Where is CBD produced?

[KiefSweat]

i believe most where done on a gc. A majority of that data comes from the dispensary's in Cali, so I would imagine they where tested by places like steep hill and the wercshop. Its also upwards to a year old, but it seems more akin to the clone market too then seeds.

 

[KiefSweat]

Thanks everyone for contributing, this thread had a lot of great info, and I am glad to have broached the subject.

I would assume, based on my limited knowledge of chemistry, that since each cannabinoid has it's own properties, there would be a way to separate them and get pure THC, CBD, etc, even if perhaps we don't know how just yet.

I find it interesting that while many people attribute effects based on mg dosages, it would be less effective than using specific strains because of the entourage effect of cannabinoids and terpenes. It seems to me that there is no better medicine than whole plant cannabis in this respect.

When extracted i do believe a few of the cannabinoids are crystalline substances. While as a raw botanical cannabis is great, its has too many chemicals to purify it efficiently as is.

 

[stickey fingers]

my 3 cents

my 3 cents

I dont think I have ever smoked or seen a stain that does not contain cbd. If any one knows of a strain that does not have CBD please post it here...

Nevals haze ? Trainwreck ?

OP< i think there are key points on the topic of CBD
1)it's my belief, CBD has mostly to do with gentics(pre98BK,NORCAL PK)
2) in my years of growing, its my beief when it comes to
harvest time, by letting you're plants go full term, properly
harvested and cured #s go up (CBD)
my perfect example is Trainwreck, if grown right and picked
early, the THC is so high and potent that ive had many peeps
tell me they thought the shit was laced cause they were trip'n,
letting Trainwreck go full term, brings CBD high a deeper
inner high (couch lock)

i use gentic background profile (cbd,thc%) ratio to understand
the effects of cannabis on me, it just works for me, we all
have different goals and objectives, what works for me may not
work for you
GOOD LUCK

 

[dddaver]

VERY interesting thread. Good on ya OP. But I'm confused about so much conflicting and contradictory info. such as saying some strains have no CBD (impossible) but later same guy talking about how much % in each strain. Doh! Then a chart was posted showing percentages on CBD, THC, but then has cannabinoids as 0% for the strain. That's impossible too. THC and CBDs are cannibinoids, aren't they? Just because there's a chart doesn't mean it's valid or right.

My question is about terpenes. Are they primarily responsible for the strong aroma that the cannabis plant emits? I have a kush x BB almost finished that even as a small dudette was really stinky. The fan leaves I've smoked have a very sedating, sleepy affect on me. I'm thinking the terpenes in the leaves are primarily responsible for that affect too, besides being so stinky. Amirite?

 

[BagseedSamurai]

To me, I always envisioned CBD as a "green" chemical. By this I mean the type that grows in inside the plant cell itself. THC/A being what is produced inside the trichomes.

 

[mofeta]

CBN does nor seem to be a breakdown product of THC nor CBD, as historically reported (and repeated ad nauseum). Testing of uniform samples over a period of a year show no increase in CBN's, in fact they decrease proportionally with THC and CBD.

Details/methodology?

 

[Hammerhead]

The longer you let the plant mature the THC turns amber does that increase the amount of CBN? I think it does. The older cannabis gets the more THC breaks down into CBN. CBN is the primary product of THC degradation, and there is usually little of it in a fresh plant. CBN content increases as THC degrades in storage, and with exposure to light and air. People that are doing long cures are decreasing THC and increasing CBN.. It is only mildly psychoactive

N. Haze ,T.Wrek contain CBD. Get a sample of the leaves and send it in it will be there..

 

[skanky]

The longer you let the plant mature the THC turns amber does that increase the amount of CBN? I think it does. The older cannabis gets the more THC breaksdown into CBN. N. Haze ,T.Wrek contain CBD. Get a sample of the leaves and send it in it will be there..

What the other poster is saying is that THC does not break down in CBN as previously thought. CBN is co-created with THC in the Trichome head and breaks down over time like THC. Chimera also stated that CBD is created in the trichome head as well. I think the reason you get a different high when the Trichomes turn amber is that the terpenes change.

 

[Hammerhead]

Where are the papers that indicate THC does not breakdown into CBN?? I have read many they all agree that THC breaks down into CBN..I just finished reading a few... As I stated there is no CBN in fresh cannabis or very small amounts. As the cannabis ages the THC breaks down into CBN...

Im not talking about CBD here..... CBD is not psychoactive....CBN is mildly Psychoactive..


Cannabinol (CBN) is the primary product of THC degradation, and there is usually little of it in a fresh plant. CBN content increases as THC degrades in storage, and with exposure to light and air. It is only mildly psychoactive. Its affinity to the CB2 receptor is higher than for the CB1 receptor.[

 

[KiefSweat]

some more modern tests would be nice

but whats the length of time for the plant to go from thc-a in fresh material to decarboxilated thc then to degrade into cbn (if thats the last step) ?

 

[KiefSweat]

http://www.lycaeum.org/leda/docs/16647.shtml?ID=16647

Figure 3. Average percentage rate of change of cannabinoids (CBD, Δ 9 -THC and CBN) in cannabis sample-extract.
Full size image: 19 kB, Figure 3. Average percentage rate of change of cannabinoids (CBD, Δ 9-THC and CBN) in cannabis sample-extract.

During two years' storage of cannabis samples (charas) under tropical conditions in Delhi, the nominal CBD values showed an increase from 1 to 2.5 times the original values determined in 1974 (table 1). Analysis of data presented in table 3 for CBD content of charas samples indicated an annual average increase ranging from 26.8 to 53.2 per cent in respect of samples obtained from 1969 to 1974. However, this increase varied only from 1.8 per cent to 5.8 per cent in the case of all sample extracts which were made in 1974. CBD is known to be stable in crude samples when stored in the dark (5) although increase in this case could also result from conversion of CBD acid to CBD (7 and 8). In the step-wise extraction process adopted the acids were eliminated in the final methanolic solution, resulting in no appreciable increase in cannabidiol in sample extracts on storage. This point of view is also supported by the values obtained for THC and CBN, discussed subsequently.

Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol content in cannabis samples as well as in sample extracts shows a decrease with time, as is to be expected (table 1). In this discussion, the samples having very low initial content (less than 0.1 per cent) have not been taken into account for obvious reasons. Table 3 shows the average annual rate of loss of THC for cannabis samples, expressed in percentages, and the sample extracts of 1974. These are not absolute values but indicate that rate of loss is inversely proportional to age of the sample. Fresh samples with high THC content lost their THC content to almost one-fourth the original in two years. The annual percentage rate of loss declined from 46.8 to virtually nil for the samples collected in 1969 and analysed at the end of 1974 and 1976 (see table 1). The THC rate of loss of about 50 per cent per year at 37 °C has also been observed by Turner and others (6). The percentage rate of loss was not uniform in all the samples, even though obtained during the same year. This could not be helped in random samples of unknown origin and purity.

The decrease in THC content for the sample extracts (1969 to 1972) collection was less than 30 per cent (table 3). But in the case of 1973 and 1974 sample extracts the annual rate of decrease in THC content was 40-50 per cent. This is the same as in the case of cannabis samples themselves. One of the pure THC samples (95.0 per cent pure in 1970): was received in 1972 from Geneva and kept under normal conditions of storage at Delhi in the dark for two years. In 1974, the THC content of this sample was found to be 8.24 per cent only. This value declined to 1.47 per cent in 1976. There is a 41.1 per cent annual rate of change of THC. There was a fall of 36.4 per cent in annual rate of change of THC when this sample was kept in a methanol solution in the dark from 1974 to 1976, confirming that rapid loss of THC occurs on prolonged storage in liquid form, even in the dark.
Cannabinol is formed by conversion of the THC and cannabinolic acid. But 100 per cent conversion of THC into CBN is really not taking place, as confirmed in the data of pure THC (sample No. 34, table 1). Examination of data for CBN of cannabis samples, indicated an increase in percentage rate of change of CBN content from 25.1 to 245.6 annually in respect of samples seized from 1969 to 1974 respectively. This marked change in the CBN content could not be directly correlated to the biodegradation of the THC only. It appeared that other degradative routes were involved which contributed to the over-all increase of CBN content on tropical storage.
CBN increase in the 1974 sample extracts, retested in 1976, was not significant wherever the THC content was low (table 1). However, there was marked increase in CBN content in samples of 1973 and 1974. The average annual percentage rate of change of CBN in cannabis samples of 1973 and 1974 was considerably higher than that of sample extracts for the same years (table 3).
There is only about 15 per cent increase in the average annual percentage rate of change of CBN content in sample extracts of 1969 to 1972. However, the sample extracts of more recent origin (1973 and 1974) showed nearly 100 per cent increase in CBN content per year. The difference in percentage increase of CBN in the samples and the sample extracts made it evident that the increase in cannabinol content is not only due to degradation of THC to CBN but that there are metabolic pathways involved in this change; especially the corresponding acids are eliminated in the sample extracts.

 

[Hammerhead]

I cant find any info related to that process...Im assuming that this starts when the plant dies. The older the THC gets the more it degrades,The more exposure to light and air the more it degrades.. I have a hard time understanding what is going on when many people say after a 6 month cure or longer it get better???

I always keep my stash Vac sealed in the fridge to keep it fresh as long as possable..\

 

[Hammerhead]

That paper show THC degradation into CBN... Allot of degradation.. That paper is very old. Like you said new test need to be done. It does not say how it was stored.. For 3 years it was stable and then bam.. Looks like it was frozen for 3 years and then left out.. Im just guessing looks fishy to me though...

 

[KiefSweat]

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/cannabis_degradation1.shtml

some more refrences

Mel Frank ref's one of them and says: "Oxygen slowly converts THC to the less active CBN, conversion to CBN is hastened by higher temps"


....
"Studies with fresh plant material show negligible CBN, When mature bud is tested their CBN content is generally equal to at least 5% of their thc content. "

"When the slow rate of thc oxidizes into cbn is considered, five percent decomposition in a period of less then two months represent considerable exposure of THC to air"
on another page i think he says those are 80 or 90f + temps

 

[master shake]

My theory of "shwag" sounds along the lines of what the OP has said..

Shwag is usually from Mexico, and comes from sativa or sat dominate plants. But why is it that almost every time it is smoked it leaves a narcotic dull high? I believe that it may be due to the weed being high in CBD. The plants are abused and not trimmed. Any trichs on the nugs are destroyed and harvested early probably in most cases. So, if this is true the THC may be lower than optimal and results in brickweed with a higher concentration of CBD, which may exist more in the leaf matter. Hence the leafy, trich(THC) deficient body stone shwag!

perhaps I should be saying CBN, not CBD..

 

[madchemist]

old ass thread. meh, here's your answer -

master_shake - Shwag genetics have the potential to be amazing Central American sativas. The issues arise with handling. The plants are cut and left to dry in the fields where they are exposed to heat, light, air, and humidity. Not only does the THC-A breakdown into THC and then CBN in these conditions, the more volatile terpenes leave the plant matter as well. This product is compressed and stored for who knows how long and then shipped. The degradation process continues...

Then it arrives to the end user, a shell of its former self and of its cannabinoid/terpene content. Now, the heavier, sleepy time terpenes are present at a higher ratio than normal and this combines with the low THC content and high CBN content to result in a short buzz that turns into sedating body stone.

CBN is not a naturally produced cannabinoid, period. If it were ever to be produced, it would be in the acidic, not neutral, form. Therefore, CBN would still be a degradation product and not actually be produced by the plant.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

old ass thread. meh, here's your answer -

master_shake - Shwag genetics have the potential to be amazing Central American sativas. The issues arise with handling. The plants are cut and left to dry in the fields where they are exposed to heat, light, air, and humidity. Not only does the THC-A breakdown into THC and then CBN in these conditions, the more volatile terpenes leave the plant matter as well. This product is compressed and stored for who knows how long and then shipped. The degradation process continues...

Then it arrives to the end user, a shell of its former self and of its cannabinoid/terpene content. Now, the heavier, sleepy time terpenes are present at a higher ratio than normal and this combines with the low THC content and high CBN content to result in a short buzz that turns into sedating body stone.

CBN is not a naturally produced cannabinoid, period. If it were ever to be produced, it would be in the acidic, not neutral, form. Therefore, CBN would still be a degradation product and not actually be produced by the plant.

Thread says CBD....Not CBN. Not the answer.

 

[gloriabiologics]

That's simply untrue.

You get "higher" from 1g of cannabis cooked into food for a host of reasons, that have nothing to do with CBD.

When you smoke, you might capture %20 of the cannabinoids, of which only a fraction is in the decarboxylated THC form, the rest is in its innactive THCA form. When you cook food with cannabis, especially baked foods where the products are more evenly heated over time, the majority of the THCA is decarboxylated into THC and thus available for pharmacological activity in the body. This explains the fact that you get higher from eating a gram of cannabis cooked into food, than if you were to smoke the same gram.

Secondly, when you eat cannabis it passes through your liver where it is converted to 11-hydroxy-THC before arriving at sites of action in your brain and CNS. The fact that 11-hydroxy-THC is a more potent agonist of the cannabinoid receptor, and the separate fact that the 11-hydroxy-THC more readily crosses the blood brain barrier, all play in concert to give the feeling that you are 'higher'.

This fact holds true for high THC cannabis which contains no CBD, which nullifies the supposition that the stoned effect is due to the effects of CBD.

-Chimera

Regurgitating and plagiarizing might make you smart among uninformed potheads, but much of what you are saying is incorrect or speculative.

True, THC to CBD conversion in cooking causing a more stoned effect is a myth.

The rest of what you say is mostly bunk.

We must be precise in considering the difference of oral ingestion and intake through the lungs. But there is something else not pointed out here, and that is the difference of vaporization versus combustion.

This might help. I don't need to explain it. It is lay-accessible information, and a decent summary.

http://www.theweedblog.com/smoking-marijuana-vs-vaporizing-marijuana-infographic/

Drug delivery is a complex field in its own right. Ramblings of a non-professional do little justice to this field. Other things to consider, inhalation vs. ingestion, further metabolization to 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, etc.

It is a myth too that inhalation bypasses the liver. More precisely you are probably referring to first pass effect in pharmacokinetics, which needs to be distinguished from a complete bypass of the liver. Or more probably you are regurguitating information found from a google search and or mis-information and speculation by outdated Hashish! by Robert Connell Clark.

Plagiarism is wrong. It makes you look like a fool when you plagiarize incorrect or wildly speculative information.

 

[gloriabiologics]

You think I just pull what I say from my ass, while I think my posts somewhat thoughtful. Hm.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-9894-7

Cannabinoid-free segregants resulting from backcrosses with high content drug clones had stalked glandular trichomes in normal densities, but the trichome heads were dull and much smaller than those of their high cannabinoid content sister plants. Nevertheless, the trichomes of cannabinoid-free segregants appear to be functional metabolic organs. Chemical comparison of contrasting segregant bulks did not reveal big differences in the content and composition of volatile terpenes, the production of which requires functional trichomes. The absence of cannabinoids is probably the cause of the small trichome heads, rather than being a result of them.

Chimera/GO JOE, being a wiki-warrior or google-know-it-all is not too different from ass-hat magician. Rudeness begets rudeness. Respect others and you will be surprised what they can teach you.

 

[gloriabiologics]

Before you call 'BS' you might want to see my other posts.

There are 2 possibilities. The more likely is I am not shitting my credentials Pharm D/PhD, specializations in structural biology and proteomics. As I understand you have a BS in neuroscience?

The other paranoid unlikely scenario to explain things is, there is a team after you with quite a bit of resources.

Either possibility would recommend humility. I also simply tell you, grandstanding more expertise and intelligence than you really have might land you some points with old-timer hippies and grant you a chapter in Jorge's book. 'That' world may not care that you plagiarize and claim old ideas as your own and new.

Nothing you say or have said has had an impact on the scientific community with regards to cannabis. All this at a great risk to yourself.

Do you also know that the world of biologics is a small world? That many people on the corporate and forensic sides may have attended the same universities together or share the same alma mater?

Who is Chimera? I finish here on ICMAG crowning you the rooster of all roosters.