Is there any point in using high end weed to decarb for oil or butter infusions?

[NextG]

29 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

My plan is to try this with lower grade buds like popcorn. I won't touch brick with a ten foot pole.

I would always use a method to wash the weed unless I grew it myself or was there throughout the process. I don’t include high quality flower in this, as I wouldn’t want to spend a lot of money for nothing. 

When I was cooking some for my medical purpose, I used buds of Hang Kra Rog(ST1) That too was filthy. The waste water filthy and brown with sediment at the bottom. If you are fine with that, then don’t let me stop you. But you can see what it’s doing to the brain of the member who is ‘acting up’. Caveat emptor!
 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, NextG said:

I would always use a method to wash the weed unless I grew it myself or was there throughout the process. I don’t include high quality flower in this, as I wouldn’t want to spend a lot of money for nothing. 

When I was cooking some for my medical purpose, I used buds of Hang Kra Rog(ST1) That too was filthy. The waste water filthy and brown with sediment at the bottom. If you are fine with that, then don’t let me stop you. But you can see what it’s doing to the brain of the member who is ‘acting up’. Caveat emptor!
 

I'll bite.

Detail your method.

 

[NextG]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I'll bite.

Detail your method.

 

 

I’ll send a PM, since it’s your thread. Too many nutters Trolling the board these days. 

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[NextG]

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'll bite.

Detail your method.

 

Since you cannot receive PMs, you won’t be able to receive my message. 

[ChaiyaTH]

Obviously the better the weed is, the better the oil or butter for edibles will be as well. I always use 'high end' weed aka good indoor weed / normal weed, if making a chocolate space cake or whatever else too. Same as what I smoke.

 

However I usually try to buy the smaller buds of 'high end' weed as they are cheaper, if using it for edibles. I usually even combine a few strains of this together and call it a mystery mix. I once seen a oil that looked like gold and smelled like mimosa terpenes, was quite amazing.

Edited January 5 by ChaiyaTH

[NextG]

3 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Obviously the better the weed is, the better the oil or butter for edibles will be as well. I always use 'high end' weed aka good indoor weed / normal weed, if making a chocolate space cake or whatever else too. Same as what I smoke.

 

However I usually try to buy the smaller buds of 'high end' weed as they are cheaper, if using it for edibles. I usually even combine a few strains of this together and call it a mystery mix. I once seen a oil that looked like gold and smelled like mimosa terpenes, was quite amazing.

But will ‘mimosa terpenes’ be appropriate in a cookie or Brownie?

Personally, I think it’s a waste unless you are creating a specialised product, such as ‘shatter’ or some such or if the oil or tincture IS the end product. 
If you are going to use it in another product, such as a Brownie, then I would go as far as saying it would be completely stupid to use high quality flowers for that.

You just use more or less of the product in your recipe. 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, NextG said:

Since you cannot receive PMs, you won’t be able to receive my message. 

I can actually. You have blocked me  from sending you PMs though. Why not just post it here as I'm sure you're reading all the "ignored" posts.

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Obviously the better the weed is, the better the oil or butter for edibles will be as well. I always use 'high end' weed aka good indoor weed / normal weed, if making a chocolate space cake or whatever else too. Same as what I smoke.

 

However I usually try to buy the smaller buds of 'high end' weed as they are cheaper, if using it for edibles. I usually even combine a few strains of this together and call it a mystery mix. I once seen a oil that looked like gold and smelled like mimosa terpenes, was quite amazing.

You say obviously, but I'm not so sure that it's obvious or even true.

If you mean more THC just use more to make the item and/or the finished product.

 

[SamuiGrower]

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.

Edited January 5 by SamuiGrower

[Adumbration]

A million years ago at uni.  I used to boil bush leaf in Ghee and then make cookies from it.

 

The effects were very strong with a number of people who tried my baked goods passing out.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, SamuiGrower said:

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.

Wow!

Thanks a bunch for that.

It's a lot to digest.

I will look at it carefully later.

I'm sure glad I started this topic to have attracted such an informative post.

 

[Spock]

On 1/4/2024 at 12:00 AM, NextG said:

Yes, if you want to sell a premium product. Otherwise, what does it matter if you need to use a little more product in order to get the same effect?

But you are not going to get the same effect using more of an inferior product (e.g. leaf) as opposed to using premium product. And edibles are as efficient as smoking or vaping in terms of quantity used. Plus for me taste is important too, whether vaping or eating.

[NextG]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I can actually. You have blocked me  from sending you PMs though. Why not just post it here as I'm sure you're reading all the "ignored" posts.

Actually, I accidentally unblocked you a couple of days ago. I just didn’t bother to go to the trouble of reapplying it… yet. So perhaps part of the blocking is still being applied. 
It’s my decision as to where I post anything. I decided, via PM. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, I won’t bother. 

[NextG]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I can actually. You have blocked me  from sending you PMs though. Why not just post it here as I'm sure you're reading all the "ignored" posts.

I unblocked and it still states that you cannot receive messages. I’ll leave it there. 
 

[NextG]

1 hour ago, Spock said:

But you are not going to get the same effect using more of an inferior product (e.g. leaf) as opposed to using premium product. And edibles are as efficient as smoking or vaping in terms of quantity used. Plus for me taste is important too, whether vaping or eating.

I disagree and so does SamuiGrower by the looks of it. We aren’t writing about leaves. Don’t try to move the goalposts mid game. 
Trim and small buds are not just leaves. 

[Poilu]

I cannot smoke so I make extra virgin coconut oil infusion using a dedicated decarb appliance. Does the CBD content become degraded during the process and if so by how much? Merci beaucoup.

[stoner]

2 hours ago, Spock said:

But you are not going to get the same effect using more of an inferior product (e.g. leaf) as opposed to using premium product. And edibles are as efficient as smoking or vaping in terms of quantity used. Plus for me taste is important too, whether vaping or eating.

 

i can make an extract from flower and the trim from that flower. the extract will be the exact same. only difference is the percent return from biomass put in.  

 

most of the edibles market here is a gong show at best anyways. 

[stoner]

9 minutes ago, Poilu said:

I cannot smoke so I make extra virgin coconut oil infusion using a dedicated decarb appliance. Does the CBD content become degraded during the process and if so by how much? Merci beaucoup.

 

without a lab and proper testing you can't really know at all. some estimates can be made but even then. too many questions variables and unknowns. 

 

also cbd needs different times and temps compared to thc. 

[Poilu]

27 minutes ago, stoner said:

 

without a lab and proper testing you can't really know at all. some estimates can be made but even then. too many questions variables and unknowns. 

 

also cbd needs different times and temps compared to thc. 

Thank you for your reply.

[SamuiGrower]

11 hours ago, Poilu said:

I cannot smoke so I make extra virgin coconut oil infusion using a dedicated decarb appliance. Does the CBD content become degraded during the process and if so by how much? Merci beaucoup.

CBDa is a little more difficult to decarboxylate, requiring longer times and technically, higher temperatures. The issue with ‘home’ decarboxylation of CBDa is the degradation (oxidative) of other cannabinoids. You can expect all terpenes to be volatilized and evaporated off at that point. THCa will ultimately convert to CBN, which has 25% of the psychoactive attributes of THC. This won’t be a problem if THC is not what you are after, as suggested. To your question; it is difficult, without testing, to determine how much thermal degradation of CBD is taking place. Heat, oxygen and light are mostly responsible for degradation.

 

For a 97% conversion efficiency of CBDa, use 127c for 50 minutes or 130c for 20 minutes (technically)
 

I am in the CBD space, and use a lab grade, double-walled, borosilicate glass reactor to decarboxylate CBDa distillate (vacuum rotovaped first to distill off the ethanol first), circulating 130c oil through the outer wall, under constant circulation (both oil and distillate) for 30 minutes. This equates to 95-97% efficiency (tested). We start collecting terpenes off at 100c (mostly monoterpenes).

[SamuiGrower]

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.

[Poilu]

9 hours ago, SamuiGrower said:

CBDa is a little more difficult to decarboxylate, requiring longer times and technically, higher temperatures. The issue with ‘home’ decarboxylation of CBDa is the degradation (oxidative) of other cannabinoids. You can expect all terpenes to be volatilized and evaporated off at that point. THCa will ultimately convert to CBN, which has 25% of the psychoactive attributes of THC. This won’t be a problem if THC is not what you are after, as suggested. To your question; it is difficult, without testing, to determine how much thermal degradation of CBD is taking place. Heat, oxygen and light are mostly responsible for degradation.

 

For a 97% conversion efficiency of CBDa, use 127c for 50 minutes or 130c for 20 minutes (technically)
 

I am in the CBD space, and use a lab grade, double-walled, borosilicate glass reactor to decarboxylate CBDa distillate (vacuum rotovaped first to distill off the ethanol first), circulating 130c oil through the outer wall, under constant circulation (both oil and distillate) for 30 minutes. This equates to 95-97% efficiency (tested). We start collecting terpenes off at 100c (mostly monoterpenes).

Thank you, Samui.