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

[Scientific]

I think that what OldBear was saying was that the results of the testing that was done does 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.

The questions that interest me the most (and I suspect most other folks as well) boil down to "What is the best way to decarb THCA to THC?"

I think we've answered part of that as "It's best to decarb slowly at lower temperatures rather than quickly at higher temperatures because you vaporize less of the volatile substances."

Given that, the next question of interest to me (and again, I suspect to many others) is, "OK, exactly how low and how long?"

I suspect that if we took some typical, good-quality bud, dried it to 50% RH, and then decarbed samples at, say, five temperatures for five time periods (i.e. 25 tests), we could probably bracket what's close to ideal for maximum THC conversion.

I would suggest doing the baking step on an open cookie sheet as simplest. (The data so far suggests to me that you can decarb at a low enough temperature that you're not getting much volatiliazation, and in any case, I suspect that anything you trap in a foil wrapping just condenses on the foil.)

Just figuring out the settings for most efficient conversion of THCA to THC is clearly a bit of a challenge, but a great place to start. Only after that is worked out maybe we could work on the fine points and question regarding the other substances of interest.

Those are my thoughts for whatever they may be worth... or as Groucho said, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

 

[InTheShed]

Funny, you said 100 and now you're down to 25 Remind me to buy my next used car from you!

Don't I recall something about terpenes being so light that they would float away at almost any heat an oven could generate? If so then any heated air method would be unfavorable to terpene retention. I think this is the reason SweetSue does her decarb in oil in a sealed jar.

 

[Derbybud]

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

But I think now Sue has found out she wasn't getting a full decarb and had to finish with higher heat in a double boiler

 

[InTheShed]

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

But I think now Sue has found out she wasn't getting a full decarb and had to finish with higher heat in a double boiler

Oh true, but still in liquid.

 

[Oldbear]

I'm saying that it is complex and expensive to collect the data.

I'm saying each person has to judge the helpfulness of a detailed strain profile at every step of processing. They are not helpful to me.

im saying that I can make music that makes me feel good and I don't need to read sheet music to accomplish that.

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...

 

[Scientific]

>Funny, you said 100 and now you're down to 25 Remind me to buy my next used car from you!

You may have noticed that I'm really careful about how I phrase things. If you go back and look, I believe the 100 samples was for a discussion about a definitive answer. (And smiley face or no, I don't appreciate the comparison to someone who lies for a living.)

> Don't I recall something about terpenes being so light that they would float away at almost any heat an oven could generate?

The terpenes we usually talk about have boiling points that are significantly higher then THC (limonene, myrcene, pinene are all > 300F).

I think this thread is kind of running out of gas (excessive volatilization? ) so I'm gonna drop off here. Good luck to all and happy decarbing!

 

[InTheShed]

>Funny, you said 100 and now you're down to 25 Remind me to buy my next used car from you!

You may have noticed that I'm really careful about how I phrase things. If you go back and look, I believe the 100 samples was for a discussion about a definitive answer. (And smiley face or no, I don't appreciate the comparison to someone who lies for a living.)

> Don't I recall something about terpenes being so light that they would float away at almost any heat an oven could generate?

The terpenes we usually talk about have boiling points that are significantly higher then THC (limonene, myrcene, pinene are all > 300F).

Sorry, didn't mean to call you a liar!

According to this document Homepage, they lost all terpenes when decarbed at 293º F for 30 minutes.

Compared to the untreated control, monoterpenes (the most volatile class of terpenes) were reduced to about half of their original levels even after exposing the plant material to boiling water for just 5 min. After the more intense oven treatment, only small traces of the monoterpenes terpineol, myrcene and terpinolene could still be de-tected.

 

[SweetSue]

>Funny, you said 100 and now you're down to 25 Remind me to buy my next used car from you!

You may have noticed that I'm really careful about how I phrase things. If you go back and look, I believe the 100 samples was for a discussion about a definitive answer. (And smiley face or no, I don't appreciate the comparison to someone who lies for a living.)

> Don't I recall something about terpenes being so light that they would float away at almost any heat an oven could generate?

The terpenes we usually talk about have boiling points that are significantly higher then THC (limonene, myrcene, pinene are all > 300F).

I think this thread is kind of running out of gas (excessive volatilization? ) so I'm gonna drop off here. Good luck to all and happy decarbing!

And thank you so much for your persistent push to get things finalized in some way. Your scientific perspective is greatly appreciated.

I'll look over this material as soon as time permits and see if there's any way to summarize. It feels like we've hit the end of this discussion.

I stopped to ask if anyone has considered this device for decarbing.

It would easily hold a couple ounces.

It claims to have precise time and temperature control. At $100 it's significantly less expensive than the Nova.

 

[Derbybud]

And thank you so much for your persistent push to get things finalized in some way. Your scientific perspective is greatly appreciated.

I'll look over this material as soon as time permits and see if there's any way to summarize. It feels like we've hit the end of this discussion.

I stopped to ask if anyone has considered this device for decarbing.

It would easily hold a couple ounces.

It claims to have precise time and temperature control. At $100 it's significantly less expensive than the Nova.

And better yet my wife has one of these. .

 

[InTheShed]

And better yet my wife has one of these. .

Well then after your harvest we'll be waiting for the decarb review!

 

[Derbybud]

Well then after your harvest we'll be waiting for the decarb review!

So when that day comes do I have to dry it first before I would try to decarb in this thing or can I use fresh?

 

[Canyon]

Susan,
It could have too much air movement. Think, crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. It may be best to let Derby try a small batch first. I think the lack of air flow contributes to what the Nova is doing.

 

[SweetSue]

So when that day comes do I have to dry it first before I would try to decarb in this thing or can I use fresh?

What would be your purpose in decarbing fresh, may I ask? I turn my fresh into oil on the day of harvest, and that process both infuses and decarbs the oil.

I was thinking dried, but now you have me curious.

Susan,
It could have too much air movement. Think, crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. It may be best to let Derby try a small batch first. I think the lack of air flow contributes to what the Nova is doing.

Good point my friend. What if you had some sort of tighter screening to deflect the air, sort of what I do with the dehydrator when I'm drying buds? I use one of the sheets they give you for fine matter at the very top to slow the air down a bit more.

You may be right about the air movement. I haven't seen a Nova in action.

That reminds me, I have an update on drying practices to get posted on the low and slo thread. Let me get over there before I forget again.

 

[Bucudinkydow]

Sorry, didn't mean to call you a liar!

According to this document Homepage, they lost all terpenes when decarbed at 293º F for 30 minutes.

Very interesting article. Thanx for the link. Looks like we're beating our head against the wall here if we have expectations of preserving terpenes during a conventional open decarb.

 

[Kicknitup1]

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.

Ok. Grace under pressure. We have learned plenty. I can't get in to this tonight but I will. I promise.

Canyon, I have a new tcheck but I still don't trust it. That's still killing me. I am working with olive oil now because I think it's more accurate with the meter. I cannot recommend a buy just yet. Nova is still working, no problems. A lot of people had trouble with those early on.

 

[Skullman420]

So all methods provide more or less acceptable results so just use your favorite methods and use your own body to test.

That sounds like a conclusion to me unless someone buy me a lab

 

[Amy Gardner]

The discussion here has been really robust of late! Heaps of great perspectives. I agree on one level that I can make great music without knowing the theory of music (or at least knowing some rudimentary basics and running with it from there), one can even become highly accomplished. It's also true that knowing music theory makes to possible to do more with music more consciously - to manipulate it with a fuller understanding of what it is that's going on and creating the effects you're after. As it is for music composition (I liked it when that analogy came up, so I'm running wiht it) - I think similar goes on amongst all of us experimenting with oil making and those going further trying to get into the details of it. There's certainly a need for both and indeed the most successful oils are going to come from a synergy of instinct and knowledge. A desire to know about the process of decarbing and the possibilities of terpene retention and application exists in everyone who visits this thread (more than a few times I guess) otherwise we wouldn't be here. The work that's been done has been amazing to observe so far and I look forward to more of it. I'm very appreciative of people putting in so much tome effort and funds to keep it rolling.

Does the current state of affairs indicate that the endeavour is drawing to some kind of natural end? I really don't think so. Far from it. A great deal has been learned. We all benefit from that. True scientific discovery takes time, and patience. And support. Sometimes it moves fast, sometimes it seems not to move at all. It's also alchemy that's being developed here and that sometimes involves elements and processes that seem magical and therefore understanding the processes and reasons for "success" or "failure" is elusive. Practice, enquiry, artisanry, clinical observation, scientific testing and analysis, experimentation... this is not a finite process the people who started this thread are engaged in

All this talk recently about reintegration of terpenes specific to a particular plant got me thinking a lot. I could see the perceived potential medicinal benefit of wanting to go down this path, but it seemed odd and strangely disappointing to me. While I was mulling over the why's and wherefore's of that, I was thinking about how I can vape starting at a low temp and really taste different flavours etc. and then a memory came to me of a review that Doc Bud wrote - on this site - for the Herbalizer vaporiser. Trust me folks - this is going somewhere (I hope). One of the things he described being able to do wth it, which he said gave him the most incredible medical experience he might've imagined possible (or some words to that effect) was the ability to set the device for various temperatures and have it stay there. He used the bag and the assist function to fill the bag with vapour at lower temps, closed off the bag and raised the temp to burn off some stuff he didn't want (which in his example was the THC) and then raised the temp again and used another bag to collect the CBD/N. I may have the details a bit off but it's the principal I'm wanting. WOUld it be possible to use this approach to diffuse and capture different terpenes and cannabinoids into oil seperately at different temperatures and then recombine them. Maybe that's already been talked about and tried before...

Doc's review where he describes this is here.

...just a few of my 2 cents...

 

[Bucudinkydow]

Hello Amy,
This is the basic principle used in vacuum and steam distillation; the two prominent commercial reclamation methods for extracting terpenes. Replicating this operation with non lab quality equipment would be challenging if not impossible, especially in an attempt to isolate individual terpenes. I've lived long enough, however, that I've learned to never say never so I'm open minded to a new concept.

Quest for knowledge is my motivation for being here and I too am grateful to all the devoted participants here that have sacrificed time and money for the benefit of all. Not only have I learned from information posted here but it's also motivated me to delve into research on my own. Thanx.

 

[Kicknitup1]

What would be your purpose in decarbing fresh, may I ask? I turn my fresh into oil on the day of harvest, and that process both infuses and decarbs the oil.

I was thinking dried, but now you have me curious.



Good point my friend. What if you had some sort of tighter screening to deflect the air, sort of what I do with the dehydrator when I'm drying buds? I use one of the sheets they give you for fine matter at the very top to slow the air down a bit more.

You may be right about the air movement. I haven't seen a Nova in action.

That reminds me, I have an update on drying practices to get posted on the low and slo thread. Let me get over there before I forget again.

It may work even better if you put a jar inside of it for your bud. Then, you are using it as a heat source only, hopefully a controlled one.

On another note, the natives are getting restless. I will summarize my takeaway from my trip to Canyon's ASAP. Most are hung up on decarb, which is certainly step one. I will tell you what I know. There are a multitude of ways but not many are ideal. As I said, Im still working on extraction efficiency.

On that note, I must ask what is achieved from "running it twice" that would not be achieved by simply running it longer to start with??? What really, is the difference? Is there some benefit from "letting it rest" in between??? I have learned not to assume something cannot be true just because I don't understand it. However, in this case, I can't imagine what is going on that would make that a better method.

Furthermore, The real challenge is to find a way to better harvest the cannabinoids from the plant than simply soaking & stirring occasionally. More on that later.

 

[Kicknitup1]

So all methods provide more or less acceptable results so just use your favorite methods and use your own body to test.

That sounds like a conclusion to me unless someone buy me a lab

Well there are cost effective ways and there are expensive ways. That matters to me. I don't like wasting $15.00 out of every $100.00 by leaving that much behind. Yeah, you can get it back by baking the dreggs into brownies or whatever but It tastes like crap and if it can be avoided....

In the end, the body test is in order for sure like everything else. How many beers does it take for you to relax after work? Even if for only personal use, I want to know a #. How much thc does it take to make me feel "like I want to feel"? I want to be reasonably certain that I will "get there" every time, every batch. You can accomplish that without a lab using the information here along with a little upfront test dummy work to establish your individual baselines.

Of course, that's why I have tried to be supportive of tcheck's efforts. The concept they are using is sound, but much like the rest of this, it's elusive to nail it down. The device "sees" the thc just fine I think (as long as the LED is within specs), but the software that counts the results needs work. The coding may be more advanced than they anticipated. More than likely, it's a coding error that has not not been found that is messing up all the algorithms...or at least the ones in certain ranges. This has already been worked out with the larger lab equipment. I'm pretty sure they use the same technology. But nobody's talking.....sound familiar?