Ok, now I get it, thanks for being patient with my mild blindspot for innuendo. Lol.
Straight answer is that I don’t know if it is any better, but I think it’s highly unlikely that it’s worse, I just try to make the best product I can with the best information available. There are those that would suggest that REAL RSO is only made with hardware store naptha and processed in a rice cooker, I’m not one of them. Ole Rick can spin in his grave all he wants if he has problems with my operational parameters and solvent choices. In my early days, the oil shiners I worked with in the late 2000s used ethanol (quick and cold) when they could, and isopropyl if they couldn’t. In the early teens, when hydrocarbons began to be more widely used for extractions in the medical market here, RSO derived from BHO became more widely available. I think the modern versions of RSO available in the regulated market are vastly superior from a safety standpoint and quite possibly an efficacy standpoint compared to the past. Again, hard to prove the latter with the information currently available, but we most definitely are held to a higher standard for avoidance/elimination of KNOWN consumption risks than your average backyard oil shiner ever was, regardless of the solvent used.
Question is, which of the hundreds of compounds we can access via this plant is the poison required/desired?!?
I’d did have my favorite analytical chemist point out a highly sought after “anti-cancer” usually acquired from Chinese medicinal mushrooms in my “RSO” once upon a time…(days long room temp EtOH. Decarbed)
If I wasn’t such a fan of the halflings leaf I’m might remember what it was…
Edit: best I’ve got right now is to point you at me not remembering it last time either…although there may be useful information to be gleaned if you read the rest of both the linked threadsthreads…
IIRC there is a candidate compound that has been listed here at some point. Not the same critter I was pointed at. Possible the triple-quad signature is similar.
Possible Data Dump! (Scientific Papers) - #77 by cbdbulk has it listed or can point you in the right direction (as my weed enfeebled brain recalls the compound in question being an alkaloid)
@DrWHY420 despite the various issues with Rick’s original work and the updated ways in which FECO can be created, “RSO” still remains a viable product description to customers…much like sativa and indica at this point
@cyclopath I appreciate those links, thank you , I don’t remember seeing those threads before posting to this one…guess I need to level up my Future search skills
Aside from the potential effects of polars themselves, it’s also possible bioavailability is being altered for better (or worse) with them included.
Given the incredibly broad range of compounds found, im not sure you can glean an actual answer for any specific sample, but it’s something to consider.
Undoubtedly, there are many compounds both known and unknown that hold medicinal value. At the very least, these compounds can decrease the likelihood of certain cancers forming, and even fight existing cancerous cells. I would not be surprised if some these compounds were polar. Afterall, they recently found a polar cannabinoid from a hemp plant in Italy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229070182_A_Polar_Cannabinoid_from_Cannabis_Sativa_Var_Carma
RSO, or FECO, or whatever you want to call full spectrum crude extract, probably contains those compounds, along with a myriad of other compounds that are undesirable. Lets ignore terpene toxicology, along with ketone and benzene formations… Inhaling long chain fatty acids/lipids/waxes is a terrible idea. Someone will correct me to say RSO/FECO is an edible product… however there are plenty of users who will try to dab it, or mix it with flower… or some other creative solution with unintended consequences.
Hasn’t the time come for producers to start collaborating with researchers to determine which compounds should be extracted and which should be left behind? You can extract desirable polar compounds, and leave behind the junk… add back to non-polar extract. Yes, it’s a little extra work but who wants lipid pneumonia? Even if we extract all the “unknowns” and assume they are desirable, simply removing compound groups known to be harmful is the lowest hanging fruit.
well still have the iso2 machine from the 70’s.
your 3 solvents back then were iso 99%, acetone and
95% everclear. i used everclear. anyway is like a fancy
coffee percolator. solvent in bottom pan heated by a
100 watt light bulb. then a tray for pot in the pan. then
a cooling tower. solvent gets heated evap’s gets cooled
by tower. then drips thru pot tray drips thru back to bottom.
when done put collection tray in and reclaim your solvent.
long before rick and all that jazz. it makes a very dark pretty
nasty oil. i would rather eat BHO over it anyday.
@Bosin I agree and that is where my head is at. I certainly do not have the answer at the moment, but was hoping there may have been others exploring the role of polarity in overall bioavailability in addition to specific polar compounds
@Ganjineer710 thanks for the article pointing out the existence of a polar cannabinoid …just when I thought I received enough clarity to be confident in my BHO RSO you go and throw a curveball lol
To your final point, I think there are many producers (though I can only speak for myself) who would jump at the opportunity to collaborate and create formal research projects around product development but…
…luckily we have this Future community to lean on in the meantime
Bingo - honestly i’m surprised that decarbed cured rosin hasn’t taken over in this area since it’s just pretty much the same damn thing. Granted i’d like to see extensive analytics comparing a really nice sample of RSO vs. decarbed rosin from a nice batch of cured before I choose a nice cozy hill to die on but I feel like you nailed it.
To quote Dwight Schrute “Keep It Simple, Stupid - great advice! Hurts my feelings every time!”
@SubstituteCreature did you mean cured “resin” or was “rosin” your intention? I think cured rosin would make a great “RSO” especially as the number of solventless consumers grow…but we had been talking ethanol vs hydrocarbon, so just trying to clarify. And if you did intentionally mean rosin, would you still call it “RSO” or want to keep the “solventless/rosin” terminology intact?
Also very interested in hearing the group feedback on the quote below because I have wondered this myself…
I am going to fully decarb whatever version of RSO I make because that is what consumers are currently expecting, but I am very intrigued to know if there is more info on @moronnabis’s point.
Were Rick’s extracts fully decarbed or only partially?
Did anyone ever have his original extracts tested or was that not a practical option at the time?
Rick mentions evaporating solvent off at “above decarboxylation temperatures.” He also finishes it off on a coffee warmer and mentions “bubbles” but says it is from the remaining water, not solvent or decarb.
I would be stoked to find out that Rick actually ended up leaving some THCa/CBGa in the mix…I would still produce a fully decarbed version, but would also plan to release a partially decarbed option and use that as an platform to educate consumers.
I realize RSO is old news for this group, but the vast majority of regulated market consumers are still learning about it…so I appreciate the support, there really isn’t any other place to ask these questions!!
@CannaScienceGeek oh sorry - rosin really has some confusing terminologies, haha. What I meant was rosin made out hash that was washed from cured and dried flower. Usually rosin is super desirable only made from fresh frozen freeze dried but only when looking to hit dabs so it leaves a lot of material that isn’t commercially viable to be used for solventless RSO
, I don’t remember seeing those threads before posting to this one…guess I need to level up my Future search skills
…just when I thought I received enough clarity to be confident in my BHO RSO you go and throw a curveball lol
