost Train. It is terpene rich compared to what we have been testing. I have a clone of one of them in flower now. It should finish in about 25-30 days.


I don't know about the help fund, Kickn or SweetSue would know. I am having a roof replaced on my garage and feeling a little pinched for a while.

 

[Bucudinkydow]

Boocoo thanx brother Scorpio!

 

[Scientific]

Thanks for all of the hard work! Those are getting to be some beautiful charts!

But I have to ask, where did all of that stuff like "immune regulation" and stuff about tumors, etc. come from? I don't think there's any solid evidence for any of those health claims, and personally I think the chart would be much better without them lest they confuse and/or misinform the gullible. (Leave that to Leafly.)

That's just my opinion, of course.

As long as I'm kvetching, I don't think the empirical formulas (e.g. C12H22012) add anything useful, except maybe to give an idea of the molecular weight. (The structural formula--the one that shows all the rings 'n' things--is much more useful, but of course those won't fit in a chart.)

 

[Canyon]

Thanks Scorpio,

Scientific, I was hoping you would check in. Believe me, gathering what information I have so far has me questioning everything. I have found errors in boiling points and mass. I even found two formulas for the same terpene. I have tried to use trusted sources such as Steep Hill where I could. I looked at a lot of pages and I could be wrong but I think I left the tumor reference in because it was supported by some study.

I don’t want to dismiss something it because lacks a lot of supporting evidence. OTOH, as you say, there is a lot of BS out there. We need some way to rate the source without getting bogged down in a lot of foot notes.

I am harvesting a rather large plant for an indoor girl. It is probably more than I will finish today. I will be back with sticky fingers when I need a break.

 

[Scientific]

I don’t want to dismiss something because lacks a lot of supporting evidence. OTOH, as you say, there is a lot of BS out there. We need some way to rate the source without getting bogged down in a lot of foot notes.

OK so casting a wide net to start. That makes sense.

Thanks again to all who are actually doing real work on the project (as opposed to those sitting back and taking cheap shots from the peanut gallery).

 

[Canyon]

What if,
We used the background color to label the checked cells? We could do something like this.
Green: Generally accepted as true.
Yellow: Probably true.
Red: Warrants listing but insufficient documentation or questionable source.

 

[CheeseWedge]

I have a "what if" that probably is explained somewhat by the entourage effect. If aromatherapy is more than a placebo effect but it requires some effort from the user, perhaps THC and the other cannabinoids provide an "automatic" version that is passive to the user at least consciously.

Non-western medicine has used herbs for thousands of years. Perhaps blends of smokeable herbs, with specifically desired results, mixed with some THC and cannabinoids will have the same effect as strains bred specifically for those effects.

Herbal teas even, brewed and then combined with cannabinoids to be consumed.

Then it wouldn't matter so much what strain it is, so long as the necessary elements of the entourage are present.

This is the blend I tried. I tested using a very small amount of afghan kush, maybe smaller than a pea, probably about a 1:15 ratio.

One nice effect was that the essential oils coated my lips and I could still taste the moon blend the next morning and it had call back effects of anti-anxiety and relaxation.

I would say this crude test worked well enough to suggest that maybe terpene retention can be ignored provided they're added back in with another method. And that the primary task should be cannabinoid retention.

Which suggests to me if things are that simple, maybe it's only a deficiency in a single cannabinoid that needs to be the concern, and that so long the entourage is present, a little goes a long way.

The blend itself is super smooth and I recommend it to anyone that enjoys a session puff. I have a low tolerance and felt great. My sessions with the 1:15 ratio, about 10-12 pulls out my hammer bubbler, very enjoyable.

Lighting the blend and letting it cherry can "vaporize" the cannabis when placed out of reach of the main blaze. When the cannabis burns it's obvious as it burned much hotter and way smokier.

Good luck to all.

 

[Kicknitup1]

New Updates

Holy Grail V1.04.xlsm - Google Sheets

Really nice job Scorpio. I am trying to solve another piece of the puzzle at present; namely extraction efficiency. That's a big hole folks.

 

[Oldbear]

Really nice job Scorpio. I am trying to solve another piece of the puzzle at present; namely extraction efficiency. That's a big hole folks.

What's your thinking /approach to it?

 

[Canyon]

Kickn,
Did you get a new tCheck yet? I lost track. Have you heard any more about the planed new bells and whistles?

The charts,
I cleaned them up some. The new version has some code that highlights the column and row of the active cell. Google is disabling this code. It is not a big loss though it is a nice feature when scrolling around in a large sheet.

If there is enough interest in what I have started, I will keep working on it. I realize that some of what I am doing may be beyond the scope of the thread. I don't think it should take over the thread; however I believe being able to look at a profile and reference the yes cells to the terpene content will help us decide which terpenes to focus on.

Testing,
I can think of a few tests that would be handy. A Nova decarbed terpene sample with an accompanying non decarbed sample would be first unless someone can find that information. I don't have a Nova. If I knew it was retaining terpenes better than the results we have been getting, I would buy one.

I still want to call about testing wet buds. How to figure the water content without losing terpenes is beyond me. Getting the moisture out of buds without losing something is the goal of drying, isn't it?

Closed container oven decarb and possibly a pressure cooker decarb are also possibilities.

If anyone can swing any of this, it would answer some questions. There has been some cost sharing, sending a note with help fund in the subject line to SweetSue or Kicknitup should get you some information.

I am getting some ideas for another chart or a quick way to use the Combined Data sheet to compare individual tests.

I never know

 

[Oldbear]

I've been pondering this for while. But one persons current thinking......

I'm losing interest in the charts. Also questioning the importance of the test results .... Do we really need to know?

The best advice hands down I've received on here this year was to focus less on the chemistry and more on the reaction.

Test every new batch on yourself and fine tune by adjusting dose size and frequency.

If I was to test every step of every oil making session, then I have data. I have hard data on cannabinoid levels and terpenes and where some fell off the train. After checking out the numbers and colours in the test report i turn the page to the next which says in bold letters and warnings and disclaimers.

Caution not all batches are identical test your reaction to this new batch and adjust to your taste.

About terpenes anyway I just read that cured terpenes are more effective at triggering health benefits. Poorly cured terpenes can cause throat and mouth irritation form too many of them.

Who knows if that's not true.

I'm starting to think this : There are a variety of methods, cook time, and temps to get acceptable results for decarb And extraction.

I think it's true that every extraction method known, there is enough leftover to make it worthwhile to run the extraction twice.

Whether its first run second run oil our the oil soake crumbs, I'm getting it all. Knowing the numbers doesn't help me. I still need to test the new batch on myself.

In prescription pharmaceuticals and what not they know the exact contents. The bottles says to test it on yourself and adjust as needed.

I'm leaning towards simpler process with less gadgets. Knowing some device can extract more in one pass than my two, I don't care. I use it all Anyway and I still need to test it on myself.

The big variable in the equation of how does cannabis make me feel is biavailabity by ingest method and body part. Knowing the numbers doesn't help. I need to experiment with ingestion method and dose, for each strain, each grow, each batch and test the effects.

I've reached a consistency of process level where the outcome provides a range of reactions all perfectly acceptable. With my little droppers, I can tweak my system to get the reaction I want. Please understand that I mean this in a if I can do it everyone else can too sense.

My high tech emulsion device is to squirt it into my mouth with or without something else and swish it around in there with lots of saliva. Then wait awhile and judge the reaction.

I very much think these numbers have merit in a regulatory and consumer protection box though.

 

[Canyon]

This is the blend I tried. I tested using a very small amount of afghan kush, maybe smaller than a pea, probably about a 1:15 ratio.

One nice effect was that the essential oils coated my lips and I could still taste the moon blend the next morning and it had call back effects of anti-anxiety and relaxation.

I would say this crude test worked well enough to suggest that maybe terpene retention can be ignored provided they're added back in with another method. And that the primary task should be cannabinoid retention.

Which suggests to me if things are that simple, maybe it's only a deficiency in a single cannabinoid that needs to be the concern, and that so long the entourage is present, a little goes a long way.

The blend itself is super smooth and I recommend it to anyone that enjoys a session puff. I have a low tolerance and felt great. My sessions with the 1:15 ratio, about 10-12 pulls out my hammer bubbler, very enjoyable.

Lighting the blend and letting it cherry can "vaporize" the cannabis when placed out of reach of the main blaze. When the cannabis burns it's obvious as it burned much hotter and way smokier.

Good luck to all.

Cheese,
Is this ground herbs and is it intended to be smoked or vaped? You can buy strain specific terpenes in CBD but they are coustly and neither the terpene content nor the concentration was stated on the small amount I bought.

As you say, a lot of the terpenes are available at reasonable prices. The trick is going to be learning enough to choose wisely.

OC labs lists terpenes as primary and secondary, I think mostly according to percent in compound. There primary list is eleven terpenes and the standard test I have been getting has 10 or 11 depending on when you get them. Combined there are probably 14 or 15 that have been studied the most. I will make up a list and post it. Talking about the main ones would be a way for us to learn as a group. Personally, I don't know much though I am understanding more of what I read.

Best

 

[Scientific]

I've been pondering this for while. But one persons current thinking......

I'm losing interest in the charts. Also questioning the importance of the test results .... Do we really need to know?

The best advice hands down I've received on here this year was to focus less on the chemistry and more on the reaction.

Test every new batch on yourself and fine tune by adjusting dose size and frequency.

If I was to test every step of every oil making session, then I have data. I have hard data on cannabinoid levels and terpenes and where some fell off the train. After checking out the numbers and colours in the test report i turn the page to the next which says in bold letters and warnings and disclaimers.

Caution not all batches are identical test your reaction to this new batch and adjust to your taste.

About terpenes anyway I just read that cured terpenes are more effective at triggering health benefits. Poorly cured terpenes can cause throat and mouth irritation form too many of them.

Who knows if that's not true.

I'm starting to think this : There are a variety of methods, cook time, and temps to get acceptable results for decarb And extraction.

I think it's true that every extraction method known, there is enough leftover to make it worthwhile to run the extraction twice.

Whether its first run second run oil our the oil soake crumbs, I'm getting it all. Knowing the numbers doesn't help me. I still need to test the new batch on myself.

In prescription pharmaceuticals and what not they know the exact contents. The bottles says to test it on yourself and adjust as needed.

I'm leaning towards simpler process with less gadgets. Knowing some device can extract more in one pass than my two, I don't care. I use it all Anyway and I still need to test it on myself.

The big variable in the equation of how does cannabis make me feel is biavailabity by ingest method and body part. Knowing the numbers doesn't help. I need to experiment with ingestion method and dose, for each strain, each grow, each batch and test the effects.

I've reached a consistency of process level where the outcome provides a range of reactions all perfectly acceptable. With my little droppers, I can tweak my system to get the reaction I want. Please understand that I mean this in a if I can do it everyone else can too sense.

My high tech emulsion device is to squirt it into my mouth with or without something else and swish it around in there with lots of saliva. Then wait awhile and judge the reaction.

I very much think these numbers have merit in a regulatory and consumer protection box though.

Here are the questions SweetSue posed in post #1:

• How long is optimal for THC conversion?
• CBD conversion?
• How long is too long?
• What's being destroyed?
• What makes it through?
• Are there ways to manage the decarb for a more varied cannabinoid and terpene profile?

Trying to get solid answers to those questions is the reason that I have been following this very long, involved discussion.

Are you saying that the answering those questions is too difficult or the answers are not worth knowing?

If that's the case, that's fine of course, but your post strikes me as being a lot like going to a university course on music theory and saying, "I'm not really interested in music theory, I'm only interested in how music makes me feel." Again, there's nothing wrong with that sentiment, but maybe you'd be happier sitting in a sunny spot out on the lawn and not in this classroom?"

To be clear, I mean no disrespect and I think your views are perfectly valid, but...

 

[InTheShed]

I think that what OldBear was saying was that the results of the testing that was done do not answer those questions posed in the initial post - a fact I pointed out earlier when no one could answer those questions after all testing was done.

And if, after 53 pages of discussion and testing and spreadsheets, we're no closer to an answer than we were when we started, perhaps the answer is either a) unknowable with reasonable testing (as you said previously in your post related to the hundreds of tests needed to get the answers) or b) not worth knowing because the actual testing needs to be done on your body.