Decarboxylated BHO--can it really enhance THC & CBN?

I came across a 2008 patent for extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials that described a decarboxylation process they claim to convert 95% of the acid cannabinoids from the acid form to their neutral form--while limiting thermal degradation of THC to CBN to be less than 10%.

So...since I had a batch of lemons and in an attempt to make lemonade, I decarboxylated around 1/2 pound of mediocre bud and made BHO (using the same technique which I have done hundreds of times). Now, about a week and half ago, I blew the same flowers without decarboxylating and when comparing the 2 batches...wow, night and day. The decarboxylated batch is super clean and more potent, very analgesic--and remained viscous oily-tar like (did not stabilize, budder or become semi-solid...which is my normal BHO technique). The earlier non-decarboxylated batch is less intensive, nominal body effect--more stoney, less analgesic.

The specific method I used:

1. 55 grams of flowers were placed in 1/2 gallon Ball- Mason canning jars--(which are designed to withstand 280 plus degrees).
2. Digital thermometer probe placed inside jar but not touching glass.
3. Pre-heat oven to 240 degrees
4. First heating (to dry all material)...I waited until the thermometer registered 220 degrees and reduced the oven to 220 degreds (it took about 45 minutes) and continued to "cook" for 15 minutes, and peaked at 224 degrees.
5. Second heating (to convert acids to neutral form)...I covered the jar (phew, no more aromatics) and continued at 220 degrees for 90 minutes....for flowers high in CBN, the patent suggests 240 degrees at 60 minutes.
6. Cooled for 1 hour...net weight was 45 grams.
7. Hand pulverized the bud as I loaded the tubes and made BHO as usual.

Results...100% increase in "body high"...and enhanced stoney effect...increased THC with massive parts of CBN?

A couple of points to ponder as well, I normally "cure" my trim, flower and shake before blowing, usually about 30-45 days. For the batch that I decarboxylated, the plant was harvested Feb 1, trimmed Feb 8, and on Feb 13, I decarboxylated and blew the herb.

The link to the patent I referenced...and I make special attention to Tables 3-5 (results at different times and temperatures); for optimum conditions--see column #14, line 35.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7344736.pdf

The BHO yield went from a low trich yield of 14% to 19%--and the flower (when ripped) is smooth, white ash, with a slight toasty taste; remember...the decarboxylated BHO was from a plant that was basking under HPS about 2 weeks ago.

Is it possible that I can go from harvest to market in 21 days with BHO that is more potent?

Is BHO that can be BOTH smoked and ingested--really be more analgesic?

Has anyone else tried decarboxylating before blowing?

Anyone see any harm/problems/issues if I continue decarboxylating flowers prior to blowing?

Cheers!

fun article, i believe it's been discussed a few times before in the past

my thoughts:


i think decarboxylation does create a more analgesic, less psychoactive product.

-however, the process of short-term decarboxylation (heat) often reduces/destroys the flavor/odor of the flower.

when dealing with trim/low quality flowers the decarboxylation process can indeed result in a more potent final product as the flavor/odor probably wasn't too great to begin with.

for the patent, they were not creating something recreational, it was a medicine so the flavor/odor really is not an issue.

common example of decarboxylated BHO: the reclaim buildup. sometimes i prefer to vape this when i'm trying to smoke for insomnia as typical BHO can make me more awake. also, when purging if you overheat the oil, you can witness decarboxylation occur as small CO2 bubbles form seemingly out of no where and very quickly. once you witness this the oil no longer solidifies and will stay tar like, much like you described

i'm not a farmer so unfortunately i havent tested this hypothesis: but i think fresh material may result in better flavors as some of the delicate flavors have not dried away. a good freezing of the material prior should solidify the water content as to not hinder the butane.

i think you're fine decarboxylating before extracting, but i'm not sure you'd want to do it with higher grade material where it would be desirable to try to retain the odor/flavor of the starting material


some other things to think about:

i think the oil decarboxylates during the process of smoking/vaping. so while typical BHO would be THCA-->THC-->(receptors) what you experience with decarboxylated BHO is THC-->CBN-->(receptors)

DR...thanks for your thoughts. It seems most of the discussions I found regarding decarboxylation and BHO centered on the how tos and why...nothing with side by side comparisons.

I kinda agree with you about high quality flowers (my norm)--but it got me wondering, if the body high was more intense and immediate with mediocre flowers--what affect could high grade flowers produce? I would love to have the CBN level of my meds to mirror the THC percentages.

from a medicinal standpoint it is definitely worth a try, i would think decarboxylated high grade flower, while may not have the optimum taste, would be wonderfully potent analgesic

as a user who absolutely loves the flavors of oil i cringe at baking premium flowers but if the final goal is pain relief by all means do try!

i think gray wolf could chime in with much deeper detail

I'm not an expert in BHO, nor decarb,

but by using it you will evaporate/destroy the numerous terpens and flavonoids in the herb that normally work in symbiosis with THC to create the high, and they have also very powerfull medical properties.

It seems to me that decarboxylated THC, when ingested, create more of an intense body stone as well as very intense brain storm, while fresh oil would more likely result in a mild trippy high with way less body stone, but very very efficient in term of medicinal pain killer for example. But that's my experience, from I would say 10 to 15 batches of Oil edibles.

dope_roor said:

fun article, i believe it's been discussed a few times before in the past

my thoughts:


i think decarboxylation does create a more analgesic, less psychoactive product.

-however, the process of short-term decarboxylation (heat) often reduces/destroys the flavor/odor of the flower.

when dealing with trim/low quality flowers the decarboxylation process can indeed result in a more potent final product as the flavor/odor probably wasn't too great to begin with.

for the patent, they were not creating something recreational, it was a medicine so the flavor/odor really is not an issue.

common example of decarboxylated BHO: the reclaim buildup. sometimes i prefer to vape this when i'm trying to smoke for insomnia as typical BHO can make me more awake. also, when purging if you overheat the oil, you can witness decarboxylation occur as small CO2 bubbles form seemingly out of no where and very quickly. once you witness this the oil no longer solidifies and will stay tar like, much like you described

i'm not a farmer so unfortunately i havent tested this hypothesis: but i think fresh material may result in better flavors as some of the delicate flavors have not dried away. a good freezing of the material prior should solidify the water content as to not hinder the butane.

i think you're fine decarboxylating before extracting, but i'm not sure you'd want to do it with higher grade material where it would be desirable to try to retain the odor/flavor of the starting material. Some other things to think about:

Click to expand...

Good summary bro! Looks like you covered the keen points as I view them..........

Cogent points, if I might expand on them:

1. The cannabinoids and turpenoids are all aromatics. To be aromatic means that they are giving off molecules at room temperature, regardless of their vaporization or boiling points. That is why they smell so strong!

2. Heat does speed up decarboxylation and there are specific graphs showing the different curves. In a nut shell, higher heat (to a point) decarboxylates faster and results in a higher THC content than lower heat and less time.

Check out the attached graph gifted to us by Jump 117:

3. I personally do not decarboxylate the material before extraction, because that process also affects taste and gives it a roasted nutty flavor.

I do it afterwards, when there are less competing flavors to deal with.

4. Material that is extracted and used without decarboxylation, is much more solid than the slumpy, oily, resin that is left after decarboxylation.

5. Material that hasn't been decarboxylated will also typically produce higher THC indicators than decarboxylated, which will have more CBN, which acts as a sedative that is couch locking.

6. When taken orally, decarboxylated oil typically takes 30 minutes to an hour to come to full effect, but produces more of a body effect, than smoking or vaporizing. There may be no head effect, or it may be minimal.

7. Most of skunk pharm's oil is used orally, so we typically do routinely decarboxylate.

Not decarboxylating is more of an exception, and one that we use for specific applications pursuing best taste, as well as more head effect.

8. As noted, non decarboxylated material retains more of the natural turpenoids and is indeed more flavorful.

9. Quick wash alcohol extractions typically remove and preserve more of the turpenoid flavors than butane extraction, because alcohol is highly polar and butane is minimally so.

An alcohol extraction will taste more floral and a butane extraction more hashy.

10. However, and this is an important, keenly cogent point, butane extractions from fresh frozen material are the most flavorful and aromatic that I have ever been able to extract, period, end of discussion.

While ostensibly, the fresh frozen alcohol extraction would hold that honor, fresh frozen ethanol extractions are remarkably bland, though I have yet to try it with Iso and Methanol.

11. Soooooooooooooo, in answer to your question, do decarboxylate if you are taking it orally and eschew it if smoking and wish the maximum head effect.

Use fresh frozen material and use butane extraction if you are seeking the very best flavor and head effect.

Hee, hee, hee, snicker, snark, snort! It is all good, when taken in proper perspective! Ahwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello, colleagues.

Besides the possibility of obtaining edible treats, decarboxylation provides more complete extraction.

After each act of butane or ethanol extraction, some part of the glands remains intact, in any case, so they look under a microscope.

I watched them after using a tubular flow extractor and LP thermos, varying the amount of gas and the extraction time.

After experiments and observations, I concluded that after removal of the premium quality,

the residual resin is most effectively removed after decarboxylation of raw materials.

For smoking this product is tasteless and boring, but it is ready to be fused with chocolate, and cake really empty.

THC has a better solubility compared with THCA.

jump117 said:

...the residual resin is most effectively removed after decarboxylation of raw materials. ...

Click to expand...

Thanks Jump for confirming my suspicion...I think the increased effectiveness (converting mediocre meds to great analgesic meds) is probably due to the conversion (via heat) of THCA/CBDA to THC/CBN....not due to time.

If you have not done so already, would you take a moment and review the patent--particularly the discussions that support their Tables 3-5. What I found interesting is the time/temperature difference for cannabis high in THC or CBN. For high THC it is longer time with lower temps---whereas for CBN it is less time at higher temps.

Interesting indeed--especially if you can combine 2 different plants, one high in THC & one high in CBN. Nice cocktail.

CBD/THC balance

CBD/THC balance

Thanks EclipseFour20 for the very interesting information!

I've seen some of these tables earlier from G.O.Joe links, but did not know where they are from.

Do I understand correctly that the balance of the CBD/THC growing by ~20% during the year,

varies with time due to different rates of degradation?


I've been doing experiments on the treatment with activated carbon to butane and ethanol extracts,

the fact that the color has improved, but the question of the losses good resin remained open,

I did not weigh the samples before and after their interaction with coal.

Here is some information provided on this forum on another thread. Credit to the creator, whom I didn't record.




?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
Boiling point: 157*C / 314.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Euphoriant, Analgesic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antiemetic

cannabidiol (CBD)
Boiling point: 160-180*C / 320-356 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Anxiolytic, Analgesic, Antipsychotic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antispasmodic

Cannabinol (CBN)
Boiling point: 185*C / 365 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Oxidation, breakdown, product, Sedative, Antibiotic

cannabichromene (CBC)
Boiling point: 220*C / 428 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal

cannabigerol (CBG)
Boiling point: MP52
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal

?-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (?-8-THC)
Boiling point: 175-178*C / 347-352.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Resembles ?-9-THC, Less psychoactive, More stable Antiemetic

tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV)
Boiling point: < 220*C / <428 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Analgesic, Euphoriant



Terpenoid essential oils, their boiling points, and properties


ß-myrcene
Boiling point: 166-168*C / 330.8-334.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Analgesic. Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antimutagenic

ß-caryophyllene
Boiling point: 119*C / 246.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Cytoprotective (gastric mucosa), Antimalarial

d-limonene
Boiling point: 177*C / 350.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Cannabinoid agonist?, Immune potentiator, Antidepressant, Antimutagenic

linalool
Boiling point: 198*C / 388.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Sedative, Antidepressant, Anxiolytic, Immune potentiator

pulegone
Boiling point: 224*C / 435.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Memory booster?, AChE inhibitor, Sedative, Antipyretic

1,8-cineole (eucalyptol)
Boiling point: 176*C / 348.8 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: AChE inhibitor, Increases cerebral, blood flow, Stimulant, Antibiotic, Antiviral, Antiinflammatory, Antinociceptive

a-pinene
Boiling point: 156*C / 312.8 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Bronchodilator, Stimulant, Antibiotic, Antineoplastic, AChE inhibitor

a-terpineol
Boiling point: 217-218*C / 422.6-424.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Sedative, Antibiotic, AChE inhibitor, Antioxidant, Antimalarial

terpineol-4-ol
Boiling point: 209*C / 408.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: AChE inhibitor. Antibiotic

p-cymene
Boiling point: 177*C / 350.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antibiotic, Anticandidal, AChE inhibitor



Flavonoid and phytosterol components, their boiling points, and properties


apigenin
Boiling point: 178*C / 352.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Anxiolytic, Antiinflammatory, Estrogenic

quercetin
Boiling point: 250*C / 482 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antioxidant, Antimutagenic, Antiviral, Antineoplastic

cannflavin A
Boiling point: 182*C / 359.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: COX inhibitor, LO inhibitor

ß-sitosterol
Boiling point: 134*C / 273.2 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, 5-a-reductase, inhibitor

jump117 said:

...Do I understand correctly that the balance of the CBD/THC growing by ~20% during the year, varies with time due to different rates of degradation?...

Click to expand...

No problem Jump. I think you are referring to Table 12...yeah, purified (stabilized) appears to have increased 20% during the course of 12 months. I would love to review the underlying data, but it appears they run 4kg of dry material for their batches, so I probably will not challenge their conclusions too aggressively--after all they claim 95% efficiency.

BTW..when you filtered your runs with activated charcoal--do you recall how it affected the flavors, taste and aroma? My experience is color and aroma go hand-in-hand; lose one and the other goes away. I am speculating the taste and aromas probably improved...since the color improved.

Hey Grey...those boiling points are important, I think that info came from a study or report of some sort. I recall seeing that little gem while doing some research a few years ago. Interesting that everything is over boiling point for water.

EclipseFour20 said:

I think you are referring to Table 12.

Click to expand...

Not so deep, its 18 pages to read! I just did the arithmetic conclusion of the first two tables

from figure 1: Loss of THC at 40C 100% -> 12 mnth-> 75%,
from figure 2: Loss of CBD at 40C 100% -> 12 mnth-> 90%,

ratio CBD/THC 100/100= 1.0 -> 12 mnth-> 90/75= 1.2, i.e.+20%

EclipseFour20 said:

when you filtered your runs with activated charcoal--do you recall how it affected the flavors, taste and aroma?
My experience is color and aroma go hand-in-hand; lose one and the other goes away.
I am speculating the taste and aromas probably improved...since the color improved.

Click to expand...

It was illustrated by colleague GrassMan in thread Have you said BHO!!! (click)

My experience with BHO and activated charcoal was aimed at improving the consistency,
I can not make judgments about the smell.
That time BHO from Mazar appeared light yellow and sticky, and I wanted to get a solid amber.
Charcoal didn't help, see visible fragments of coal dust in the worm in vial,
consistency improved after re-extraction with ethanol and filtration waxes .

Ahhh...Jump, table 18 did the math for you. So far...doing side by side tests is the best I can do with my limited resources/knowledge. But so far, the indicators are there is a way to enhance mediocre cannabis (something I do not normally do not grow).

Regarding charcoal--although it did not help you get "solid amber", I would speculate that batch you processed was rather stable and had very, very, very little degradation.

Ahh...the journey for perfection.
Cheers!

Maybe the increase in effect is due to a lower amount of terpenes and a higher amount of THC by volume, the terpenes volatilizing some on heating. It is well known in the patent (there are others) and analytical chemistry lit. that decarboxylation increases extraction yield of cannabinoids with nonpolar solvents. It is never illustrated for butane because they don't do butane extractions. I've mentioned this before but I guess no one is willing to take the word of science, or everyone wants solid BHO.

I've also pointed out that the boiling point of the cannabinoids and maybe more as given by GW is under vacuum. Vacuum is not mentioned, but in chemistry literature the pressure is ALWAYS given when not atmospheric ~760 mm. You need a bp at atmospheric pressure when comparing with boiling points at atmospheric pressure, and there isn't one for THC, because it degrades. It is not that volatile especially when compared to the simpler terpenes.

Any usefulness of terpenes in general remains to be scientifically proven, so heat away IMHO. I have personally found terpene-free extract no different than the buds they came from.

Wash your charcoal first with your solvent, for less powdery residue.

A little graph shows how the composition (in a vial under nitrogen) changes after 15 minutes at different decarboxylation temperatures. It's a stacked chromatogram; four graphs are condensed to one. The peak heights directly correspond to the amounts present.

Decarboxylating something you will smoke is counterproductive.

Joe...thanks for your input, yep terpenes/terpenoids have a very low boiling point. Next batch I will see what happens with lower temperature and longer time. Just harvested 6 more plants of the same mediocre strain (Skywalker these are not), so I should have more than a pound to play with.

Mountain said:

Decarboxylating something you will smoke is counterproductive.

Click to expand...

What is counterproductive about taking mediocre flower from harvest to market in 21 days?

You see, I harvested the same strain last month--so I had both flower and BHO from decarboxylated and "un-decarboxylated". My opinions are as result of sampling both flower and BHO of the same strain produced identically in every way--save the decarboxylation....and it is hard to refute the science.

So before this exercise--I had mediocre flowers (which went through 3-4 weeks of jar curing) and BHO (from trim that also cured for 4 weeks). After this exercise--I have jacked up flowers (1 day cure) and BHO that is almost twice as potent...which I can now either smoke or ingest.

As to decarboxylate high grade....hmmm, I am with you on that one--kinda like making mimosas with Dom Perignon.

Hey EclipseFour20, dope_roor, Gray Wolf, G.O. Joe, I believe that the information content of this branch need to award five stars.
---------
I also think it would be useful to connect this discussion with an interesting branch
Decarboxylation https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=171106
They are very close and wonderful complement each other, what do you think?

jump117 said:

Hey EclipseFour20, dope_roor, Gray Wolf, G.O. Joe, I believe that the information content of this branch need to award five stars.
---------
I also think it would be useful to connect this discussion with an interesting branch
Decarboxylation https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=171106
They are very close and wonderful complement each other, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Hey...my bad, had I known about that thread I would have made my original post there. You bet, great idea to merge the two together (if they can do that). Different goals--but same journey.

BTW...going to decarboxylate another 250 grams this evening...going to try to keep the temps at the low range and use the time suggested in the patent. I will post results and pics (sorry the first 2 batches of concentrate has already been distributed by the collective). Also, going to try out the teflon bag liner while purging tomorrow--still working on the charcoal filter so I will save that for the next time.

Very interesting reading! It was nice meeting you the other day at the collective Eclipse! It's always nice having these types of discussions!

update

update

Hey Vapeman...don't know which batch you tested (been at a few sampling sessions)--but hopefully you tried the 2nd batch, as the first batch seemed rather "heavy" with esters of oak.

The second run was 240 grams and in Mason Jars (1/2 gallon size) with each holding 60 grams of mediocre flower (no leaf or trim) and decarboxylated (cooked) for 2 hours at 220 degrees (slow and low).

The results were a darker toasted bud that seemed to me slightly much more potent when smoked--with emphasis on the body high and no different in the head high.

The flowers were crumbled into tubes and lightly tamped--with about 30 grams per tube. While cleaning the tubes, I noticed that the vegetable material had compacted to the lower 2/3 and was much harder to remove. (The prior batch had only compacted to the lower 3/4--with only 28 grams per tube). I normally use 1 can of 300 ml butane (5x filtered) for each tube and there was no real change in the yield percentage for a total of 38.5 grams of very viscous dark amber colored (not green) oil.

Now...the objective is to "thicken" this decarboxylated oil--as the collective prefers something that is more solid and less runny. Normally, I "temper" my BHO to harden up a bit like taffy--but not this batch. I even tried whipping air (budder) but to no avail.

I tried rendering a small sample last night with vodka to see if grain alcohol would do anything...it did seem to be a bit more thicker but not by much. I will test the heat-freeze-heat-freeze-heat-freeze trick--as well as the adding some kief to the oil, and then try Jump's ethanol treatment.

This decarboxylated oil is a little different to work with--so if anyone has an idea with a method or technique to thicken the consistency...your input is welcomed.

Cheers!