SamuiGrower

2 hours ago, Paris333 said:

Safe product no danger for your health and I am against to any prescription drug for many decates ago but this product is safe and mainly very -very effective.

Perfectly safe if you don’t have any Rx interactions, are not on prescription enzymes, have liver issues or suffer from IBS.
 

High percentage CBD ingestion or chronic/constant ingestion can cause diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, reduced appetite, irritability, liver dysfunction, decreased male fertility and blood thinning.

”Safe” is relative and phrases like ‘very, very effective’ have been widely disproven. 
 

Consider my post a PSA (public service announcement) to counter mis/dis-information, bro-science and all around nonsense.

The bigger concern is who is consuming heavy metal laden weed. I’m fairly certain by most responses I’ve read here, in this thread, and on the forum, in particular to, pesticides, mold and mycotoxins, is an overwhelming lack of concern or venomous response to any and all negative information to cannabis. How about if you are a prescription medical user? Should you start being concerned now? Thailand has no mandatory testing for safety or quality control of cannabis. Keep reading for a little background first….or just skip to “cheap weed but looks good post” LOL.

You are correct, cannabis is a hyperaccumulator plant (amongst others), up-taking heavy metals from soil, water and nutrients. These heavy metals are stored in vacuoles (organelles) in the leaves and flowers. Cadmium in particular.

It (cannabis/hemp) has been used in soil remediation for quite some time. Several hundred hectares were planted in the Chernobyl exclusion zone to mitigate the soil. The plants were then uprooted and treated as nuclear waste.

The top four elements/metals of concern to cannabis smokers are: Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic and Mercury (Pb, Cd, As, Hg). A study conducted over 10 years showed that 7,200 cannabis smokers showed elevated levels of cadmium and lead + 22% and 27% respectively. 

The FDA and USP has defined 12 elemental contaminants. The top four: lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury are the bare minimum standard in the USA and Canada for mandatory testing for cannabis flower, concentrates and edibles. They constitute known neurotoxins, carcinogens or endocrine disrupters. Some states test for more. For example, California tests for: 68 pesticides, 20 solvents, 6 microbes, 5 mycotoxins and 4 heavy metals previously stated. Some states will perform an 8 element assay, to include: chromium, copper, nickel and aluminum or other trace elements.

To be clear, cannabis products that do not pass heavy metal, pesticide, mycotoxin and residual solvent are destroyed and do not enter the seed-to-sale stream.

And, just to make it a little frustrating: many of these heavy metals are needed for healthy growth of cannabis - in trace amounts of course. Aluminum is NOT a trace metal needed for cannabis growth but it is accumulated and I use it as an example. Aluminum is the 3rd most abundant element in the earth - about 8%. And bound to silica, as in aluminum silicate and that makes up 50% of the earths crust. Do I need to mention aluminum is considered a heavy metal in toxicity testing?  So, now it’s about acceptable levels federally and on the state level, of how many ppbs/ppms of aluminum are acceptable. Safety is political.

If cannabis is grown hydroponically, indoors, the potential of heavy metal accumulation is through the nutrients and water it is fed and not the substrate. If grown outdoors, hyperaccumulation is through the soil, the nutrients, water supply and the environment.

Pesticides (herbicides & fungicides), are the largest category of contaminants in cannabis, followed by solvents then mycotoxins contaminants. Heavy metals, as evidenced by the above mentioned study is certainly alarming. Even though ‘you never heard of anyone who suffered from any of these contaminants’ does not mean they do not exist or constitute a health/safety concern. 

The take away: Thailand was ranked 6th among the top 10 countries in pesticide usage, less than 10 years ago. It now ranks 3rd of 15 Asian nations in pesticide usage. Thailand continues to use glyphosates, chlopyrifos and paraquat as well as way too numerous pesticides to mention here. That should be the number one concern to all cannabis users here, in Thailand, be it expat or tourist. Though, these chemicals ‘might’ not be used in indoor CEA/hydroponic growing, be assured they are used in greenhouses and outdoors throughout the country.

There is no mandatory testing in Thailand of cannabis for anything: heavy metals, THC, pesticides, toxins, mold, etc.  This is the greater concern, part-and-parcel of heavy metal accumulation in cannabis. If cannabis is to remain a viable industry in Thailand (and I highly doubt that it will remain) it needs to be regulated at the health and safety level. Imagine if the consumer base demanded proof of terms like: “organic”, “30% THC”, and “pesticide free”? There would be a whole new market!

The marketing (social media, YouTube, search engines, SEO, et al.) is way ahead of the science. Hypotheses of CBD as an analgesic (pain relief), sleep aid, anxiolytic (anti anxiety) and down regulator of THC remains just that - a hypothesis.

There has been no conclusive studies that shows reproducible results based on dose and purity across test groups that outperform placebo results. 
 

I have been in the CBD business since 2018 and have been consulting in the space since then. As a scientist, CBD (as well as the other cannabinoids) has been my focus. With that said, there is no conclusive medical or scientific data that’s supports the marketing claims across any cohort study.

Recent studies (it is important to gleen results from recent data.) show contrarian results: CBD is no more effective than placebo studies, CBD does not down regulate the effects of THC, is not an effective analgesic, does not promote sleep and in some cases, appears to do the opposite effect as an antagonist.

I have attached some posts below, I  have made previously, as well  some links (papers) relating to CBD in pain studies. I am a proponent of CBD in concert with the other cannabinoids (this, by the way, is the REAL entourage effect) and have realized efficacy is binary: it either works for YOU or it does not. It does not work for all. If it did, it would not be the subject of discussion, the headline would read: CBD is a conclusive sleep aid/pain reliever.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1298719-required-strength-cbd-oil-for-a-good-night-sleep/?do=findComment&comment=18161416

https://aseannow.com/topic/1292013-importing-cbd-oil/?do=findComment&comment=18018941

https://aseannow.com/topic/1298719-required-strength-cbd-oil-for-a-good-night-sleep/?do=findComment&comment=18344019

Two articles about CBD and pain

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34223660/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799017

I find it somewhat fascinating that a group of cannabis loving connoisseurs, here in Thailand, on this forum, put their faith and trust in the naming conventions and THC content of the flower being sold here. Telling the truth is not a prerequisite to selling flower.

With that said, how do you know if you are smoking a Sativa, Indica or hybrid? The short answer, you don’t. Scientifically, those lines have been blurred for a very, very long time. The way YOU feel after smoking it, is by no way a reliable arbitor of a strain or chemotype/cultivar.

In 2019, The Journal of Cannabis Research published a paper detailing how genetic tools clearly showed the misconceptions of strain reliability. To summarize that paper…. “We failed to find clear genetic support for commonly referenced Sativa, Indica and Hybrid types as described in online databases. Significant genetic differences within samples of the same strain were observed indicating that consumers could be provided inconsistent products. (Edit: and you are!) These differences have the potential to lead to phenotypic differences and unexpected effects, which could be surprising for the recreational user, but have more serious implications for patients relying on strains that alleviate specific medical symptoms.”

Naming conventions (of strains) do not align with common widespread definitions of Sativa, Indica, Hybrids, and Hemp. Strain inconsistencies are clear and evident and not isolated to single sources. Why is that? Because you can call your seed or flower anything you want on the retail end, even in regulated, seed-to-sale markets. Am I intimating there are ‘bad actors’ in the business as well as a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, muddied genetics? Absolutely.

18th-century researchers originally classified cannabis into two species based on the plant's appearance. Researchers now know that on a molecular level, there's no difference between an indica strain and a sativa strain of cannabis.

The advent of molecular testing proved the original classification system was inaccurate. Genetic analyses do not support the reported proportions of Sativa and Indica within each strain, which is expected given the lack of genetic distinction between Sativa and Indica. 

To that end, breeders, growers, dispensaries and budtenders needed a better system to convey the differences between strains, especially to the lay public. Enter the Terpene classification system. Indica, which is said to physically relax the body and give a sedative effect, and sativa, which is said to be energizing and provide more of a head-high.

In reality, no scientific evidence supports this dichotomy because on a molecular level, indica and sativa strains don't have pattern differences that set the two "types" apart from each other. As a result, consumers buy strains that don't actually align with the perceived effects they're marketed to provide. 

So, it must be the entourage effect, right? It was proposed many decades ago as a hypothesis and still remains just that, with no hard data scientifically or medically to empirically support it. There is no purity or dosage that can be medically induced to replicate any consistent outcomes. We certainly know the inhalation of combusted terpenes (smoking) was never ‘baked’ into the hypothesis from the beginning.

To further complicate the idea that terpenes provide the UP or DOWN effect, consider this; terpene synthase in cannabis is spatial. No two plants or parts of the same plant produce the same terpene profile. To further add to the ‘confusion’, set, setting, diet, mood, exercise and a litany of other factors all contribute to the perceived effect of the cannabis you smoke. It’s personal and different for everyone. I would put more stock in that belief system than in the Sativa UP/ Indica DOWN constructs.

I, for one, am amazed of the phenotype variation in the seeds sold today. I cannot rely on most seed banks (mostly all) to provide stable genetics on the commercial level in which I work. Hybrid crosses are easy to produce and stability is not a factor for most seed banks. A sour diesel strain in NY looks, tastes, and test completely different from one grown in northern Michigan. So, if you’re a hobby grower and you plant 3 sour diesel seeds and you get 3 distinctly different phenotypes, what do you say? Not much, obviously, because it doesn’t matter, right? But if you’re a commercial grower and you grow out a 1000 seeds and it’s clear you have many variants, your only choice is to pheno hunt, create mothers, and clone or feminize to create stable genetics with testing. Emphasis on the testing part. Stable genetics begin with F1 and S1 lineage. Haven’t heard a single reference to that by any grower or seed supplier here. It’s a buyer/grower beware climate for sure.

If labels define Sativa or Indica as two distinct groups then the differences should be seen in biochemical markers and genetic assays. A published study in Nature Plants, showed the ‘naming labels’ were meaningless. Strains labeled Sativa were more closely related (genetically) to indicas than sativas.

In 1999 the strain, AK-47 won the Sativa Cup in that year’s Cannabis Cup. Four years later the same strain won the Indica Cup. Right.

For those of you who say they can definitely tell the difference between a Sativa or an Indica (and I’ve read all the eye-rolling post here), I say bless your hearts. I have zero doubt that you are describing the effects you are feeling. The purpose of this post is NOT to denigrate you or say otherwise. I would love to meet you and offer you a position in my company (lots of travel and benefits). We would sit down over a few bowls of different strains and cans of Pepsi and Coca Cola (labels obscured - of course!) and work out a role for you.

There is certainly an argument in saying, there are landrace sativas, here in Thailand from which you can judge the “Sativa effect” There are, but they are not pure, and the THC levels have been so diluted from years of outdoor cross pollination of other landrace strains, that It would be hard to judge them. This is the ‘stuff’ (brick weed) that is so overtly discussed in this thread as ‘hardly worth smoking’,  but they are sativas.

As a postscript to my diatribe, has any grower ever provided a COA (Certificate of Analysis) of their flower? Have you ever seen one? I pay 10,000 Baht for a COA after extraction (CBD). Has any breeder/seller ever posted one on this forum?  I just see photos of schwag with fantasy THC percentages, sellers talking mostly marketing drivel and lots of people whining about the look, quality, effects, prices, etc. - and rightfully so, at that. P.s. these “home test” kits and devices hardly count for anything. HPLC/GCMS or nothing!

I have no doubt that there is a connoisseurship here in this forum but WE are definitely not the market - tourists are. Maybe if WE (or regulation) demand COA’s, the quality will improve and so will the market. Wishful thinking for sure

To the posters talking about the “best” weed to use for edibles: good weed, brick weed, shake, high quality, low quality, etc.

Think about it like this. You are THC mining. The ONLY concern is yield. Hard stop. Higher quality flower will yield a higher net amount of THC, lower quality or shake, will yield less. You are essentially stripping out ‘whole plant’ minor cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids (in home decarboxylation). There are no characteristics of the plant (cultivar, chemotype, phenotype) left other than THC, the psychoactive component of your edible. 
 

My opinion: find cheap, bulk weed and process it - mine the THC out of it. THC from brick weed is identical to the THC in Unicorn Poop Lemon OG Fairyland Sherbert. Again, the only difference is yield.

Making edibles with decarboxylated weed is nothing more than a hybrid form of extraction. In a commercial (legal) market, extraction is done by ethanol, hydrocarbon (propane, butane, hexane, etc.) or CO2 extraction, where an extract or distillate is produced as a starting point for edible manufacturing. There are other hybrid technologies available, but they are not so mainstream or scalable as of yet.

Commercially, in edible manufacturing, an extract is produced, the solvent removed, and the extract is decarboxylated. A C.O.A. (certificate of analysis) determines the purity. An 80% THC extract means 1 gram of extract contains 80% THC. 1000 mg (1 gram) = 0.800 mg of THC. If your dosage for an edible is 20 mg, you can create 40 portions (cookies, gummies, brownies, etc.). This was pointed out and made clear by @stoner in a previous post. This is the ONLY WAY to quantify purity and dosage.

Decarboxylation of weed (flower) by time/temperature is not only inefficient but non-quantifiable and is seldomly, if ever done on a commercial scale, for many reasons, but suits the hobbyist grower quite well. 

Uneven heating/temperature variability, starting moisture content, time control and particle size of the flower, makes the process wildly inconsistent. The decarboxylation AND the fat/oil extraction are both very inexact.

As mentioned in previous posts, degradation of cannabinoids and terpenes is inevitable in dry, biomass decarboxylation. Some posts mention the loss in distinction of Sativa/Indica traits in decarboxylation as well as a “benefit” of a single strain, in do-it-yourself decarboxylation. This is a non sequitur and makes no sense because you are extracting THC for the purpose of ingesting and edible. There is no ‘whole plant, full spectrum, entourage effects’ when decarbing weed in an oven and then extracting THC in a fat.

If you are a hobby grower, looking to make your own edibles, you have few choices than time/temperature oven decarboxylation and fat/oil ‘steeping’. There is no need to quantify your efficiency or amount of THC. Experiment and make a product that gets you high. If you are in a legal, regulated market, the process of producing edible begins with extract/distillate. The downstream manufacturing will always be consistent and quantifiable based on batch C.O.A. and then modifying the recipe/formula of the edible. This was pointed out by @stoner (again). High quality or low quality weed is not really important if you are doing home decarboxylation and fat/oil extraction because of the losses due to inefficiency of decarboxylation as well as the fat/oil extraction. 

If you seek optimal results in home decarboxylation, strive for uniform dryness (you must start with absolutely dry biomass), uniformly ground flower and use one of those ‘fancy’ decarb devices that have been mentioned – it will create a uniform (linear) decarboxylation curve with a high(er) rate of efficiency that is far better than any oven. There are hot pot, rice cooker, slow cooker, mason jar hacks out there – they are all good and better, once again, than an oven. 

There are multiple time/temp permutations to decarboxylation. The science points to 122C at 27 minutes as the sweet spot. This is defined by decarboxylation efficiency AND degradation of cannabinoid loss. The understanding of what decarboxylation does has been stated in previous posts but I would like to point out the following. There is a 14% loss (roughly) of THC when going from THCa to THC due to the difference in molecular weight. The efficiency of home decarboxylation is probably 85% (moisture, grinding, uneven heating). So the net sum of THC from the start is likely 70% of what you started with. The decarboxylated flower/biomass is then put into oil/fat and this results in another inefficient extraction and loss. I point this out to clarify batch-to-batch inconsistency of home decarboxylation as an inexact science.

My last point is about fat, after reading several posts, it requires clarification. All cannabinoids are lipophilic/hydrophobic: they are oil soluble and water insoluble. Not all fats affect cannabinoid bioavailability the same way. They dissolve in fats (butter, oil, etc) and they act as a carrier for edibles. Not all fats are created equally. If you use butter, your ingested edible must first go through first-pass-metabolism through the liver. You can expect 10% systemic efficiency, but you will still get an effect because the THC is converted to a much more potent form (11-OH-THC). If you use MCT Oil (medium chain triglycerides), from coconut oil, mostly made from C8/C10 (caprylic and capric acid), your edible is far more bioavailable and passes through the blood-brain barrier by bypassing first-pass liver metabolism and uses the lipid absorption pathway. The systemic efficiency is now around 30%. If you are concerned about a faster, “better” high, use MCT/coconut oil.

I hope this clarifies a few of the points made here and in other posts regarding decarboxylation and making edibles on a non-commercial scale.

So here in lies the problem with every cannabis forum around the world:  The OP asks, “what’s wrong with my plant”?

The responses:

Too much water

Needs nitrogen

Needs seaweed extract

Needs Guano

Needs earth worm castings

Needs molasses 

Needs humic acid

Needs epsom salts

Needs blood meal

Needs bone meal

Needs micros

Good grief! The only thing shocking, for me, is nobody said add Cal-Mag. 😂

The above observation is why there are so many failures and lots of mediocre weed. I feel sorry for the OP as well as anyone seeking advice on growing.

You need nitrogen. The issue is organic inputs are not bioavailable immediately and your plant is hungry. Find a basic water soluble plant food that has nitrogen (NO3) in it.

Kelp is great for stress and that is what your plant has: nutrient deficiency=stress. Aside from the numerous vitamins, minerals, trace elements and hormones, it has nitrogen as well (but not enough to support a growing plant).

Feed all the rest of those inputs mentioned after it’s healthy. 
 

You say “a small plant in a pot….” How small is small?

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

You realise they are only good for 6 months in Thailand.

Categorically not true and not personal (????). Refrigerated, seeds will last almost indefinitely.
 

If you store them at high temperatures/fluctuating humidity, you can bet germination rates will plummet and seed viability will decline.
 

I have been using genetics (seeds) from the 1990’s with over 85% germination rate. They are refrigerated.

The 43,000 Cherry Abacus seeds I imported through Thai FDA approval, have been here well over a year and our germ rates are 90-95%. My company have been logging our metrics since 2014.

Northern Lights responds really, really well! I’ve been using the same NL genetics for 25 years now.
 

Stick with what works - for sure!