Goodbye ice-water hash, hello dry ice kif? (Nope...)

Nice, thanks for the info and vids! Great addition to the thread.

Your dry ice kif is def green from plant tissue. It’s interesting when compred to the dry ice kif from the study, which looks like it’s nearly all trichomes:

(dry ice kif on the left, and traditional dry sift kif on the right)


I bet it has to do with the dry ice vapor exposure and trichome sifting method? The study exposed the fresh flower to dry ice vapor for 48 hours. Then the biomass was immediately transferred to a Pollinator located inside a 0’F freezer which ran for 20 minutes to collect the trichomes.

Can also introduce water which isn’t good outside bubble

Good point. Running dry ice kif through a freeze drier may be an essential step. I’ve never made rosin from ice water kif, but I imagine drying the ice water kif with a freeze dryer before pressing would be the best option to retain a maximum amount of terpenes (vs room drying).

What you read, it appears to me without taking time time to read it, was a study that the business made, so of course their results are going to be, at lest, cherry picked.
I think the grasshopper or other dry use hash company, claimed “up to 25-30% yield” but that’s not all hash, it’s plant material that was so brittle from the extreme cold that it crumbled into extremely small dust that made it through the screen, whether bubble bag or their overpriced trays etc, that’s what gives you a bigger yield, and smoking it sucks and squishing it sucks.
Just my opinion from a decade+ of hashing

4 Likes

Valid points.

The pic I shared and the study refer to dry ice kif as “Kryo-Kief,” I assume because Ethan Russo wants to get the name out there. That was a poor choice, and they should have used just “dry ice kief” throughout the study. To be fair, they did use “dry ice kief” nearly 50% of the time (16 uses of “dry ice kief” to 18 uses of “Kryo-Kief”).

The study’s authors didn’t use Ethan’s machine under patent application to make the kif. They used a rudimentary method (below) that anyone here can copy without spending more than $500 to sift around 150 grams of flower at a time. The majority of that cost is for a Pollinator or something similar that can operate inside a freezer. The Pollinator comes in larger sizes, like the 5000-gram Pollinator 5000, which could fit in a long chest freezer.

I plan to replicate the study methods and add a free-drying step before pressing to make rosin. I won’t do this for maybe six months. I will also make ice water hash from the same harvest batch to make rosin. I will get lab analysis and share those data here, along with pictures.

Here’s the experimental method:

In each trial, cannabis inflorescences were freshly harvested and quickly manicured by hand in order to remove stems and “sugar leaves” and to separate larger flowers into pieces. Starting weights were carefully measured. Half of the samples were dried and cured as per the above procedure, while the other half was treated by placement in a metal casserole dish on a bed of food grade dry ice pellets (Oxarc, Gresham, OR, USA, www.oxarc.com, accessed on 22 August 2021) within a polyethylene cooler (Gott 48 Quart/45.4 L) and a metal tray placed above with an additional bed of dry ice. The cooler’s drain plug was opened to allow full egress of CO2 and water vapor and allowed laminar flow of vapor over and through cannabis inflorescences in order to maximize penetration and lyophilization effects.

After dry ice vapor exposure (1 h vs. 48 h), the cannabis flower material was quickly reweighed and placed within the drum of a sieving cylinder device (150 g model Pollinator®, Pollinator Company, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, https://pollinator.nl, accessed on 22 August 2021). This contained a spinning cylindrical drum with 150 µ perforations to allow egress of the largest capitate glandular trichomes.

The Pollinator unit was placed inside a chest freezer (0 °F/−18 °C), and the drum spun at 33 revolutions per minute (RPM, 5 min. for pilot samples, 20 min for subsequent trials). After treatment, inflorescences were reweighed, and trichome material (Kryo-Kief™) were collected for analysis. Two Pollinator drums were employed and cleaned between used with brushing and ethanol treatment.

Side note: it’s pretty cool that the dry ice kif retained the trichome anthocyanin pigmentation.

1 Like

The parameters in the study included:

Dry ice vapor exposure for 1 hour + 5-minute sifting in the Pollinator within a freezer
Dry ice vapor exposure for 48 hours + 20-minute sifting in the Pollinator within a freezer

Their results show that longer dry ice vapor exposure time is crucial (1 hour vs. 48 hours) for the highest trichome purity with zero to minimal green plant matter. And 20-minute sift offered increased trichome collection vs. 5 minutes.

2. Results

2.1. Analysis of Treatment Pilot of Doug Fir Type I Chemovar

The amount of 100 g of fresh cannabis flower was processed for only one hour of dry ice vapor exposure and five minutes of Pollinator sifting treatment (vide infra, Methods, Section 4.9). Despite this, the Kryo-Kief™ dry ice process produced the highest cannabinoid yields, concentrating the total from 24.8 to 60.7% (Extraction ratio: 2.5×) and tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) from 24.1 to 57.7% (Extraction ratio: 2.4×) (Figure 1). For these calculations, the following equation was utilized.

Terpenoid analysis of this sample showed concentrations of the total from 2.62 to 6.81% (Extraction ratio: 2.6×) and limonene from 0.324 to 1% (Extraction ratio: 3.1×) (Figure 2).

Dry ice kief production from the shortened treatment was low, compounded by this first sample sticking to porous paper. Only 0.5 g was collected, representing 0.5% of original wet weight. The dried kief, in contrast, contained leaf fragments and other extraneous particulate material with a yield of 0.28% of original wet weight (Figure 3). For these calculations, the following equation was utilized.

2.2. Analysis of Treatment Pilot of Astral Works Type II Chemovar

Once more, 100 g of fresh flower was processed for only one hour of dry ice vapor exposure and five minutes of Pollinator treatment (vide infra, Methods, Section 4.9). In this trial, cannabinoid yields of dry ice kief were notably greater than for other samples, increasing the total from 11.8 to 36.7% (Extraction ratio: 3.1×), with THCA increasing from 4.51 to 13.6% (Extraction ratio: 3×) and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) from 7.26 to 20.4% (Extraction ratio: 2.8×) (Figure 4).

The terpenoid analysis demonstrates much higher yields for dry ice kief in total, from 1.59 to 4.22% (Extraction ratio: (2.7×)) and for each specific compound (Figure 5).

The Kryo-Kief™ yield was 0.1 g or 0.1% of original fresh wet weight (Figure 3c), compared to 0.08 g or 0.08% of wet weight for the dried kief (Figure 3d). Anthocyanin pigmentation, which is a desirable market trait, is maintained in dry ice kief.

2.3. Analysis of Treatment of Tangie Biscotti Type I Chemovar

This sample was run with 200 g of fresh flower with an extended 48 h of dry ice vapor exposure and 20 min of Pollinator treatment (Methods, Section 4.9). Once more, cannabinoid yields were the highest for dry ice kief, with the total increasing from 11.5 to 58.5% (Extraction ratio: 5.1×) and THCA from 11.5 to 56.3% (Extraction ratio: 4.9×) (Figure 6).

Terpenoid total increased from 1.38 to 2.87% (Extraction ratio: 2.1×), with most individual compounds highest in dry ice kief, notably linalool concentrating from 0.0495 to 0.299% (Extraction ratio: 6×) (Figure 7). The dry ice kief appears extremely clean and lighter with rare green flecks (Figure 3e), with a yield of 8.12 g or 4.06% of the original wet flower weight as compared to dried kief with many more particulates and yield of 1.68 g or only 0.84% of fresh weight (Figure 3f).

2.4. Analysis of Treatment of Ursa Major Type I Chemovar

This sample was also treated with dry ice vapor for an extended 48 h and 20 min of pollinator extraction. Cannabinoid total increased from 29.6 to 57.1% (Extraction ratio: 1.9×), with THCA from 27.2 to 53.9% (Extraction ratio: (2×)) and cannabigerolic acid (CBGA) from 1.83 to 3.14% (Extraction ratio: 1.7×) (Figure 8). Terpenoid total increased from 1.41 to 2.73% (Extraction ratio: 1.9×) and linalool from 0.248 to 0.444% (Extraction ratio: 1.8×) (Figure 9). The dry ice kief from this sample is notably cleaner with no green chlorophyll tinge (Figure 3g). A Kryo-Kief™ yield of 6.96% of original fresh weight was ultimately achieved with this chemovar than compared to 1.33% for dried kief (Figure 3h).

The current investigation has demonstrated a practical solventless method for concentrating phytocannabinoids and terpenoids as they appear in fresh inflorescences, thus providing less complex base materials for subsequent usage with the ability to maintain the acid cannabinoids or with the option to pursue subsequent decarboxylation to neutral cannabinoids. The degree of concentration of phytocannabinoids produced here is noteworthy in comparison to traditional sieving as reported in past research on hashish production with yield of 40% THC from the chemovar “Skunk #1” or a 50–55% THC putative upper limit yield with high-tech sieving [11]. Similarly, the achieved concentrations are similar to those realized in solvent extractions (vide infra).

The preservation of lower molecular weight monoterpenoids demonstrated is of particular interest in comparison to prior studies that document significant wastage with drying and curing [8]. Such findings have been corroborated in a more recent study in which fresh varieties expressed higher monoterpene content while dried samples demonstrated lower concentrations after a loss of the lower molecular weight compounds with lower boiling points [12]. While the differences between fresh and dried preparation terpenoid concentrations observed here are less prominent than in the study of Ross et al. [8], this can be attributed to the advanced drying technology regimen applied herein, employing low ambient temperature (vide infra, Methods Section 4.6).

A limitation of this study was that single trials and comparisons were carried out on each of the four chemovars without repetition in order to ensure reproducibility. It is certainly possible that different dry ice exposure times or sifting duration may produce optimized extraction results. Future studies with comparison procedure runs may yield additional data that increase the efficiency and yields of the current methods employed.

I believe that if they used the term dry ice kief, everyone would know what it was.
Look around, go to the weed growing sites and ask them.
A hair straightener and some parchment paper will make you pretty good fucking hash, quick as fuck, and way cheaper, with no dry ice to buy!
Not telling you not to do it, but look at @SpousalPainter8 pictures and posts, he’s a fucking hash and rosin beast! And he’s telling you the exact same thing!

1 Like

Regarding the post by @SpousalPainter8 his dry ice kif was completely green. But, on the other hand, the dry ice kif with the methods I posted from the study looked great, as good as any ice water kif I have seen. I think lower-quality starting material (green kif) skewed his results. I would bet that if he started with the same quality dry ice kif as the study produced, his rosin would be completely different than what he shared.

I’m not knocking him at all. I am super grateful he posted. But the process matters to the final result. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, I think. Although, I’m often wrong, lol.

3 Likes

(Sorry for posting agian, I can’t edit right for 4 more hours)

A hair straightener and some parchment paper will make you pretty good fucking hash, quick as fuck, and way cheaper, with no dry ice to buy!

My goal is to compare dry ice kif vs. ice water kif to make live rosin. Because it seems like ice water kif from fresh harvest makes the best rosin vs. pressing dried flowers, sugar leaves, or dry sift. And dry ice kif could make better live rosin than ice water kif.

It seems plausible that it’s cheaper to make dry ice kif at scale than ice water kif at scale. If so, I would reather use dry ice kif than ice water kif.

1 Like

I understand completely!
Best of luck

1 Like

Much love man :purple_heart: you’re kinder than I am myself.

I need to work on a new spot to wash really bad, can’t keep piggybacking off the homies but current space doesn’t allow.

1 Like

[quote=“_joe, post:43, topic:176237”]
and smoking it sucks and squishing it sucks.
Is it worth it for extraction

How is it for bho extraction?

I don’t know that it would make a difference to you, but my experience was that the Keif I made was done with a specific purpose of trying to find a way to make a lighter colored distillate. It turned out to be much worse for multiple reasons and a complete waste of time.

1 Like

That’s what dry ice hash does, there’s no way to prevent the dry ice from breaking up the plant material.

As I said before

A 10 second sift is still a 10 second sift, you’ll always get more heads at the start vs the longer you run it. dry ice just allows for the chance of water being introduced by the dry ice freezing the water in the air. No point when I could just bust out the old sifting screens and window pane.

If you want kief/hash for rosin then Bubble/ice water is the best method for bulk, dry sift for small scale.

If you want kief/hash for kief (to add to prerolls or moonrocks) then tumblers are the best for bulk (ln2/dry ice), dry ice for small scale

If you want kief/hash for melt then bubble and sift both can get you there. I’ve never seen anything close to melt grade from dry ice or a tumbler.

2 Likes

Lemme find the pics/vids of the same material ran as bubble after dude ran 15lbs of material to dry ice hash cuz “it’s easier”

2 Likes

It would also suck, I’m sure, never tried that
But it’s just sucky
It somehow steals terps, so there’s so much less meltiness as @SpousalPainter8 said
I can’t think of anything is is good for other than coating hemp prerolls with d8 on them, it’s that bad

1 Like

Thanks for your comments @SpousalPainter8. I can tell you have a ton of experience and make great products. So I value your input. I hope the points I’m trying to make don’t come across as rude, pompous, or too ignorant (lol). I’m just trying to see if there’s a better way to skin the cat. :peace_symbol:

That’s not what the study found, though. They made dry ice kif without any green; it looks great. It looks nothing like the dry ice kif you made, which was my point about the dry ice process being essential to the end product:

(dry ice kif on the left, dry sift kif on the right)

The study pre-treated flower with dry ice vapor for 48 hours, then placed that flower into the sifter (which was in the freezer) and ran the sifter for 20 minutes.

This thread’s crux: Can dry ice kif be done at scale as efficiently, yet cheaper, with the same or better quality as the Osprey ice water kif machine for live rosin. I doubt it because scaling up a suitable dry ice method seems complicated. But it would probably cost a lot less in initial and operational costs, and the quality could be better.

I agree quality could be an issue. When I replicate the study, I will also make a full melt bubble to compare. Until then, I will consider what you and @_joe wrote - thank you both for your comments!

2 Likes

I can see judging kief by color. But fwiw with bubble, I have made some very light and pale stuff by drying it in a freezer, when grated looks like great kief. But it is harsh to smoke. I much prefer room temp drying my bubble to a nice chocolate color.

2 Likes

Thanks, great comment!

Yup, I can only judge the photos in this thread by color without having personal experience with dry ice kif. And because no one has stated they made dry ice kif the purity of the pics from the study, I feel like it’s an unfair judgment on the quality and character of dry ice kif. Apples and oranges. The caveat is I could be 100% wrong, assuming far too much with unfounded leaps of logic.

I agree that drying dry ice or ice water kif in a freeze dryer before pressing for live rosin may be a poor choice. Like using a freeze drier to dry flowers for vaping/smoking is a poor choice. Room drying kif at 60-64’F is probably better for final quality and character, just like drying flowers.

The full melt flame test would sweet for dry ice kif: does it melt when next to heat? Yes? Great! No? Not so great, lol.

1 Like

What many of us are saying is that it doesn’t do good, yet PHOTOS from a salesman convince you otherwise
Many people that know how to make all the different kinds of hash choose to not do this, confessors, business people, stoners and hash snobs, cheapskates such as myself still wouldn’t rather do this
Do whatever you want, but please share the results

5 Likes

I think that’s an oversimplification and not fair to the researchers. They aren’t salesman. It’s a valid study that we could potently use to improve our craft. I am not yet convinced because no one has stated they make pure dry ice kif (without lots of green plant matter). It would be like someone saying live resin from beasters isn’t good, so any live resin is a waste of time. It’s all about the starting material.

If someone said, hey, Ralf, I make dry ice kif without any green plant matter, and I can tell you it’s no good, I would have left the rabbit hole.

I will share the results. Be they good or bad. Because we often learn more through failure than success. And I should know, because I fail a lot, lol :slight_smile: