That is absolutely consistent with an allelic series of promiscuous cannabinoid synthase enzymes. Some tuned more to a CBD endpoint, others to THC. Adjustable as environment dictates.
I’ve got a CBD strain that averages about 16% CBD in trimmed flower. CBD:THC ratio varies between 15:1 and 100:1.
Some of that variance is undoubtedly machine calibration, with the THC being near the limit of quantification. But I assume much of it is varying growth conditions.
Given that we don’t seem to have many independent sources for the CBD allele(s?) we’re using, it would be reasonable to surmise that much of the variation in CBD:THC ratios has to do with other genetic modifiers. eg genes that affect cellular pH.
I don’t believe this is the patent you were referring to, but it does claim pH as a modifier of cannabinoid ratio.
And then there is an excerpt from DJ Potters PhD thesis suggesting that temperature can affect the ratio. I suspect that it’s more about lowering the off target production of THC by the CBD allele than competition between two synthases
“…where these clones were grown in a growth room in identical conditions apart from contrasting growth temperature of 15ºC and 25ºC, the cooler temperature significantly increased the proportion of CBD within the cannabinoid profile. A possible explanation is that in cooler conditions the CBD synthase within these plants is able to compete more favorably than THC synthase for the common precursor CBGA. No previous reports could be found describing this temperature effect.”
Yes I realize it is a legal construct. When I say the industry uses “hemp” i was implying that the THC content of the “hemp” or material is below 0.3% as you also mentioned in your previous post. The non-cannabinoids are a much bigger issue for CBD crystallization so genetics again only takes you so far.
Meh…we agree that genetics is necessary, and also that it is not sufficient.
Try crystallizing CBD on an industrial scale from a plant with no CBD synthase. Or from engineered yeast that makes CBD, but doesn’t have the genetics to make most of the other secondary metabolites you’re trying to remove. One of those will be considerably easier to achieve. Both are conceptually possible based on published data.
I said “If it makes less than 0.3% THC, many states will call it hemp and make your life easier.” which is not the same as me calling low THC cannabis “hemp”.
“Hemp” vs “Cannabis” a bullshit dichotomy, and IMO that needs stating repeatedly if we are to move forward.
If we must split, I prefer the model where Cannabis means grown for cannabinoids & Hemp means grown for fiber…and maybe jet fighters if @Shadownaught has their way
which you agree can ONLY be achieved with the right genetics…
And if we’re honest here, the majority high CBD cultivars being used to produce isolate these days only test below 0.3% THC when harvested early and the leaves and stems are included in the test.
The strain I’m using qualifies as “hemp” in Oregon, based on testing below 0.3% THC at six weeks, but I guarantee it’s running more than double that when we actually harvest at 7 or 8 weeks.
you consider it semantics, I see it as a legal quagmire that needs fixed.
ive heard cbd is much more stable than thc so u can force degrade thc without hurting cbd as much but im more curious what people think of this then think its a better option the just starting with good genetics. ForcedDegredationOfThc.pdf (736.7 KB)
without reading it? I’d rather figure out how to to isomerize to CBD.
using THCA synthase and the correct pH seems like a way more intelligent response.
but that is assuming you can’t sell it for more as THC. in which case I believe you’d suggest CXE and differential crystallization.
After reading it? Meh. makes me more concerned about the mystery peaks/last few % in distillate. and points to where cannabinoids are going once they’re rescheduled. aka: it’s now a real drug, and you’re playing with big pharma…
Maybe I’m missing something…
Is significant THC being incorporated into CBD crystals?
I thought the whole point of CBD isolate was that this shit crystallizes and literally purifies itself if you give it the right conditions.
sorry maybe I’m misunderstanding something here, but is there a solution to preventing the cbd isolate from CRYSTALIZING in the vape cart I’m currently using true terps in an ugo-v and it’s starts to crystallize once being used .
From personal experience CBD typically crystallizes on its own when the extract potency starts to creep up above 50-60% CBD with THC remaining in the 5-15% range. Based on the amount of time I’ve spent on this subject, the only way to prevent this from happening (aside from increasing solvent concentration and other things that you don’t really want to do if your goal is consumption) is the reduce the delta between THC and CBD. What is your typical cannabinoid profile looking like??
I’m working with 99.7% cbd isolate lab tested and all I’ve just never experienced this even in doing more terps with less cbd maybe it’s this batch? It turns into an oil no problem and blends well when heated it just started to crystallize when I take pulls on the vape
Yea correct it doesn’t crystallize until I take a pull from the vape how can no prevent that. I’m trying to avoid using PG and VG any organic replacements perhaps? I am only using terps and cbd right now
Yeah I would guess it’s going to take the addition of some THC or a reduction in potency via dilution of some sort if you want to prevent that precipitation from happening. I would also assume that if terps aren’t enough it’s going to be tough finding something to make the cut ( no pun ) that isnt going to be detrimental to health.
Like I said before, when it comes to CBD it’s almost always a matter of elevated potency/purity when it comes to the formation of crystals within a CBD dom. extract. Do the crystals seem to form ONLY after you heat/draw on the cart, or have you observed the same formation over an extended period of time without any other factors?
